Relaxation of restrictions

Ace2007

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes it is better to exclude them then everyone.

If we don't, for how long do we "exclude" the whole of society from doing such things. You need to give some sort of an answer to this.

I'm not up for excluding people - i'm up for society practicing social distancing etc. If you are considered of the sick/elderly/healthcare workers etc, you have a better chance of it been enforced.

The proposal by many on here is that you exclude the elderly/sick/healthcare workers from going back to "normal" until a vaccine is found, as they pose risks to society - whether increased risk to themselves for the elderly/sick, or increased risk to others - i.e. healthcare workers unknowingly having the virus and mixing in social circles.

scamalert

Ace2007 wrote: »

At this moment in time, if you are in certain residential settings or nursing homes, you may not be tested for the virus - instead you will be treated as having it if you show symptoms. You will not be moved to a hospital instead treated on site. To me that is not equality.

If we as a country practice social distancing correctly and implement it, would the elderly/sick not be equally protected as your or me?

think you dont have a clue about nursing homes nor carers to be fair, how they have been neglected by likes of government and HSE at cost cutting for years, you wanna blame someone dont put it on regular people.


this has been mentioned before theres no point if someone in nursing home gets ill depending on their condition to put them trough extreme stress, or into coma on ventilator. since theres no cure, little can be done, so its way safer to keep person as comfortable as possible where they are, imagine equipment oxygen can be brought in and room isolated properly, but all boils down to ones health and if their body can fight it, as ICU is end of the road for most people.


also you still backtracked and avoided any source to say those under 30 suffer as theres only been single case 3 days ago where youngest person to die was of age 30, no where near 23 in Ireland. If there wasnt any other deaths under that age it would seem massive but, i can see you clearly have your own agenda going.

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

Sorry i meant 23 year olds - which is fact.

A 23 y.o..

One, yes 1.

Yet you keep using this persons death to try score a cheap point.

Wibbs

bladespin wrote: »

I'm currently working at a customer site, a factory with over a thousand people, I'm not wearing a mask, I know I don't need one.

If the WHO and the HSE and the government came out tomorrow(and they likely will soon enough, just like a host of countries already have) and told you they were of benefit in reducing community spread and you had to wear one, would your mind change? I'd bet the farm it would.

From the very simple fact that, the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway and that there are measures in place to reduce that even further.

Nobody know, that's the fact, but I feel quite safe and that's about as good as you can be.

Do whatever helps you get by, if you need to use a mask as a crutch to cope with fear etc, that's fine, just don't suddenly think it's going to stop an infection, that's all.

I quite honestly can't believe what I'm reading there. Never mind what you think passes as fact. I hope to god it's a wind up of some nature, because otherwise I really dunno what to think. The largest pandemic in world history over the last century and only four months in we already have millions infected, over a hundred thousand people already dead, a current death rate of over 6%(which will hopefully drop a lot) economies tanked and "the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway", "nobody knows" and "I feel quite safe".

Jesus Christ. This folks, this is sadly why we need restrictions. I for one am relieved that this dose isn't more deadly. If this had the death rate and infection demographic profile of something like smallpox we would be utterly reset the modern world fcuked and it would be "thinking" like the above that would get us there.

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

This is utter nonsense. By that thinking I should have it by now as my wife works with covid positive patients every day. The fact is she follows all of the protocols strictly and wears the PPE correctly. If my chances of dying from Covid19 were high I would take extra precautions. I would not expect others to do the same. As my mother used to say "Just because he puts his finger in the fire doesn't mean you should too."

castletownman

Ace2007 wrote: »

But you don't need to feel unwell to have the virus - and that is the key point that people are missing.

Yes, but you are more likely to display symptoms than otherwise.

By your logic, nowhere can ever open ever again as we could still be carrying the virus unbeknownst to ourselves.

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

I'm not up for excluding people - i'm up for society practicing social distancing etc. If you are considered of the sick/elderly/healthcare workers etc, you have a better chance of it been enforced.

The proposal by many on here is that you exclude the elderly/sick/healthcare workers from going back to "normal" until a vaccine is found, as they pose risks to society - whether increased risk to themselves for the elderly/sick, or increased risk to others - i.e. healthcare workers unknowingly having the virus and mixing in social circles.

And you are proposing that noone goes back to "normal" until a vaccine is found under the guise of solidarity and not "excluding" people. This is the worst of bad options.

What is being posited is that there are a gradual reduction in the restrictions that we have i.e. the 2km rule, a reopening of businesses (with pubs and clubs down the bottom of the list) alongside a continuation (and hopefully an increase) in testing measures.

Healthwokers and old people may be advised to cocoon, and whether they do or not is up to them. They are adults.

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

B

As a society if everyone works together for the good of everyone else

So should we all give up driving cars if it saves a few lives in crashes?

Do you own a car knowing you could kill a 23 year old with it?

Ace2007

scamalert wrote: »

think you dont have a clue about nursing homes nor carers to be fair, how they have been neglected by likes of government and HSE at cost cutting for years, you wanna blame someone dont put it on regular people.


this has been mentioned before theres no point if someone in nursing home gets ill depending on their condition to put them trough extreme stress, or into coma on ventilator. since theres no cure, little can be done, so its way safer to keep person as comfortable as possible where they are, imagine equipment oxygen can be brought in and room isolated properly, but all boils down to ones health and if their body can fight it, as ICU is end of the road for most people.


also you still backtracked and avoided any source to say those under 30 suffer as theres only been single case 3 days ago where youngest person to die was of age 30, no where near 23 in Ireland. If there wasnt any other deaths under that age it would seem massive but, i can see you clearly have your own agenda going.

Regarding nursing homes - i admit i don't know much about public run nursing homes, but do know about private ones, and have seen letters outlining that residents will not be tested going forward (if more than 2 in the home have tested positive), instead they will be treated as positive and treated onsite. As for their ages and that - we've heard cases of people in Europe in their 90's and even 100's coming out of hospital after fighting the virus - so don't assume all elderly people are on the way out just cause they get the virus.


It was stated yesterday, or day before that a 23 year old died. Do you want me to get you a link for that or can you use google?

Google" 23 year old dies of covid 19 in ireland" and you will get loads of sources...

facehugger99

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

Asked to outline how long restrictions should remain in place, reams off a load of guff and doesn't answer the question.

Colour me surprised.

You have no answers.

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

I'm not up for excluding people - i'm up for society practicing social distancing etc. If you are considered of the sick/elderly/healthcare workers etc, you have a better chance of it been enforced.

The proposal by many on here is that you exclude the elderly/sick/healthcare workers from going back to "normal" until a vaccine is found, as they pose risks to society - whether increased risk to themselves for the elderly/sick, or increased risk to others - i.e. healthcare workers unknowingly having the virus and mixing in social circles.

You think you can blithely add healthcare workers to the at-risk group and get away with it LoL. Stop digging. If age restrictions are imposed you can always borrow an age card like the kids do at the other end of the spectrum.

CtevenSrowder

facehugger99 wrote: »

Asked to outline how long restrictions should remain in place, reams off a load of guff and doesn't answer the question.

Colour me surprised.

You have no answers.

Posters that want a continuation of restrictions never do.

KiKi III

easypazz wrote: »

So should we all give up driving cars if it saves a few lives in crashes?

Do you own a car knowing you could kill a 23 year old with it?

The comparison with driving a car is a particularly bad one in the context of relaxing restrictions.

Driving a car is one of the most restricted activities we do as a society.

There are restrictions on how you learn, multiple tests, what speed you can drive at, how old the car is before it needs regular quality checks, tax, insurance, penalty points for breaking rules etc etc etc

CtevenSrowder

KiKi III wrote: »

The comparison with driving a car is a particularly bad one in the context of relaxing restrictions.

Driving a car is one of the most restricted activities we do as a society.

There are restrictions on how you learn, multiple tests, what speed you can drive at, how old the car is before it needs regular quality checks, tax, insurance, penalty points for breaking rules etc etc etc

And yet people still die doing it. Go figure.

bladespin

Wibbs wrote: »

If the WHO and the HSE and the government came out tomorrow(and they likely will soon enough, just like a host of countries already have) and told you they were of benefit in reducing community spread and you had to wear one, would your mind change? I'd bet the farm it would.

Grand, sign it over, PM for details. I'll wear one if I have to but to me it's useless unless this thing suddenly develops in the air.

scamalert

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And yet people still die doing it. Go figure.

someone that never drove will not understand it.

ixoy

I think a societal acceptance on wearing masks more will actually be of benefit to helping relax restrictions. It's one of the easiest ways to let people get outside and reduce the chance of transmitting, especially in crowded places like public transport - it's why it's happening in New York.

Cupatae

Wibbs wrote: »

If the WHO and the HSE and the government came out tomorrow(and they likely will soon enough, just like a host of countries already have) and told you they were of benefit in reducing community spread and you had to wear one, would your mind change? I'd bet the farm it would.





I quite honestly can't believe what I'm reading there. Never mind what you think passes as fact. I hope to god it's a wind up of some nature, because otherwise I really dunno what to think. The largest pandemic in world history over the last century and only four months in we already have millions infected, over a hundred thousand people already dead, a current death rate of over 6%(which will hopefully drop a lot) economies tanked and "the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway", "nobody knows" and "I feel quite safe".

Jesus Christ. This folks, this is sadly why we need restrictions. I for one am relieved that this dose isn't more deadly. If this had the death rate and infection demographic profile of something like smallpox we would be utterly reset the modern world fcuked and it would be "thinking" like the above that would get us there.

If your gonna be self isolating, and in limited contact with other people the mask is a complete waste... they def do help but a waste for the average joe in the current situation, i think the HSE and the likes downplayed em because they didnt want mass amounts of hypochondriacs panic buying everything in sight when they themselves didnt have enough equipment.

easypazz

KiKi III wrote: »

The comparison with driving a car is a particularly bad one in the context of relaxing restrictions.

Driving a car is one of the most restricted activities we do as a society.

There are restrictions on how you learn, multiple tests, what speed you can drive at, how old the car is before it needs regular quality checks, tax, insurance, penalty points for breaking rules etc etc etc

The point is that saying we should all be locked down as it might save a 23 y.o.'s life is nonsense.

No matter what happens people die for all sort of reasons every day and we, as a society, just need to suck it up and move on.

KiKi III

easypazz wrote: »

The point is that saying we should all be locked down as it might save a 23 y.o.'s life is nonsense.

No matter what happens people die for all sort of reasons every day and we, as a society, just need to suck it up and move on.

Is that the attitude we should have taken to small pox and polio? Meh, people die, get over it.

Ace2007

polesheep wrote: »

This is utter nonsense. By that thinking I should have it by now as my wife works with covid positive patients every day. The fact is she follows all of the protocols strictly and wears the PPE correctly. If my chances of dying from Covid19 were high I would take extra precautions. I would not expect others to do the same. As my mother used to say "Just because he puts his finger in the fire doesn't mean you should too."

You simple don't get it - if everyone practices social distancing etc when restriction are eased, why then stop a vulnerable person from also getting on with their lives. Just answer that question - if society is responsible and thinks of everyone we should reduce the risks of the virus spreading - no?

bladespin

Wibbs wrote: »

I quite honestly can't believe what I'm reading there. Never mind what you think passes as fact. I hope to god it's a wind up of some nature, because otherwise I really dunno what to think. The largest pandemic in world history over the last century and only four months in we already have millions infected, over a hundred thousand people already dead, a current death rate of over 6%(which will hopefully drop a lot) economies tanked and "the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway", "nobody knows" and "I feel quite safe".

Jesus Christ. This folks, this is sadly why we need restrictions. I for one am relieved that this dose isn't more deadly. If this had the death rate and infection demographic profile of something like smallpox we would be utterly reset the modern world fcuked and it would be "thinking" like the above that would get us there.

Really, where on earth did I say this wasn't serious, or play down the virus in any way??? Point lout just one post and you can have your farm back.

My comments, which you seem to have deliberately taken out of context, relate to mask wearing.

Jesus Christ yourself, if you think he'll help you you're worse off than with the virus.

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

You simple don't get it - if everyone practices social distancing etc when restriction are eased, why then stop a vulnerable person from also getting on with their lives. Just answer that question - if society is responsible and thinks of everyone we should reduce the risks of the virus spreading - no?

Can you give a timeline as to how long you think the restrictions should last please?

Wibbs

On this particular line of WTF and lack of basic understanding and the sheer confidence exhibited, which is gobsmacking: From the very simple fact that, the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway. The "very simple fact" :rolleyes:.

Here comes the science bit: The R0 number is the average number of people with no immunity one person can infect. This varies with circumstance. So in say some commune of a hundred people, or somewhere like a nursing home that number goes way up. On the other hand in a sparsely inhabited area that number goes down. The average R0 value for Covid 19 is 2 to 2.5. That is one infected person on average infects 2 people. The R0 for seasonal influenza is around 1.2. Covid 19 is nearly twice as infectious as flu. Not "incredibly low anyway".

Grand, sign it over, PM for details. I'll wear one if I have to but to me it's useless unless this thing suddenly develops in the air.

There aren't enough WTF and facepalm memes to go around. It's in "the air" already FFS. It's an aerosolised virus. How in perdition's name do you think someone coughing, sneezing, even breathing on you can infect you? Magic pixies? Why in perdition's name do you think healthcare workers wear PPE that massively reduce the risk of inhaling this not in the air virus? They do it for the lulz?

Ace2007

easypazz wrote: »

The point is that saying we should all be locked down as it might save a 23 y.o.'s life is nonsense.

No matter what happens people die for all sort of reasons every day and we, as a society, just need to suck it up and move on.

Going to leave it at this - i haven't said we should all be on "lock down" - I've clearly said that when we lift restrictions, it should be for everyone - if society is build for everyone, everyone will benefit, if it's built for the "norm", then number of cases will increase.

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

You simple don't get it - if everyone practices social distancing etc when restriction are eased, why then stop a vulnerable person from also getting on with their lives. Just answer that question - if society is responsible and thinks of everyone we should reduce the risks of the virus spreading - no?

Let them get on with their lives as best as possible.

Same as the guy that has a season ticket for the All Ireland final might not get to use it this year.

Same as the guy who likes a few pints every night but has to sit at home.

Or the surfer, or cyclist.

Your argument is ridiculous.

CtevenSrowder

Wibbs wrote: »

There aren't enough WTF and facepalm memes to go around. It's in "the air" already FFS. It's an aerosolised virus. How in perdition's name do you think someone coughing, sneezing, even breathing on you can infect you? Magic pixies? Why in perdition's name do you think healthcare workers wear PPE that massively reduce the risk of inhaling this not in the air virus? They do it for the lulz?

The virus is spread through droplets it's not spread through the air. Thats why we can walk within 2 meters of eachother. So I'd save your indignation for yourself.

Studies to date suggest that the virus that causes COVID-19 is mainly transmitted through contact with respiratory droplets rather than through the air. See previous answer on “How does COVID-19 spread?”

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses

bladespin

Wibbs wrote: »

On this particular line of WTF and lack of basic understanding and the sheer confidence exhibited, which is gobsmacking: From the very simple fact that, the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway. The "very simple fact" :rolleyes:.

Here comes the science bit: The R0 number is the average number of people with no immunity one person can infect. This varies with circumstance. So in say some commune of a hundred people, or somewhere like a nursing home that number goes way up. On the other hand in a sparsely inhabited area that number goes down. The average R0 value for Covid 19 is 2 to 2.5. That is one infected person on average infects 2 people. The R0 for seasonal influenza is around 1.2. Covid 19 is nearly twice as infectious as flu. Not "incredibly low anyway".

There aren't enough WTF and facepalm memes to go around. It's in "the air" already FFS. It's an aerosolised virus. How in perdition's name do you think someone coughing, sneezing, even breathing on you can infect you? Magic pixies? Why in perdition's name do you think healthcare workers wear PPE that massively reduce the risk of inhaling this not in the air virus? They do it for the lulz?

Look upwards, my post above, I'm well aware of Covid etc etc, save your yawning lecture.

Wibbs

bladespin wrote: »

Really, where on earth did I say this wasn't serious, or play down the virus in any way??? Point lout just one post and you can have your farm back.

You said and I quote: From the very simple fact that, the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway


That's a wildly uninformed statement. You then compounded it with it's useless unless this thing suddenly develops in the air.


If you have so little basic information, never mind that you so confidently state it, your opinion on the seriousness or not of this virus is frankly of little enough value, save as an example of why we have needed restrictions and why societies will need to account for the lack of basic information in many as we do start to lift them.

CtevenSrowder

Here's a wiki about the difference:

An airborne disease is any disease that is caused by pathogens that can be transmitted through the air over time and distance by small particles.[2] Such diseases include many of considerable importance both in human and veterinary medicine. The relevant pathogens may be viruses, bacteria, or fungi, and they may be spread through breathing, talking, coughing, sneezing, raising of dust, spraying of liquids, toilet flushing or any activities which generate aerosol particles or droplets. Human airborne diseases do not include conditions caused by air pollution such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), gases and any airborne particles.

Airborne transmission is distinct from transmission by respiratory droplets, which are large enough (usually greater than 5 μm) to fall to the ground rapidly after being produced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_disease