Relaxation of restrictions

Ace2007

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

No because i'm not a medical expert, but i would expect that they should continue until the number of cases as fallen and our hospital/ICU beds are capable of looking after a surge if one came. It's for the medical profession to give their recommendations.

If we get to end of April and numbers/deaths are down, then we might see some restrictions lifted - maybe shopping retailers can open. i don't expect gyms/pubs to be open anytime soon, and the government/CMO will take it week at a time to see how things go.

I had floated the idea before that certain part of the country could get restrictions lifted and others not - but many posters shot down that idea.

bladespin

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Post was as a reply to another about wearing a mask, and why I felt/still feel there's no benefit and more of a risk.

Thanks for the lecture though, your statement about it being airbourne says more than I could. It's not btw, droplets of spittle contain it and it's spread by these, avoid them and you're on the right track, it's not from the air we breathe.

I'm following the HSE guidelines, I'm keeping at least 2m between myself and others, handwash etc so yes, I feel quite safe, thanks.

Cupatae

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Ehh... for someone so smug about there opinion and condescending to others... your own information isn't exactly "on the money"

Ace2007

easypazz wrote: »

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.

Nothing stopping a guy who likes pints from having them at home if he wants.
Nothing stopping a cyclist from going out and doing laps - have seen many in fact.
Don't live near the Sea so can't comment on surfers

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.



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

Some folk think that WHO are a load of spoofers.

bladespin wrote: »

......

I'm following the HSE guidelines, I'm keeping at least 2m between myself and others, handwash etc so yes, I feel quite safe, thanks.

So too the HSE, we are sheeple to follow their guidance.

We must all mask up ASAP.

Ulysses Gaze

Ace2007 wrote: »

Nothing stopping a guy who likes pints from having them at home if he wants.
Nothing stopping a cyclist from going out and doing laps - have seen many in fact.
Don't live near the Sea so can't comment on surfers

I live near the sea and can confirm I have seen surfers and swimmers out.

Ulysses Gaze

Augeo wrote: »

Some folk think that WHO are a load of spoofers.

Politically compromised would be the more correct word.

Wibbs

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

Aye, though there's still some debate about a) how far microdroplets can travel, coughs go beyond two metres and sneezes go way beyond two metres for example, b) how much viral load is required to cause an infection and c) how long they last in the air. Japanese researchers have demonstrated remarkably long distances and long times in the air. I'll try and dig up a link for you. There were also reports from New York were the virus was found in measurable quantities in the air of patients rooms after they had been cleared. Again were they infective? The R0 number suggests while it's more infectious than flu and is clearly spreading like a bastard, it's not close to something like measles which averages an R0 of 20 and is fully airborne.

I suspect it'll be found that these are low risk in the vast majority of cases, same with the under lab conditions of virus survival on plastics for days, and that the main risks by far are surface contact and transference to airways and breathing in aerosolised droplets.

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

No because i'm not a medical expert, but i would expect that they should continue until the number of cases as fallen and our hospital/ICU beds are capable of looking after a surge if one came. It's for the medical profession to give their recommendations.

If we get to end of April and numbers/deaths are down, then we might see some restrictions lifted - maybe shopping retailers can open. i don't expect gyms/pubs to be open anytime soon, and the government/CMO will take it week at a time to see how things go.

I had floated the idea before that certain part of the country could get restrictions lifted and others not - but many posters shot down that idea.

Another person going to hide behind the "I'm not an expert" excuse. You are enough of an expert to suggest that telling some people to isolate whilst the majority don't is the wrong approach. So why not answer my question?

Restrictions are likely to be lifted in the very near future and it's likely that older people will be told to be more cautious then younger people, which is what some of us have been suggesting already. You think this is the wrong approach.

polesheep

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?

I am not suggesting stopping a vulnerable person from getting on with their life. I am saying that there will be a greater risk for them. You want everyone to stop getting on with their life so that there will not be a greater risk to vulnerable people. We did that, now we have to move on. But until there is a vaccine there will be greater risk for vulnerable people. How they deal with that added risk is up to them.

Ace2007

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Another person going to hide behind the "I'm not an expert" excuse. You are enough of an expert to suggest that telling some people to isolate whilst the majority don't is the wrong approach. So why not answer my question?

Restrictions are likely to be lifted in the very near future and it's likely that older people will be told to be more cautious then younger people, which is what some of us have been suggesting already. You think this is the wrong approach.

There is a big difference telling people to be cautious, and telling them to isolate - back tracking there a bit - from first paragraph to your second....

easypazz

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I live near the sea and can confirm I have seen surfers and swimmers out.

That's fine but if you live 2.1km away, or 100kM away you can't.

Inquitus

easypazz wrote: »

That's fine but if you live 2.1km away, or 100kM away you can't.

Aye swimming or surfing within 2km (ish) of your residence would count as your daily exercise, as long as you respect social distancing, which in the sea shouldn't be a problem.

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

No because i'm not a medical expert, but i would expect that they should continue until the number of cases as fallen and our hospital/ICU beds are capable of looking after a surge if one came. It's for the medical profession to give their recommendations.

If we get to end of April and numbers/deaths are down, then we might see some restrictions lifted - maybe shopping retailers can open. i don't expect gyms/pubs to be open anytime soon, and the government/CMO will take it week at a time to see how things go.

I had floated the idea before that certain part of the country could get restrictions lifted and others not - but many posters shot down that idea.

What happened to your insistence that everyone be treated equally?

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

Nothing stopping a guy who likes pints from having them at home if he wants.

You can't get a pint of draught beer at home.

But I expect nothing more from you at this stage other than strawman retorts.

We get your mantra, we all lockdown as its not fair on the old and vulnerable.

Harry Palmr

and not getting into trouble and thus putting more strain on the system.

Ace2007

polesheep wrote: »

I am not suggesting stopping a vulnerable person from getting on with their life. I am saying that there will be a greater risk for them. You want everyone to stop getting on with their life so that there will not be a greater risk to vulnerable people. We did that, now we have to move on. But until there is a vaccine there will be greater risk for vulnerable people. How they deal with that added risk is up to them.

The difference between us is that you come across as society should continue as normal and if a vulnerable person wants to socialize they do so at their own risks.

I'm suggesting that society changes they way they behave and allow everyone the opportunity to socialize in a safe manner - be it social distancing etc.

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

There is a big difference telling people to be cautious, and telling them to isolate - back tracking there a bit - from first paragraph to your second....

No there isn't. You can tell people to isolate. Whether they do or not is up to them.

Ace2007

easypazz wrote: »

You can't get a pint of draught beer at home.

But I expect nothing more from you at this stage other than strawman retorts.

We get your mantra, we all lockdown as its not fair on the old and vulnerable.

You can't? There is at least one pub in Dublin doing delivery service of pints and has been delivery thousands of pints in last few weeks. Nothing stopping other pubs around the country offering the same service...

Ulysses Gaze

easypazz wrote: »

You can't get a pint of draught beer at home.

But I expect nothing more from you at this stage other than strawman retorts.

We get your mantra, we all lockdown as its not fair on the old and vulnerable.

You can buy a keg online, have it delivered to your house and have many pints of draught beer at home.

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

You can't? There is at least one pub in Dublin doing delivery service of pints and has been delivery thousands of pints in last few weeks. Nothing stopping other pubs around the country offering the same service...

What pub is that please?

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

The difference between us is that you come across as society should continue as normal and if a vulnerable person wants to socialize they do so at their own risks.

I'm suggesting that society changes they way they behave and allow everyone the opportunity to socialize in a safe manner - be it social distancing etc.

This is becoming ridiculous. Can you not see that what is safe for most is not safe for all, therefore, some will have to be more cautious. We cannot all continue life at the most cautious level.

easypazz

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

You can buy a keg online, have it delivered to your house and have many pints of draught beer at home.

You actually can't.

Wibbs

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

Its mad how two metres means "safe" to so many, because that's the number spread about. Have an oul read of this for the craic.

Given the number of infections that can travel through the air, it’s horrible when someone coughs over us.

But according to research by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it’s not just the person next to us we should worry about: coughing spreads droplets as far as six metres, and sneezing as much as eight metres. These droplets stay suspended in the air for up to 10 minutes.


Then again some seem to also believe that so long as they're not in close contact for longer than 15 minutes they're grand. Clear as a bell at 14 minutes, creeping coughing death at 16.

Cupatae wrote: »

Ehh... for someone so smug about there opinion and condescending to others... your own information isn't exactly "on the money"

I wrote It's in "the air" already FFS. It's an aerosolised virus. That's on the money I'm afraid. Please feel free to point out my inaccuracy.

As for distancing see above. It's a risk reducer and the cost/benefit seems to be around two metres. Three would reduce risk further, but then you're into the practicalities of that. But it is a risk reducer, just like proper handwashing and yep just like masks and even recovered now immune people. The more risk reducers in the community, the lower the transmission rate, the fewer end up needing hospital, the fewer end up dying and the sooner we can get back to some semblance of normality.

Ace2007

easypazz wrote: »

What pub is that please?

Graingers Hanlons Corner Dublin

KiKi III

easypazz wrote: »

You actually can't.

You were all “this isn’t about going to the beach” yesterday, but today you’re upset because you can’t have a beer poured the specific way you’d like it?

You can have cans and bottles in an almost unlimited variety, but you can’t have draft... oh the sacrifices you are making.

Ace2007

polesheep wrote: »

This is becoming ridiculous. Can you not see that what is safe for most is not safe for all, therefore, some will have to be more cautious. We cannot all continue life at the most cautious level.

ok if that's what you think...

Cupatae

Wibbs wrote: »

Its mad how two metres means "safe" to so many, because that's the number spread about. Have an oul read of this for the craic.

Given the number of infections that can travel through the air, it’s horrible when someone coughs over us.

But according to research by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it’s not just the person next to us we should worry about: coughing spreads droplets as far as six metres, and sneezing as much as eight metres. These droplets stay suspended in the air for up to 10 minutes.


Then again some seem to also believe that so long as they're not in close contact for longer than 15 minutes they're grand. Clear as a bell at 14 minutes, creeping coughing death at 16.

I wrote It's in "the air" already FFS. It's an aerosolised virus. That's on the money I'm afraid.

As for distancing see above. It's a risk reducer and the cost/benefit seems to be around two metres. Three would reduce risk further, but then you're into the practicalities of that. But it is a risk reducer, just like proper handwashing and yep just like masks and even recovered now immune people. The more risk reducers in the community, the lower the transmission rate, the fewer end up needing hospital, the fewer end up dying and the sooner we can get back to some semblance of normality.

You're selling wolf tickets with the whole airborne thing, its simply misinformation, its simply not truly "airborne" .

KiKi III

Cupatae wrote: »

You're selling wolf tickets with the whole airborne thing, its simply misinformation, its simply not truly "airborne" .

You’re both right.

Or both wrong, depending on how you want to look at it https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses

eleventh

Wibbs wrote:

But according to research by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it’s not just the person next to us we should worry about: coughing spreads droplets as far as six metres, and sneezing as much as eight metres. These droplets stay suspended in the air for up to 10 minutes.

If this research was on covid19, can you post a link to it please.