Relaxation of restrictions

Spencer Brown

Seems as though we might have a few credible alternative parties in here lads. When's the next GE?

celt262

I'm after a good few drinks would I be qualifed to post here now?

Idbatterim

In Denmark there is a proposal to implement a minimum grocery spend to stop more frequent trips , not a bad idea , could have it at twenty Euro etc

_Kaiser_

It's really striking and concerning at the same time how many are apparently unable to judge a situation for themselves, rather than just blindly following instructions.

Leo gives a a good speech (written by a better writer) and backs it up with a media campaign and snappy slogan (STAY AT HOME), and some think it's the apocalypse and the end of everything if they step beyond an arbitrary (and largely misunderstood) 2km limit.

Some facts..
- Corona is going nowhere in the short/medium term.. True
- People will continue to get sick and some will die.. Sadly, also true
- Some people are more at risk than others.. Again. True
- HOWEVER, an overwhelming majority of people will get it and recover or not even know they had it in the first place
- The long term mental, social and financial health of all these individuals and the State requires that a balance be struck between the "at risk" group, and the majority
- This means that we will continue to protect the vulnerable people as best we can, but also relaxing restrictions so that others can carry out the essential activities we all need
- I'll also add that no one is stopping anyone from maintaining a self imposed isolation if they feel more comfortable and secure by doing so, and no one is going to think less of them either

But, as I said at the start, somewhere along the road it seems that many have lost the ability to look at a situation for themselves, apply some common sense and accept personal responsibility for their own actions and safety generally - instead waiting for "someone else" to do it for them, regardless of whether that person is any more qualified to do so than they are.

This phase of the lockdown is coming to an end. Not because anyone is underestimating this virus, but because the Government and advisors realise that a balance NEEDS to be struck for the benefit of us ALL.

But as someone else said above, I do worry about how some will reconcile this uncomfortable truth with what they've been "conditioned" to believe online or from endless media coverage on this topic. I'm not being funny either. I think some will genuinely struggle to adapt to what they see as wild and reckless actions.

Cupatae

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's really striking and concerning at the same time how many are apparently unable to judge a situation for themselves, rather than just blindly following instructions.

Leo gives a a good speech (written by a better writer) and backs it up with a media campaign and snappy slogan (STAY AT HOME), and some think it's the apocalypse and the end of everything if they step beyond an arbitrary (and largely misunderstood) 2km limit.

Some facts..
- Corona is going nowhere in the short/medium term.. True
- People will continue to get sick and some will die.. Sadly, also true
- Some people are more at risk than others.. Again. True
- HOWEVER, an overwhelming majority of people will get it and recover or not even know they had it in the first place
- The long term mental, social and financial health of all these individuals and the State requires that a balance be struck between the "at risk" group, and the majority
- This means that we will continue to protect the vulnerable people as best we can, but also relaxing restrictions so that others can carry out the essential activities we all need
- I'll also add that no one is stopping anyone from maintaining a self imposed isolation if they feel more comfortable and secure by doing so, and no one is going to think less of them either

But, as I said at the start, somewhere along the road it seems that many have lost the ability to look at a situation for themselves, apply some common sense and accept personal responsibility for their own actions and safety generally - instead waiting for "someone else" to do it for them, regardless of whether that person is any more qualified to do so than they are.

This phase of the lockdown is coming to an end. Not because anyone is underestimating this virus, but because the Government and advisors realise that a balance NEEDS to be struck for the benefit of us ALL.

But as someone else said above, I do worry about how some will reconcile this uncomfortable truth with what they've been "conditioned" to believe online or from endless media coverage on this topic. I'm not being funny either. I think some will genuinely struggle to adapt to what they see as wild and reckless actions.

The reality of it is, there are individuals on this site that have such high opinions of themselves, that no matter the situation or how under qualified they are... they always seem to know best, they revel in statistics they copy and paste.. they use the biggest fanciest words they can find and battle tooth and nail behind any theory they believe to be "right" all to keep up the charade of being "Super intelligent and above the rest" going.

When they actually know about as much as the next person does which is **** all in the grand scheme of things.

There is a reason we are in lockdown its because people that are qualified and have years of education and training behind them for these situations have crunched the numbers recognized the danger and implemented the best course of action no matter what the "know it alls" on boards say.

I dont see why people just dont focus on the lockdown and doing a good job of that, and then see where we are in may.. they may extend it they may not but one things for sure no poster here knows for sure what will happen and thats just the fact of the matter.

As for those that accept the lockdown struggling to "adapt" back to normal life? please dont be so ridiculous.

Rainmann

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's really striking and concerning at the same time how many are apparently unable to judge a situation for themselves, rather than just blindly following instructions.

Leo gives a a good speech (written by a better writer) and backs it up with a media campaign and snappy slogan (STAY AT HOME), and some think it's the apocalypse and the end of everything if they step beyond an arbitrary (and largely misunderstood) 2km limit.

Some facts..
- Corona is going nowhere in the short/medium term.. True
- People will continue to get sick and some will die.. Sadly, also true
- Some people are more at risk than others.. Again. True
- HOWEVER, an overwhelming majority of people will get it and recover or not even know they had it in the first place
- The long term mental, social and financial health of all these individuals and the State requires that a balance be struck between the "at risk" group, and the majority
- This means that we will continue to protect the vulnerable people as best we can, but also relaxing restrictions so that others can carry out the essential activities we all need
- I'll also add that no one is stopping anyone from maintaining a self imposed isolation if they feel more comfortable and secure by doing so, and no one is going to think less of them either

But, as I said at the start, somewhere along the road it seems that many have lost the ability to look at a situation for themselves, apply some common sense and accept personal responsibility for their own actions and safety generally - instead waiting for "someone else" to do it for them, regardless of whether that person is any more qualified to do so than they are.

This phase of the lockdown is coming to an end. Not because anyone is underestimating this virus, but because the Government and advisors realise that a balance NEEDS to be struck for the benefit of us ALL.

But as someone else said above, I do worry about how some will reconcile this uncomfortable truth with what they've been "conditioned" to believe online or from endless media coverage on this topic. I'm not being funny either. I think some will genuinely struggle to adapt to what they see as wild and reckless actions.

Totally agree with this. People need to start thinking for themselves, what is sensible and what isn't rather than sheepishly eating up everything the media put out there. This Virus will be with us for quite a while, we need to learn to live with it to the extent that our hospitals are not overrun, but also returning to some level of normality.

Cupatae

Rainmann wrote: »

Totally agree with this. People need to start thinking for themselves, what is sensible and what isn't rather than sheepishly eating up everything the media put out there. This Virus will be with us for quite a while, we need to learn to live with it to the extent that our hospitals are not overrun, but also returning to some level of normality.

Sounds great really does just seems very hollow i see this same speil everywhere "the virus isnt going anywhere we need to learn to live with it" what do people think the lockdown is for? we are figuring **** out while trying to flatten the curve, if alot of the head the walls had there way on here the lockdown would have stopped at 2 weeks "Job Done".

but anyway how do you suggest on returning most the population to normal lives, and stop our hospitals being overrun?

Whats the contingency plan should things go tits up ? lock down again?

alwald

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's really striking and concerning at the same time how many are apparently unable to judge a situation for themselves, rather than just blindly following instructions.

Leo gives a a good speech (written by a better writer) and backs it up with a media campaign and snappy slogan (STAY AT HOME), and some think it's the apocalypse and the end of everything if they step beyond an arbitrary (and largely misunderstood) 2km limit.

Some facts..
- Corona is going nowhere in the short/medium term.. True
- People will continue to get sick and some will die.. Sadly, also true
- Some people are more at risk than others.. Again. True
- HOWEVER, an overwhelming majority of people will get it and recover or not even know they had it in the first place
- The long term mental, social and financial health of all these individuals and the State requires that a balance be struck between the "at risk" group, and the majority
- This means that we will continue to protect the vulnerable people as best we can, but also relaxing restrictions so that others can carry out the essential activities we all need
- I'll also add that no one is stopping anyone from maintaining a self imposed isolation if they feel more comfortable and secure by doing so, and no one is going to think less of them either

But, as I said at the start, somewhere along the road it seems that many have lost the ability to look at a situation for themselves, apply some common sense and accept personal responsibility for their own actions and safety generally - instead waiting for "someone else" to do it for them, regardless of whether that person is any more qualified to do so than they are.

This phase of the lockdown is coming to an end. Not because anyone is underestimating this virus, but because the Government and advisors realise that a balance NEEDS to be struck for the benefit of us ALL.

But as someone else said above, I do worry about how some will reconcile this uncomfortable truth with what they've been "conditioned" to believe online or from endless media coverage on this topic. I'm not being funny either. I think some will genuinely struggle to adapt to what they see as wild and reckless actions.

The comedy club is next door and you can make a good career in stand-up comedy but your current show is over...hasta la vista!!

Cupatae

Cupatae wrote: »

but anyway how do you suggest on returning most the population to normal lives, and stop our hospitals being overrun?

In theory, by hammering it home that if you're obviously at risk, stay at home even when others are allowed to go out and be at work etc.

It won't work, though. People like my mother will be going to her dances as soon as she's allowed to. As a retired nurse, she should know better, but it isn't human nature to imprison yourself voluntarily because of something you can't see. Some people can do it but not all.

pgj2015

Deleted User wrote: »

In theory, by hammering it home that if you're obviously at risk, stay at home even when others are allowed to go out and be at work etc.

It won't work, though. People like my mother will be going to her dances as soon as she's allowed to. As a retired nurse, she should know better, but it isn't human nature to imprison yourself voluntarily because of something you can't see. Some people can do it but not all.

its not like it kills all people over 70 or 80 either, there are people in their 80's, 90's who have survived it, I think even some people over 100. i wouldn't be a prisoner in my own home either.

_Kaiser_

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In theory, by hammering it home that if you're obviously at risk, stay at home even when others are allowed to go out and be at work etc.

It won't work, though. People like my mother will be going to her dances as soon as she's allowed to. As a retired nurse, she should know better, but it isn't human nature to imprison yourself voluntarily because of something you can't see. Some people can do it but not all.

And I don't see anything wrong with that myself as long as they take some precautions and take responsibility for their own actions. If your mam decides to go out, she needs to understand the potential risks.

We cannot put the country/planet on "hold" indefinitely. As I said before in this thread, risk acceptance and management will be the order of the day as we try to get things moving again.

The alternative is mental, social and economic disaster. As you say, it's not in human nature to accept confinement and isolation, and we all need to have jobs and an income to survive this too.

Deeper Blue

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's really striking and concerning at the same time how many are apparently unable to judge a situation for themselves, rather than just blindly following instructions.

.
.
.
.

But as someone else said above, I do worry about how some will reconcile this uncomfortable truth with what they've been "conditioned" to believe online or from endless media coverage on this topic. I'm not being funny either. I think some will genuinely struggle to adapt to what they see as wild and reckless actions.

Great post, a very rare thing on this thread. Kudos

Blueshoe

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And I don't see anything wrong with that myself as long as they take some precautions and take responsibility for their own actions. If your mam decides to go out, she needs to understand the potential risks.

We cannot put the country/planet on "hold" indefinitely. As I said before in this thread, risk acceptance and management will be the order of the day as we try to get things moving again.

The alternative is mental, social and economic disaster. As you say, it's not in human nature to accept confinement and isolation, and we all need to have jobs and an income to survive this too.

A highly contagious virus doesn't care if you need to get back to work. If there is a second wave of infections and lockdown is needed again you can forget about the economy.

Cupatae

Deleted User wrote: »

In theory, by hammering it home that if you're obviously at risk, stay at home even when others are allowed to go out and be at work etc.

It won't work, though. People like my mother will be going to her dances as soon as she's allowed to. As a retired nurse, she should know better, but it isn't human nature to imprison yourself voluntarily because of something you can't see. Some people can do it but not all.

I agree, my own parents would be similar very set in there ways, as you said its worse with something you cant see..tbh i think we are in very dicy territory and the handling of restrictions will be critical...id fear for the hospitals..if too much is eased as alot seem to have a very lax attitude towards it.

Im all for lifting the restrictions and and getting back to normality so long as its done in a well thought out manner, and not due to public pressure. On the flip side of it, if they said May they need to extend the lockdown id understand that aswell as we are already in it now and have paid a heavy price we cant afford for it to be for nothing.

pgj2015

pgj2015 wrote: »

its not like it kills all people over 70 or 80 either, there are people in their 80's, 90's who have survived it, I think even some people over 100. i wouldn't be a prisoner in my own home either.

I know if doesn't kill the vast majority of those who get it. But deaths go up when ICU beds get filled. We're talking about getting back on track while still "flattening the curve".

Realistically, as many beds as possible have to available for the younger fitter people who are back at work but in the tiny minority at their age to get hit badly by it.

_Kaiser_

Blueshoe wrote: »

A highly contagious virus doesn't care if you need to get back to work. If there is a second wave of infections and lockdown is needed again you can forget about the economy.

And if, and indeed when, people get it most will thankfully fully recover or not even realise they had it.

It's a serious situation for sure but we need to balance protecting the vulnerable vs protecting the majority - both of whom have different needs here.

Your post, while true to a point and well intentioned I'm sure, is exactly the hyperbolic over the top, driven by fear, stuff that should be avoided.

Blueshoe

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And if, and indeed when, people get it most will thankfully fully recover or not even realise they had it.

It's a serious situation for sure but we need to balance protecting the vulnerable vs protecting the majority - both of whom have different needs here.

Your post, while true to a point and well intentioned I'm sure, is exactly the hyperbolic over the top, driven by fear, stuff that should be avoided.

Say they open your office back up. One person in the office picks up the virus from someone else down in the supermarket. The infected person spreads the virus and more people in the office become sick. They then give it to their husbands and wives who are also back working and so on and so on.
It's a highly contagious virus. Unless you can almost guarantee that nobody who is out and about has the virus how can you stop it spreading again? Back to lockdown. The past however many weeks wasted

_Kaiser_

Blueshoe wrote: »

Say they open your office back up. One person in the office picks up the virus from someone else down in the supermarket. The infected person spreads the virus and more people in the office become sick. They then give it to their husbands and wives who are also back working and so on and so on.
It's a highly contagious virus. Unless you can almost guarantee that nobody who is out and about has the virus how can you stop it spreading again? Back to lockdown. The past however many weeks wasted

I don't disagree with the point that most people will probably get this thing before it's over.

What I disagree with is the idea that the solution is to lockdown a majority of people who will not suffer any lasting effects to protect a minority who can be protected in better and more targeted ways - such as continuing to prioritise online and retail shopping for them to continue to cocoon themselves, or local community supports as are already in place

But those who can get back to some sort of normality need to, both for their own good, the good of the country, AND to help support those who are vulnerable.

Each wave will be smaller as there will be more people with immunity breaking the chain of infection.

Blueshoe

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I don't disagree with the point that most people will probably get this thing before it's over.

What I disagree with is the idea that the solution is to lockdown a majority of people who will not suffer any lasting effects to protect a minority who can be protected in better and more targeted ways - such as continuing to prioritise online and retail shopping for them to continue to cocoon themselves.

But those who can get back to some sort of normality need to, both for their own good, the good of the country, AND to help support those who are vulnerable.

If the majority of people ie 5 million population get the vurus the percentage that do require hospital treatment will overwhelm the health service in days. If you think ppe and ventilator shortages are bad now this would be choosing who lives and dies.

Offices and businesses would have no staff or customers as people would be sick. There is still no evidence that you can't catch the virus as second time or if it would have a worse or better effect.

A tiered opening of the economy is what's needed. A second wave of infection is guaranteed. How bad it will be is the real issue. I would let a few other countries try it first and see how they get on.

China is one to watch. They have mostly reopened after a period of very low infection cases.

The default position is that humans gain immunity after fighting off a virus. You don't need evidence that you can't get it again, you need evidence that you can.

We have millions of confirmed cases. If reinfection were a major issue, it would be known. Some reports that it may have happened aren't enough.

_Kaiser_

One more point before I go to sleep

The current restrictions are like the old saying of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but they were justified because this was a new event in Ireland, we weren't yet ready to fully respond, and needed to buy time while simultaneously getting everyone's attention.

Mission accomplished on that front. But we now know a bit more, we're identifying the at risk people in our communities and we've ramped up our ability to respond.

We also know that all of this costs money and impacts people's wellbeing in other ways beyond physical health or money. As Ads by Google pointed out, we are not built for long term confinement and this will result in long term issues if not resolved soon. We also cannot ignore the rapidly escalating scale of the economic impact.

So again, we need to balance the need to protect the vulnerable against the needs of the majority and the country as a whole.

Idbatterim

Lads when you are interested in foreign news, unlike the lockdown merchants here who rely solely on rte, lol, you'll see how the other governments realise this current phase of lockdown we are in, needs to end soon ... they arent all hyper comservative governments like here, that will do more damage than good!

Nearly half the deaths are in nursing homes , unsurprising, they need to tackle that asap!

dePeatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

The default position is that humans gain immunity after fighting off a virus. You don't need evidence that you can't get it again, you need evidence that you can.

We have millions of confirmed cases. If reinfection were a major issue, it would be known. Some reports that it may have happened aren't enough.

https://qz.com/1837798/why-some-covid-19-patients-might-have-tested-positive-twice/

There is not some reports, there are lots, too soon to know yet if we build immunity and if so how long it lasts. In the absence of containment it will not be a second wave, it will be a tsunami.

Cupatae

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

One more point before I go to sleep

The current restrictions are like the old saying of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but they were justified because this was a new event in Ireland, we weren't yet ready to fully respond, and needed to buy time while simultaneously getting everyone's attention.

Mission accomplished on that front. But we now know a bit more, we're identifying the at risk people in our communities and we've ramped up our ability to respond.

We also know that all of this costs money and impacts people's wellbeing in other ways beyond physical health or money. As Ads by Google pointed out, we are not built for long term confinement and this will result in long term issues if not resolved soon. We also cannot ignore the rapidly escalating scale of the economic impact.

So again, we need to balance the need to protect the vulnerable against the needs of the majority and the country as a whole.

What do you think will happen when we lift the restrictions ?

Do people gain immunity to the virus or can they be reinfected?

What do you propose be done if the infections start claiming again once restrictions are lifted?

If the hospitals start to struggle with the increased volume of people coming in because of people going back to normal ?

Do we power on protect the economy accept the death in order to protect it ? Do we go back into lockdown ? How would you convince the people like some on this thread that loath having to give up an shred of freedom?

How many dead would you be willing to trade for the greater good of the economy and normality of the "majority"?

dePeatrick

dePeatrick wrote: »

https://qz.com/1837798/why-some-covid-19-patients-might-have-tested-positive-twice/

There is not some reports, there are lots, too soon to know yet if we build immunity and if so how long it lasts. In the absence of containment it will not be a second wave, it will be a tsunami.

Did you read that article? It lists off how they could have tested positive twice and says reinfection is unlikely. It's mid-April and people have been cured of this for months already. If it were an issue, we'd know about it. It would be the biggest news in the history of humanity.

At some stage, ye have to realise you're gorging on disaster porn. There is no reason at this point to be arguing that reinfection could be an issue.


We've known since January that tests aren't fully reliable. It's why Vietnam does something like three or five to determine if you're cured. I assume every country does the same. That is the most likely reason for people testing positive again.. They were never negative in the first place.

Cyrus

Cupatae wrote: »

What do you think will happen when we lift the restrictions ?

Do people gain immunity to the virus or can they be reinfected?

What do you propose be done if the infections start claiming again once restrictions are lifted?

If the hospitals start to struggle with the increased volume of people coming in because of people going back to normal ?

Do we power on protect the economy accept the death in order to protect it ? Do we go back into lockdown ? How would you convince the people like some on this thread that loath having to give up an shred of freedom?

How many dead would you be willing to trade for the greater good of the economy and normality of the "majority"?

Hyperbolic in the extreme

The reality is that the level of incremental deaths yoy at the moment isn’t significant and when all of this is over the number of deaths in 2020 will be lower than other recent years.

We need to move on with making the societal changes that help limit the spread while getting people back to work and to some level of normality . I’m not sure you noticed but we can’t afford to pay people 350 a week into perpetuity .

Quantum Erasure

Deaths 60% higher in Eng and Wales last week than the same week 2015-2019

JRant

dePeatrick wrote: »

https://qz.com/1837798/why-some-covid-19-patients-might-have-tested-positive-twice/

There is not some reports, there are lots, too soon to know yet if we build immunity and if so how long it lasts. In the absence of containment it will not be a second wave, it will be a tsunami.

Will there be surge before the tsunami

pjohnson

JRant wrote: »

Will there be surge before the tsunami

Depends if we are responsible or not.