Relaxation of restrictions

Theboinkmaster

bubblypop wrote: »

Frontline worker here.
Funny you speaking for all over 70s there, the majority I speak with, every day, seem to be very happy with the way it is right now. They know it's not forever & they are very resilient.
A lot more than the snowflakes I see posting on here

But do they know they could be doing this for the next 12 months?

There's no way out of this fully until a vaccine is developed. We're going to be living with COVID-19 and some sort of restrictions for the next 12-18 months and vulnerable and > 70s are going to be very restricted/cocooning for that period.

Gael23

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/coronavirus-ireland-s-infection-peak-may-have-passed-toll-could-hit-400-by-august-report-forecasts-1.4223043?mode=amp

beggars_bush

Idbatterim wrote: »

many are actually better off now, not working and on the E350 with no commute costs etc...

A lot of staff from creches earning more now while at home

Idbatterim

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Do you think so?

I know several that are... Look, they have paid into the system, they are far more worthy of it, than hundreds of thousands of others here, bleeding the system dry from cradle to grave, supported by FG etc. I just know in quite a lot of cases, say someone on twenty hour week, min wage, roughly a tenner. Two hundred odd. Now getting E350 and you have to bear in mind, many if living at home etc, wont have to pay rent or virtually anything out of it...

Retr0gamer

housemouse wrote: »

The lockdown policy is driven by fear and panic.

Medical experts are not economists. They are tasked with fixing one problem: the spread of disease. They don't know how (because it's not their job, and it's difficult) to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.

The policy of lockdown means the death of our economies. A temporary death, yes. But with long-term consequences that reduce the wealth, happiness and life expectancy of everybody.

A cost-benefit analysis would try to understand what were the full costs of the policy, and see if there are alternatives that are better value, i.e. the opportunity cost.

For example, the Central Bank has predicted that the cost to the Irish government of the current lockdown policy will be €22 billion. I'm going to ignore the absolutely huge cost to everybody else and focus only on this €22 billion cost to government.

The supply of ICU care isn't cheap and the supply of nurses and doctors is not very elastic.

But for the cost of ten overpriced children's hospitals, don't tell me there was no alternative.

The lockdown is already going to cost an entire annual healthcare budget in lost taxes and income supports. More, if it is extended.

Investing any amount up to €22 billion in ICU care and other measures to deal with the virus would be cheaper to the Irish government than the policy of lockdown, and would be far better for all private citizens and private business. GDP is expected to fall by 8% this year, thanks to lockdown - this has real-life consequences.

A proper cost-benefit analysis would also include the remaining life expectancy of those who are vulnerable to Covid-19, after taking into account their other underlying health conditions. The media doesn't bother distinguishing between those dying with the virus, versus those who die of the virus.

Health budgets should be focused on extending survival for those who can have a high quality of life (see the recent article by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick on his website for more).

The total number of deaths in Western countries has not increased by any noticeable amount as a result of this virus.

And the life expectancy of the typical victim might well be less than 2 years, given their age and existing conditions - so the virus is likely to make almost no difference to the total number of deaths over the next year or two.

If you think it makes sense to spend €22 billion on this project, then you haven't considered the alternatives.

Cost benefit analysis is all well and good it you are an analyst shaving off pennies buy reducing packaging on a product against the cost of a new production line.

It's a little bit different when you are dealing with people's lives. It's some real sociopathic craziness like we see in America and the UK to put an economic price on people's lives.

Idbatterim

threeball wrote: »

All countries are in the same boat. There will be debt write down or massive injections. Italy won't survive without this.

yeah its going to be very interesting. Germany wont be able to point the finger at the reckless PIIGS again and say this is of your own doing. Its going to be very interesting...

terrydel

housemouse wrote: »

The lockdown policy is driven by fear and panic.

Medical experts are not economists. They are tasked with fixing one problem: the spread of disease. They don't know how (because it's not their job, and it's difficult) to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.

The policy of lockdown means the death of our economies. A temporary death, yes. But with long-term consequences that reduce the wealth, happiness and life expectancy of everybody.

A cost-benefit analysis would try to understand what were the full costs of the policy, and see if there are alternatives that are better value, i.e. the opportunity cost.

For example, the Central Bank has predicted that the cost to the Irish government of the current lockdown policy will be €22 billion. I'm going to ignore the absolutely huge cost to everybody else and focus only on this €22 billion cost to government.

The supply of ICU care isn't cheap and the supply of nurses and doctors is not very elastic.

But for the cost of ten overpriced children's hospitals, don't tell me there was no alternative.

The lockdown is already going to cost an entire annual healthcare budget in lost taxes and income supports. More, if it is extended.

Investing any amount up to €22 billion in ICU care and other measures to deal with the virus would be cheaper to the Irish government than the policy of lockdown, and would be far better for all private citizens and private business. GDP is expected to fall by 8% this year, thanks to lockdown - this has real-life consequences.

A proper cost-benefit analysis would also include the remaining life expectancy of those who are vulnerable to Covid-19, after taking into account their other underlying health conditions. The media doesn't bother distinguishing between those dying with the virus, versus those who die of the virus.

Health budgets should be focused on extending survival for those who can have a high quality of life (see the recent article by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick on his website for more).

The total number of deaths in Western countries has not increased by any noticeable amount as a result of this virus.

And the life expectancy of the typical victim might well be less than 2 years, given their age and existing conditions - so the virus is likely to make almost no difference to the total number of deaths over the next year or two.

If you think it makes sense to spend €22 billion on this project, then you haven't considered the alternatives.

If it was your 70+ year old parent and a middle aged person who you were asked to choose between, who would you choose? Your post comes across as about as cold and lacking in any empathy or humanity as it is possible to be. Life is not measured on a spreadsheet.
You are a complete sociopath going on that post.

Idbatterim

beggars_bush wrote: »

A lot of staff from creches earning more now while at home

would it not have been better to put money into peoples pockets, if thats they way you want to go about it, when businesses actually re-open. I am not saying its an easy scenario. But they maybe should have said, if you need more than standard welfare, it will be clawed back from future taxes or welfare...

ITman88

Gael23 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/coronavirus-ireland-s-infection-peak-may-have-passed-toll-could-hit-400-by-august-report-forecasts-1.4223043?mode=amp

I never understand those death predictions.

They are saying 400 deaths, is that 400 over the 10,000 we would normally expect in this period?

housemouse

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Cost benefit analysis is all well and good it you are an analyst shaving off pennies buy reducing packaging on a product against the cost of a new production line.

It's a little bit different when you are dealing with people's lives. It's some real sociopathic craziness like we see in America and the UK to put an economic price on people's lives.

Every health budgeting decision requires putting a price on people's lives.

It is the inability of the population at large to process the reality of this which ultimately leads to poor decisions in government.

terrydel

brutes1 wrote: »

Yes totally agree and would go farther and question the whole agenda re lockdown . Never happened before with bad flu or Swine flu seasons.
Needs to end know.
I am not sure if any politican has any courage to put forward this though it is incredible the lack of critical thinking. Although I understand questions are limited or not allowed at briefings and the Dail is shut. Why .

The hospitals WILL end up overwhelmed and many will die needlessly, how on earth can you a) not realise this (see Italy) and b) not be bothered by it?

housemouse

terrydel wrote: »

If it was your 70+ year old parent and a middle aged person who you were asked to choose between, who would you choose? Your post comes across as about as cold and lacking in any empathy or humanity as it is possible to be. Life is not measured on a spreadsheet.

If a government body is making the decision and it costs the same to extend one person's life by 2 years as it does to extend another person's by 20 years, then it should choose the latter. This is what happens in the UK and other countries which try to make the most out of limited resources.

I don't necessarily believe the government should have the power to make that decision, but that is what it should do, if it is making the decision.

In a world of finite resources, decisions have to be made. When they are made in a state of fear and panic, they tend to be poor ones.

ITman88

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Cost benefit analysis is all well and good it you are an analyst shaving off pennies buy reducing packaging on a product against the cost of a new production line.

It's a little bit different when you are dealing with people's lives. It's some real sociopathic craziness like we see in America and the UK to put an economic price on people's lives.

We could probably spend multiple billions on road safety infrastructure. Incorporating technology to prevent every collision.
We don’t.
We spend around 300-400m.
158 died last year.
Multiples more seriously injured.
Someone does a cost benefit analysis on it

Logan Roy

Please ITman88, realism is not welcome 'round these parts.

Thelonious Monk

Idbatterim wrote: »

many are actually better off now, not working and on the E350 with no commute costs etc...

And hopefully will spend it when we open back up. This all may not turn out too badly, will be tough for a while though.

terrydel

Idbatterim wrote: »

I know several that are... Look, they have paid into the system, they are far more worthy of it, than hundreds of thousands of others here, bleeding the system dry from cradle to grave, supported by FG etc. I just know in quite a lot of cases, say someone on twenty hour week, min wage, roughly a tenner. Two hundred odd. Now getting E350 and you have to bear in mind, many if living at home etc, wont have to pay rent or virtually anything out of it...

`Who are these 100s of 1000s? Do you ever change your tune from out and out uninformed bigotry?

terrydel

housemouse wrote: »

If a government body is making the decision and it costs the same to extend one person's life by 2 years as it does to extend another person's by 20 years, then it should choose the latter. This is what happens in the UK and other countries which try to make the most out of limited resources.

I don't necessarily believe the government should have the power to make that decision, but that is what it should do, if it is making the decision.

In a world of finite resources, decisions have to be made. When they are made in a state of fear and panic, they tend to be poor ones.

So I'll ask again, they are choosing your old parent or someone half that age, do you fully endorse the decision to allow your parent die in the scenario you are effectively advocating?
Unless you have facts, numbers and details to back up your assertion that the decisions taken are poor, your statements have no merit whatsoever and are nothing more than your opinion.

polesheep

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Cost benefit analysis is all well and good it you are an analyst shaving off pennies buy reducing packaging on a product against the cost of a new production line.

It's a little bit different when you are dealing with people's lives. It's some real sociopathic craziness like we see in America and the UK to put an economic price on people's lives.

Day in, day out, we put an economic value of people's lives. We've been doing so since neolithic times. Mammoth meat didn't come easily.

housemouse

terrydel wrote: »

So I'll ask again, they are choosing your old parent or someone half that age, do you fully endorse the decision to allow your parent die in the scenario you are effectively advocating?
Unless you have facts, numbers and details to back up your assertion that the decisions taken are poor, your statements have no merit whatsoever and are nothing more than your opinion.

There were plenty of facts and numbers given in my original post.

Many people can't process the reality of finite resources and health budgeting, so they react like you do, instead of adding to the discussion.

Have a good day.

lainey_d_123

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I don't know anything about domestic violence, but I don't see how banning alcohol is going to do much to alleviate domestic violence. An abusive relationship is still abusive, whether alcohol is involved or no. At the same time, the 99.99% of people who drink responsibly are going to go spare and start breaking restrictions.

As my mother would say, it's ridiculous she has to go out shopping twice on Sunday, as she can't buy wine before 10am. What's the point of having a dedicated time for over 60's when parts of the shop are still shut?

Builders providers are still open. You can still buy paint if you want.



Ya know i doubt that. The hordes of people on Harcourt street every night aren't sitting at home now necking vodka and red bull.

You are having a go at people who are at risk of depression, self harm or violence expressing how hard they are finding this lockdown and basically telling them to suck it up, but you think it's fine for your 60+ high risk mother, the kind of person we're all making these huge sacrifices for, to make a special trip to the shops to buy wine?

Jesus Christ.

ITman88

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Builders providers are still open. You can still buy paint if you want.

I don’t want to come across as pedantic, but you can’t around the west of Ireland.

Any hardware shops still operating will stock farming supplies around here.

Only essential farming supplies can be bought.

If it’s on the shelves and it’s not for the purpose of essential farming it can’t be bought.

That may not be countywide though

Pete_Cavan

terrydel wrote: »

So I'll ask again, they are choosing your old parent or someone half that age, do you fully endorse the decision to allow your parent die in the scenario you are effectively advocating?
Unless you have facts, numbers and details to back up your assertion that the decisions taken are poor, your statements have no merit whatsoever and are nothing more than your opinion.

The thing about the restrictions is, vulnerable people can (and probably should) self-restrict even after restrictions generally have eased. Not doing so is effectively the person making the decision you mention above for themselves. As long as the health system is coping, such dilemmas are not more common than is normally the case (and these dilemmas do exist in normal times). How about the people not currently having other necessary medical treatments, where do they fit in in your over-simplified scenario?

terrydel

housemouse wrote: »

There were plenty of facts and numbers given in my original post.

Many people can't process the reality of finite resources and health budgeting, so they react like you do, instead of adding to the discussion.

Have a good day.

You added nothing other than turning human life into cells on a spreadsheet, I'll have a great day knowing Im not you.

housemouse

terrydel wrote: »

You added nothing other than turning human life into cells on a spreadsheet, I'll have a great day knowing Im not you.

You should talk to people who make decisions about how to spend money on healthcare. You'll find that they sometimes use a spreadsheet.

lainey_d_123

KiKi III wrote: »

No, they're not.

If you adjust for population, there's a difference of about 25%, which is massive.

No, it isn't massive. Things may well change, but as it stands, there is only the tiniest percentage more chance of dying in Sweden compared to Denmark. You can do the knee jerk 'every life is important' thing if you like, but it's ridiculously simplistic.

What about the people in Denmark who are going to die of other things because they can't access proper healthcare during the lockdown? Suicides? Self harm? Domestic violence? I'd bet there is not such a huge difference when you factor this stuff in, not to mention the damage to the economy as a whole. It's all well and good to say lives are more important than money, but who is going to fund all this if nobody is working?

KrustyUCC

bubblypop wrote: »

Frontline worker here.
Funny you speaking for all over 70s there, the majority I speak with, every day, seem to be very happy with the way it is right now. They know it's not forever & they are very resilient.
A lot more than the snowflakes I see posting on here

The majority you speak to might be happy and resilient now but who knows the longer things go on

Would have been a good post bar the last sentence

No need for it

People have different opinions and their opinions might be as right as yours

Plumbthedepths

terrydel wrote: »

You added nothing other than turning human life into cells on a spreadsheet, I'll have a great day knowing Im not you.

Did you ever hear of a professional called an Actuary? Guess what purpose they serve for the insurance industry ?
Revenue regards citizens as 'economic units'.

growleaves

Because economists rarely think about people and often get figures quite wrong. Mostly because they guess/project based off their own biases of course

Medicine is a hard science. Economics isn’t. And policy can’t be decided solely by either

I'm glad you concede that medical advice can't be the sole criteria for governance of the country, which not everyone is prepared to concede.

Medical statistics are notoriously difficult to work with.

The abstract models created by medical experts leading this pandemic response are based on multiple assumptions which might be true or untrue (and with other assumptions possibly missing). There are credible experts with competing models based on different assumptions who have been sidelined by mainstream media and governments, though they come from mainstream universities.

Where the biases come into play is in which medical statisticians and experts we choose to listen to.

The kind of society we are derives its morality from mass emotions, so if the dominant emotion is fear we will work off the most-cautious assumptions and believe this to be laudatory. We believe our stance to be moral not scientific - which is why you see active condemnation of other countries like Sweden etc. There's no scientific reason to be angry at the PM of Sweden.

Upon that foundation we've piled multiple other assumptions, such as that highly damaging yet scientifically unproven measures like social distancing and lockdown are necessary and will be effective. This is something we don't know, though many think they know. Again it becomes a moral imperative because it might be true plus our earlier assumptions might be true.

Compare to how how a previous society dealt with similar adversity:

During the 1957 flu panemic, which killed 1.1 million people worldwide, the full extent of our shutdown was the temporary closure of 17 schools in South Dublin.

terrydel

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The thing about the restrictions is, vulnerable people can (and probably should) self-restrict even after restrictions generally have eased. Not doing so is effectively the person making the decision you mention above for themselves. As long as the health system is coping, such dilemmas are not more common than is normally the case (and these dilemmas do exist in normal times). How about the people not currently having other necessary medical treatments, where do they fit in in your over-simplified scenario?

One of those is my mother. She has had her own treatment delayed because of the current crisis and is completely at peace with it. Thats enough for me.
The alternative is to actually allow loads to die NOW, and to willfully allow what has happened in Italy to happen here. thats the only other option.

terrydel

housemouse wrote: »

There were plenty of facts and numbers given in my original post.

Many people can't process the reality of finite resources and health budgeting, so they react like you do, instead of adding to the discussion.

Have a good day.

There was nothing that showed the current decisions are poor. So pointless opinion is all it was.