Relaxation of restrictions

Tell me how

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm not looking for a row but how can you describe these rules as not Draconian when you are not subject to them?
Again I must say it you are resident in America so what is your personal experience of the rules up today other than secondhand information.

FFS. Because I am living under these conditions for longer than you are. By choice. Because I understand what is going on.

Blueshoe

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Indeed. A lockdown like the one in Wuhan only works in a police state like China. The ones we have in the UK and Ireland are relying on people's goodwill because there is not the manpower to police it the way they have in China. As most people are decent and law abiding, compliance has generally been very good, but people simply cannot keep up this level of lockdown for much longer.

I can already see people getting more lax in London, streets are getting busier, people touching their faces and getting complacent. This is always the risk with a situation like this, especially when we know most of us are going to get the virus eventually anyway. The mental strain of having to wash your hands constantly, make sure not to touch your face, worry about every single thing you've touched, sanitise all your groceries is exhausting. A lot of people are just going to feel like they'd rather risk getting sick than keep up this level of precautions. I suffer from OCD and it's life ruining, and now everyone is living like they have OCD. People are playing it down on here but it's a massively stressful situation. Not only being isolated and stuck at home but all the mental strain that comes with venturing out for groceries, or accepting a delivery. It's neverending and all consuming in a way very few things are.

It's not that bad at all.

brutes1

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again: it's not the death rate that portrays the spread of the virus, it's the number of new cases. And it's the number of active cases that will portray whether a country's policies are or are not working.

Herd immunity - and I'm not saying whether or not it's a good approach - has even less to do with the death rate; unless you can tell when these people got infected.

936 deaths. Only 46 of those without other health conditions .
The numbers quoted hide the true picture. How many actually die because of Covid? Or how many die with it but as a result of their underlying condition. ?The vast majority I suspect

Media and propaganda works. Question more.

from BBC
Britain's deadliest day since the Covid-19 outbreak began saw 936 more people die after testing positive.

The Department for Health confirmed the UK-wide total of 7,172 included 828 deaths in England.

Patients were aged between 22 and 103, including 46 people who had no known underlying conditions.

Plumbthedepths

Tell me how wrote: »

FFS. Because I am living under these conditions for longer than you are. By choice. Because I understand what is going on.

So you made a choice, they were not imposed thanks for clarifying. There is a difference in the situation in Ireland and your self imposed restrictions you are free to release yourself from them anytime you wish. Try not to belittle the experience of others who are without your choice.

Bandana boy

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Do you believe anything coming out of official Chinese channels?

I don't believe they have hidden between 1.4M and 5M deaths !

ITman88

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again: it's not the death rate that portrays the spread of the virus, it's the number of new cases. And it's the number of active cases that will portray whether a country's policies are or are not working.

Herd immunity - and I'm not saying whether or not it's a good approach - has even less to do with the death rate; unless you can tell when these people got infected.

Completely.

In England and Wales on a normal week about 10,000 are dying, less sudden deaths etc.

Many of those accounted for today were exactly that, with or without Covid, dying.

The ICU departments is where the issue is.

We are keeping those from becoming over ran.

Plumbthedepths

Bandana boy wrote: »

I don't believe they have hidden between 1.4M and 5M deaths !

I don't share your incredulity of what the Chinese would be capable of.

Tell me how

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you made a choice, they were not imposed thanks for clarifying. There is a difference in the situation in Ireland and your self imposed restrictions you are free to release yourself from them anytime you wish. Try not to belittle the experience of others who are without your choice.

The end result is the same. And the important element is the necessity for action.
The US is paying the price for leaving it to many to have the choice.

You can exercise within 2km of home.
You can go out for shopping or other essential tasks.
You have access to food, shelter, heat, entertainment and information.

Anyone considering the rules as draconian at this point in time are either being ignorant or selfish.

road_high

Tell me how wrote: »

The rules are there because there is a need for them.

Just because some people (a relatively small number all told I suspect) are not following them does not mean they should be removed.

It's quite incredible to see these rules described as extremely draconian. The only way that makes sense is if you haven't actually heard of the virus or the impact it has had.

Of course they’re draconian- all non essential stores closed for weeks now, hundreds of thousands thrown onto welfare and all non essential travel banned and regulated by statute- of course they’re bloody draconian. I don’t have an issue with the necessity to implement them but that doesn’t make them not draconian. They are

Tell me how

road_high wrote: »

Of course they’re draconian- all non essential stores closed for weeks now, hundreds of thousands thrown onto welfare and all non essential travel banned and regulated by statute- of course they’re bloody draconian. I don’t have an issue with the necessity to implement them but that doesn’t make them not draconian. They are

Draconian: adjective
(of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.

'Excessively' being a key word in the definition. You see the necessity, therefore I don't see how you can say they are draconian.

Yes. They are severe. They need to be.

Thelonious Monk

It's like calling measures taken during the blitz draconian, things had to be done for the greater good

ixoy

Tell me how wrote: »

You can exercise within 2km of home.
You can go out for shopping or other essential tasks.
You have access to food, shelter, heat, entertainment and information.

Anyone considering the rules as draconian at this point in time are either being ignorant or selfish.

The problem of course is that some people no longer have a job, a source of income, and that's pretty essential to them and not just them being "selfish".
I mean it's fine for me - I'm able to work from home - but I understand not everybody is in the same privileged position as me.

Bandana boy

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I don't share your incredulity of what the Chinese would be capable of.

Well then I think if you can not be moved by a missing 1.4M dead Chinese people to your theories then I am pretty sure their is no evidence can break through to you.

Continue on so

lainey_d_123

Blueshoe wrote: »

It's not that bad at all.

Where do you live, Blueshoe? Do you live in an overcrowded city which is a hotspot for coronavirus, in a tiny flat with no outside space? Do you have to go out into crowded streets to get food?

tobefrank321

brutes1 wrote: »

936 deaths. Only 46 of those without other health conditions .
The numbers quoted hide the true picture. How many actually die because of Covid? Or how many die with it but as a result of their underlying condition. ?The vast majority I suspect

Media and propaganda works. Question more.

from BBC
Britain's deadliest day since the Covid-19 outbreak began saw 936 more people die after testing positive.

The Department for Health confirmed the UK-wide total of 7,172 included 828 deaths in England.

Patients were aged between 22 and 103, including 46 people who had no known underlying conditions.

They need to do autopsies of those who die without underlying conditions. You cannot tell if someone has an underlying condition otherwise. Some might have a bad heart and succumbed to SADS with enough pressure on the heart. Some might have been bordering on obese, or pre-diabetic, dodgy liver from alcoholism and so on. Many of these conditions you wouldn't know about unless there was an autopsy. If they did autopsies they might find that many had in fact underlying conditions.

Thelonious Monk

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Where do you live, Blueshoe? Do you live in an overcrowded city which is a hotspot for coronavirus, in a tiny flat with no outside space? Do you have to go out into crowded streets to get food?

have you tried being more stoic about the situation? your constant moaning isn't going to make anything better, just accept it how it is, it wont be forever.

Tell me how

ixoy wrote: »

The problem of course is that some people no longer have a job, a source of income, and that's pretty essential to them and not just them being "selfish".
I mean it's fine for me - I'm able to work from home - but I understand not everybody is in the same privileged position as me.

Agree that it is far from ideal but, those who have lost their job, I understand, have access to government support of 350/week.

I am aware that in the past, government supports in terms of social welfare, were out of reach for many self employed, but again, I understand that that is not the case at this point.

There will, no doubt, be outliers, but such cases are in the minority I would imagine.

lainey_d_123

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

have you tried being more stoic about the situation? your constant moaning isn't going to make anything better, just accept it how it is, it wont be forever.

I'm not saying it will make anything better. I'm saying that a huge proportion of people are simply not going to hack this too much longer. That's a fact.

Just because you people living in nice, comfortable houses with gardens and a fully stocked freezer can't imagine any other reality doesn't make it untrue.

Tell me how

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Where do you live, Blueshoe? Do you live in an overcrowded city which is a hotspot for coronavirus, in a tiny flat with no outside space? Do you have to go out into crowded streets to get food?

Are you not advocating for a reduction in restrictions?

Surely then the streets will only be busier?

lainey_d_123

Tell me how wrote: »

Are you not advocating for a reduction in restrictions?

Surely then the streets will only be busier?

No. I'm pointing out that this strict lockdown will inevitably need to end within the next 6 weeks. People simply will not keep it up any longer, and there aren't the resources to police it.

Plumbthedepths

Tell me how wrote: »

Anyone considering the rules as draconian at this point in time are either being ignorant or selfish.

The ignorance on display here is your insistence that self imposed restrictions are no different than what has been imposed by law with accompanying penalties on the general population here.
YOU have a choice, the people in this country at present don't enjoy that particular freedom you have.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

brutes1 wrote: »

936 deaths. Only 46 of those without other health conditions .
The numbers quoted hide the true picture. How many actually die because of Covid? Or how many die with it but as a result of their underlying condition. ?The vast majority I suspect

Media and propaganda works. Question more.

from BBC
Britain's deadliest day since the Covid-19 outbreak began saw 936 more people die after testing positive.

The Department for Health confirmed the UK-wide total of 7,172 included 828 deaths in England.

Patients were aged between 22 and 103, including 46 people who had no known underlying conditions.

Think you replied to the wrong post here...? This is nothing to do with what I wrote.

seamusk84

I would love the restrictions to be lifted on Sunday.

But I am also not an idiot....

Blueshoe

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Where do you live, Blueshoe? Do you live in an overcrowded city which is a hotspot for coronavirus, in a tiny flat with no outside space? Do you have to go out into crowded streets to get food?

Pretty similar actually. Theres a bit of a carpark though. I can also go outside to walk within a 2k radius. Il drive to the local SuperValu for provisions.

Imagine how much of a "hotspot for coronavirus" that city would be without these restrictions in place.
Until the threat disappears we will hold our resolve. Stay strong.

If you deliberately flout the restrictions you are possibly putting the lives of others at risk. This should be a criminal offence and heavily punished

Tell me how

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

No. I'm pointing out that this strict lockdown will inevitably need to end within the next 6 weeks. People simply will not keep it up any longer, and there aren't the resources to police it.

FFS. That is the intent of everyone! Especially the people who have implemented these short term rules.

The better we adhere to them, the shorter the time they will be there for.

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It's like calling measures taken during the blitz draconian, things had to be done for the greater good

Actually Pubs, parks, cinemas, theatres were all open during the Blitz, I'm not suggesting these should be open but it's best if you're going to use an analogy you chose something more relevant.

Nermal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

have you tried being more stoic about the situation?

Forcing us to stay indoors in case we catch a virus with a 0.25% chance of killing us is the stoic course of action, then?

Thelonious Monk

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Actually Pubs, parks, cinemas, theatres were all open during the Blitz, I'm not suggesting these should be open but it's best if you're going to use an analogy you chose something more relevant.

I thought everything had to be shut down at night, the blackout etc.

housemouse

Tell me how wrote: »

FFS. That is the intent of everyone! Especially the people who have implemented these short term rules.

The better we adhere to them, the shorter the time they will be there for.

Or it will prolong the crisis, since it will take longer for the virus to spread (which it will do anyway).

Social distancing means that the old and vulnerable will need to be sheltered from contact with the young and healthy for longer.

Thelonious Monk

Nermal wrote: »

Forcing us to stay indoors in case we catch a virus with a 0.25% chance of killing us is the stoic course of action, then?

Making the most of the situation and taking it one day at a time would be my approach anyway