Relaxation of restrictions Part II

easypazz

pjohnson wrote: »

Still peddling this again ah this thread is great.

Its true though.

pjohnson

easypazz wrote: »

Its true though.

Can maybe guess why the death rate is low? Any reason other than the power of work?

Beasty

Stark wrote: »

0.99... (recurring).

That actually results in this being a perpetual disease remaining at its current level

dalyboy

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1258804800789102593?s=19

This gives an indication as to how the population is affected by age group in terms of lifting restrictions and how deadly the virus could be by age group.

Let the vast majority of us get back into the workplace and go about our lives in as safe a manner as possible

I wonder how these Under 80 years old numbers breakdown in comparison to an influenza season. If they are equal or under that number then this lockdown is a criminal scam.

easypazz

Beasty wrote: »

No - flattening the curve has worked very well in this country. Yes we are starting to see some relaxation in certain countries - some of those countries were not as badly affected, but others were affected a number of weeks before Ireland

We now have a plan. I would personally prefer the restrictions to be lifted quicker than the plan. There is scope to do that

However what we can do ahead of the next change on 18 May is observe what happens in some of those countries that were ahead of us. An R > 0 is still an issue. It can still climb back above 1. What we do not properly understand is how it will "react" to the lifting of particular restrictions

I personally, having been a little sceptical when this whole thing started off, now think I would prefer to overcook this particular egg than have a material risk of heading back to where we were a month ago. If we do end up like that we would probably then be looking at even stricter restrictions for an even longer period

Why are you fixated on the R number?

Cocoon the vulnerable groups and the whole thing changes.

FintanMcluskey

pjohnson wrote: »

Can maybe guess why the death rate is low? Any reason other than the power of work?

Or that the virus is most lethal to those at a much older age than anyone able to preform a days work.

Why some people think this is a death sentence to all ages is baffling when the stats are out there

kwestfan08

pjohnson wrote: »

Still peddling this again ah this thread is great.

But if you're under say 40 with no underlying conditions, not obese and not in contact with anyone that is it is relatively harmless no?

FintanMcluskey

kwestfan08 wrote: »

But if you're under say 40 with no underlying conditions, not obese and not in contact with anyone that is it is relatively harmless no?

If you are under 80 with those stats the survival odd's are greatly stacked in your favour.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Its disgraceful, we are rightly the laughing stock of the world.

No one is laughing at us you ridiculous nutters

the kelt

Beasty wrote: »

"Coccoon the elderly and let us work" implies to me an acceptance of an increase in that R number. If we go down the route of opening everything up you appreciate that R number will increase? What is an acceptable number to you? What is an acceptable number of deaths to you?

To be fair it doesn’t really matter what’s its acceptable to any individual poster, that’s a matter of opinion for each individual.

But how can people put a number on what they would like when we don’t even know officially what the numbers are needing to be?

I would like the numbers to be whatever the powers that be are comfortable with for example would be a reasonable answer for anyone if they were given any indication what they might actually be.

Anyone have any idea what that might be?

No pointing in asking an average poster to give nunbers they would be happy with when there’s little guidance in regards to numbers or even criteria for measurement.

Maybe I missed it but there’s no reference to numbers being at a certain level in the road map.

Beasty

easypazz wrote: »

Why are you fixated on the R number?

Cocoon the vulnerable groups and the whole thing changes.

I was responding to another poster who mentioned it

However it is the most fundamental mathematical concept relating to this virus, and is the one thing that all people with responsibility for trying to control this are fixated on

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

If you are under 80 with those stats the survival odd's are greatly stacked in your favour.

20% plus of the population would need to cocoon for 12 months plus, not just the old, the you count those who live with them and you are probably closer roll to 30% of the population who cannot engage in economic activity for the long term. Massive impact on the remainder of the workforce from that. Take care in reopening will allow the bulk of those to also start engaging in economic activity, and though we would have a slower return to normality, we would actually ultimately get an embedded and sustained recovery

Beasty

New thread here

I'll leave this one open for a few minutes in case anyone wishes to make any further responses to recent posts

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

20% plus of the population would need to cocoon for 12 months plus, not just the old, the you count those who live with them and you are probably closer roll to 30% of the population who cannot engage in economic activity for the long term. Massive impact on the remainder of the workforce from that. Take care in reopening will allow the bulk of those to also start engaging in economic activity, and though we would have a slower return to normality, we would actually ultimately get an embedded and sustained recovery

But the reopening is not happening and currently 100% are isolated indefinitely.

The sum total of the information we can get is the the numbers need to be as low as possible.

On the build up to May 5th, we had been span lies about RO below 1 and ICU not overran and even though those targets were met the restrictions were extended.

I have no doubt the restrictions will continue as is beyond May 18th because the NPHET is unchallenged and the testing numbers won't be high enough. What has happened today is devoid of all signs of any easing of restrictions.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But the reopening is not happening and currently 100% are isolated indefinitely.

The sum total of the information we can get is the the numbers need to be as low as possible.

On the build up to May 5th, we had been span lies about RO below 1 and ICU not overran and even though those targets were met the restrictions were extended.

I have no doubt the restrictions will continue as is beyond May 18th because the NPHET is unchallenged and the testing numbers won't be high enough. What has happened today is devoid of all signs of any easing of restrictions.

I would take a bet with you on that. 18th will happen as planned and next phase will add more businesses to the scope. Today was wrong decision but was department of Ed decision

Dickie10

so do people think we could be pushed back another 2 weeks of this on may 18th?

JPCN1

Dickie10 wrote: »

so do people think we could be pushed back another 2 weeks of this on may 18th?

Not a chance imo.

Breezin

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But the reopening is not happening and currently 100% are isolated indefinitely.

The sum total of the information we can get is the the numbers need to be as low as possible.

On the build up to May 5th, we had been span lies about RO below 1 and ICU not overran and even though those targets were met the restrictions were extended.

I have no doubt the restrictions will continue as is beyond May 18th because the NPHET is unchallenged and the testing numbers won't be high enough. What has happened today is devoid of all signs of any easing of restrictions.

They are doubling down. They over-compensated for early laxity with a hard, dumb sledgehammer.
Now they don't have anything in their toolkit other than punitive restrictions and shifting goalposts. Meanwhile a vaccine is nowhere in sight.

castletownman

So 152 deaths in total among people under the age of 70 ie. the working population.

Wow. It's crazy how the economy is being made suffer for such low figures all things considered.

growleaves

This whole episode is the oddest thing that has ever happened.

There's no indication that covid is significantly more lethal than e.g. the flu of 2017-18.

Yet I don't remember anyone saying 'how many deaths will there be?' In fact I don't remember the flu of 2017-18 at all.

If people are that concerned with death from respiraory viruses then why haven't we already diverted all our tax monies to buy ventilators, given private donations to increase ICU capacity etc. Why wasn't the 'Beijing flu' of 1997 a wake-up call etc.?

This monomania is both very focused and very sudden.