Relaxation of Restrictions, Part III - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

tobefrank321

Hurrache wrote: »

I have made it clear from the outset, over and over, that the problem I have is the dumb argument people are using that because our numbers are so low, we basically didn't need to have bothered with a lock down.

Nobody who has put that argument forward has been able to deal with or understand it, including you. Your tactic, obvious with your most recent post, and the one previous, is to ignore it and retort with a wall of irrelevant questions and points.

I think the majority who are in favour of relaxing restrictions were in favour of the lockdown as a temporary measure, but it cannot be sustained longterm for many reasons. A lockdown is something you go for as a last resort, when all other measures have failed.

The high risk areas appear to be nursing homes, hospitals and factories where people are close together for 8 hours a day. And they will always be the high risk areas lockdown or no lockdown.

CruelSummer

Hurrache wrote: »

I have made it clear from the outset, over and over, that the problem I have is the dumb argument people are using that because our numbers are so low, we basically didn't need to have bothered with a lock down.

Nobody who has put that argument forward has been able to deal with or understand it, including you. Your tactic, obvious with your most recent post, and the one previous, is to ignore it and retort with a wall of irrelevant questions and points.

I don’t engage with trolling behaviour who are goading for a reaction. You should be on this thread for a debate and all you’re doing is attacking posts. I asked you very specific questions to understand your point of view.
What is it besides attacking my posts?

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

But raind in the post you replied to specifically I'm talking about the future, not hindight - in response to claims that we would need restrictions for years ahead.

Say (for argument's sake) that we have followed the correct policy up to now. But what I'm saying is that the moral aspect of separating families, preventing new family formation etc. begins to change in character the longer it goes on.

Three years of not allowing people to live their lives is different to three weeks, not just numerically but morally.

I agree, we need to free up peoples lives at a faster pace, and the level of measure we had in place could and should not be maintained, from a health and welfare point of view firstly, but also economically.
My original post on section of the thread however was trying to address those suggestions that what has been done up to now has achieved nothing when it clearly did reduce transmission, to which the response from you and others was that there was no evidence that the lockdown achieved anything more than social distancing would have, and that is what I was addressing. Well Sweden, Texas and elsewhere is that evidence - R0 has remained at 1 following initial surge with death rates not falling yet, whereas for example Austria, Switzerland, Germany etc also had a similar surge, but now have returned to a lower level of deaths than during surge, with R0 now normalising around 1 and a lower base daily death rate.

Hurrache

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I think the majority who are in favour of relaxing restrictions were in favour of the lockdown as a temporary measure, but it cannot be sustained longterm for many reasons. A lockdown is something you go for as a last resort, when all other measures have failed.

The high risk areas appear to be nursing homes, hospitals and factories where people are close together for 8 hours a day. And they will always be the high risk areas lockdown or no lockdown.

I don't disagree with you on this. But there's a cohort who do believe, retrospectively, that because the numbers are lower than predicted then the lock down wasn't needed without understanding the causality.

Hurrache

CruelSummer wrote: »

I don’t engage with trolling behaviour who are goading for a reaction. You should be on this thread for a debate and all you’re doing is attacking posts. I asked you very specific questions to understand your point of view.
What is it besides attacking my posts?

You're the one that ranted about the failure in the numbers reaching their forecasts and then argue against the lock down, an abject failure in understanding things.

Look, I understand you cannot return with a sensible answer to your claims, because there are none. And that's ok, but don't get offended by my quizzing you on them, telling me I'm attacking your posts when all I'm doing is pulling them apart, and resort to insinuating I'm trolling as an easy way out for yourself.

RugbyLad11

Since yesterday we've been allowed to meet friends from different households.

But very few people live less than 5km from their friends, so is everyone breaking the 5km limit?

To be honest, I think we could open up the whole country tomorrow and we would be grand. Obviously we'd keep in place social distancing and hand washing etc. There might be a rise in cases and even deaths but it would be an acceptable level and we'd have to balance things.

The big challenge is air travel and sports/events etc. Stopping air travel and big events likely had a much bigger impact in reducing cases than locking down.

Thats what we'll need to be most cautious about reopening. Ironically, Leo has already mentioned air travel. We can keep Ikea closed for months but I guarantee we won't want to upset the EU when they want free movement back.

I'd be in favour of us getting our own country going again as soon as possible. I personally don't care if we wait a few months to see how air travel goes between other countries first.

RugbyLad11

facehugger99 wrote: »

You've pretty much described every politician.

Most other politicians have more charisma so it's not as noticeable

CruelSummer

Hurrache wrote: »

You're the one that ranted about the failure in the numbers reaching their forecasts and then argue against the lock down, an abject failure in understanding things.

Look, I understand you cannot return with a sensible answer to your claims, because there are none. And that's ok, but don't get offended by my quizzing you on them, telling me I'm attacking your posts when all I'm doing is pulling them apart, and resort to insinuating I'm trolling as an easy way out for yourself.

You’ve answered no question re where you stand, tried to throw in an anti vaccine argument into it from nowhere, given no point of view and contributed nothing to the debate for either side.
I respect all opinions and points of view. Good day.

Stormyteacup

Hurrache wrote: »

I have made it clear from the outset, over and over, that the problem I have is the dumb argument people are using that because our numbers are so low, we basically didn't need to have bothered with a lock down.

Nobody who has put that argument forward has been able to deal with or understand it, including you. Your tactic, obvious with your most recent post, and the one previous, is to ignore it and retort with a wall of irrelevant questions and points.

There really aren’t many saying a lockdown was unnecessary. I believe it was, mainly because it would have been impossible to social distance in pre-lockdown Ireland enough to suppress the virus.

But that doesn’t negate evidence that in theory social distancing alone could be sufficient to keep virus suppressed, if done properly. There are difficulties in certain industries to social distance enough here that’s understood.

But I’m definitely arguing that the numbers have been so low for enough weeks that the level of lockdown in our roadmap is not justified.

And that we are not being properly informed of relevant trend numbers, that we are being treated with disdain (again) by the government, and that we are being subjected to a biased (or lazy) reporting by the media.

Irish Aris

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

Since yesterday we've been allowed to meet friends from different households.

But very few people live less than 5km from their friends, so is everyone breaking the 5km limit?

No, not yet. I live outside of Drogheda and my 3-4 closest friends are all in Dublin and they will be able to meet outdoors and they will all be within 5km of where they live.

My plan is that if the numbers of new cases continues to fall and stay low, I will start travelling to Dublin when phase 2 kicks in, on June 8th. By then the restriction will be 20 km. I am double that distance but I will chance it once a week, taking all the necessary precautions. There is a medical reason that I could use if stopped by the police (my best friend is also a personal trainer and a coach and helps me with my back pains and other muscle injuries) but in reality it isn't essential - I only had mild back pains the last few weeks.
I know people say that technology is there and you can connect with people but for me it doesn't work the same as meeting with my friends in person, even when we have to stay 2 meters apart. For me it is still better than a video call. I haven't met with anyone I know since the 24th of March (I live on my own) and it starts taking its toll on me.

If numbers of cases go up, I guess I might have to readjust my above plan. I reckon we will only know on week 3 of the current phase. . .

polesheep

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't disagree with you on this. But there's a cohort who do believe, retrospectively, that because the numbers are lower than predicted then the lock down wasn't needed without understanding the causality.

There are those of us who believed, at the time, that the full lockdown was not required and that a partial lockdown of the vulnerable allied to social distancing, good hygiene, etc would have been enough. You believe that the lockdown was required, but you can no more prove it than I can prove my position.

Breezin

Irish Aris wrote: »

No, not yet. I live outside of Drogheda and my 3-4 closest friends are all in Dublin and they will be able to meet outdoors and they will all be within 5km of where they live.

My plan is that if the numbers of new cases continues to fall and stay low, I will start travelling to Dublin when phase 2 kicks in, on June 8th. By then the restriction will be 20 km. I am double that distance but I will chance it once a week, taking all the necessary precautions. There is a medical reason that I could use if stopped by the police (my best friend is also a personal trainer and a coach and helps me with my back pains and other muscle injuries) but in reality it isn't essential - I only had mild back pains the last few weeks.
I know people say that technology is there and you can connect with people but for me it doesn't work the same as meeting with my friends in person, even when we have to stay 2 meters apart. For me it is still better than a video call. I haven't met with anyone I know since the 24th of March (I live on my own) and it starts taking its toll on me.

If numbers of cases go up, I guess I might have to readjust my above plan. I reckon we will only know on week 3 of the current phase. . .

Fully justified and reasonable. But it's a pity that officialdom is encouraging this sort of pragmatic individual response so that they can save face and hold on desperately to their strong leadership role.

iamwhoiam

Of all restrictions right now the 5kms is daft

MrDavid1976

Irish Aris wrote: »

No, not yet. I live outside of Drogheda and my 3-4 closest friends are all in Dublin and they will be able to meet outdoors and they will all be within 5km of where they live.

My plan is that if the numbers of new cases continues to fall and stay low, I will start travelling to Dublin when phase 2 kicks in, on June 8th. By then the restriction will be 20 km. I am double that distance but I will chance it once a week, taking all the necessary precautions. There is a medical reason that I could use if stopped by the police (my best friend is also a personal trainer and a coach and helps me with my back pains and other muscle injuries) but in reality it isn't essential - I only had mild back pains the last few weeks.
I know people say that technology is there and you can connect with people but for me it doesn't work the same as meeting with my friends in person, even when we have to stay 2 meters apart. For me it is still better than a video call. I haven't met with anyone I know since the 24th of March (I live on my own) and it starts taking its toll on me.

If numbers of cases go up, I guess I might have to readjust my above plan. I reckon we will only know on week 3 of the current phase. . .

If there is a medical reason and indeed an important element of medicine is preventative and that goes for mental health also, is there a reason to wait until 8 June?

growleaves

South Africa:

"With increasing knowledge of the virus, we now know that those most vulnerable are the elderly and those with comorbidities. However, people under 30, and school-going children are not," Gray added.

"So, then you deal with those people. You don't put the whole country into lockdown because you don't know how to deal with [the] elderly and the people who have vulnerabilities.

"South Africans bought in, and everyone tightened their belts and took the lockdown with grace. During that period, we failed to deliver water, we failed to deliver food parcels and we failed to make households on the brink of devastation safe.

Sanne said the extended lockdown was having a negative impact on the healthcare system.

He added that normal, non-Covid-related diseases were not receiving attention.

Sanne told News24 there had been an increase in missed appointments by HIV patients of between 40% and 60% since the lockdown, and a similar issue was expected for diabetes and other illnesses needing chronic medication.

There had been a substantive decline in childhood vaccination programmes, he said, which scientists believed would lead to a substantial outbreak of childhood diseases in the future.

Another example was semi-urgent surgeries, like spinal surgeries or early onset cancer treatments.

Maternity screenings are also being affected, possibly leading to an increase in maternal and early childhood-related illnesses.

Hospital admissions had declined by 75% in the private sector, although the same data was not available for public sector hospitals.

"It may be because of the fear of Covid-19, we don't know, but elective procedures are not happening. While we don't have that many Covid-19 patients admitted, we should be using the opportunity to catch up on elective surgery," Sanne said.

"Infections are inevitable. Sixty percent or so of our country will become infected over the next two years, but limiting the rate of infection is not going to come through lockdown," Mendelson said.

He suggested a "rapid de-escalation" of the lockdown to Level 1.

While the central questions the government is asking are about balancing the impact of the lockdown with the rate of infections, Mendelson said he believed "that the evidence they are basing their assumptions on is wrong".

"Lockdown in its current form is doing more harm than good and, given the resource constraints of the country, we need to re-focus the central tenet of prevention on the non-therapeutic interventions already described, while opening up the economy quicker."

FintanMcluskey

MrDavid1976 wrote: »

If there is a medical reason and indeed an important element of medicine is preventative and that goes for mental health also, is there a reason to wait until 8 June?

Its all incredibly scientific from what I can see.

If one travels 6km from their homes on the 7th of June the grim reaper will be notified using google maps.

Likewise for the health risk of barbers which will immediately dissipate at midnight July 19th.

polesheep

polesheep wrote: »

There are those of us who believed, at the time, that the full lockdown was not required and that a partial lockdown of the vulnerable allied to social distancing, good hygiene, etc would have been enough. You believe that the lockdown was required, but you can no more prove it than I can prove my position.

There is evidence that countries that acted in time, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark for example and Ireland to a lesser extent, did not avoid the same surge that countries such as Sweden which had social distancing only had, but in contrast to Sweden these countries have now fallen to a very low level relative to peak, while Sweden has remained at or close to peak levels. Looking at the data, Austria, Germany, Denmark and Sweden all now probably have an R0 close to 1, however the daily death rate in the first 3 is a fraction of that in Sweden as the lockdown cut transmission to the minimum before the start of easing restrictions

Irish Aris

MrDavid1976 wrote: »

If there is a medical reason and indeed an important element of medicine is preventative and that goes for mental health also, is there a reason to wait until 8 June?

You're probably right.
At the moment I'm still coping fairly OK. The good thing is that I have a couple of colleagues that live close by, so that could be a temporary alternative - meet them for a takeaway coffee. That could take care the mental health aspect.

The good thing is that I will be very busy with work for the next 2 weeks, and I always find it a good distraction.

I just try to take it one day at a time

polesheep

Deleted User wrote: »

There is evidence that countries that acted in time, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark for example and Ireland to a lesser extent, did not avoid the same surge that countries such as Sweden which had social distancing only had, but in contrast to Sweden these countries have now fallen to a very low level relative to peak, while Sweden has remained at or close to peak levels. Looking at the data, Austria, Germany, Denmark and Sweden all now probably have an R0 close to 1, however the daily death rate in the first 3 is a fraction of that in Sweden as the lockdown cut transmission to the minimum before the start of easing restrictions

But Sweden failed to protect the vulnerable with a partial lockdown, which I stated should have been part of every government's response. Plus, we will have to wait and see, if we ever can, what the overall death toll will be, both from Covid-19 and from other causes that could have been avoided had there been no lockdown in place.

growleaves

But Sweden failed to protect the vulnerable with a partial lockdown, which I stated should have been part of every government's response.

I would like to see which countries did protect nursing homes effectively, and see that comparison.

Ireland, Sweden, UK, Spain, NYC (yeah I know its not a country) and others failed.

is_that_so

Stormyteacup wrote: »

The fact that there's a vacuum in hearing from experts with differing opinions to NPHET is telling in itself.

I don't necessarily agree with Marcus de Brun's theories but he is an expert in the medical field. He resigned from NPHET in April over their decision on care homes. It was poorly thought out when he asked RTE to make a donation of €10,000 to ALONE in exchange for an interview.

He apologised, since then RTE has written or reported nothing about him, or his opinons. If you're main source of news is RTE, you won't have heard much detail about his resignation.

He was effectively a 'whistle-blower' over the decisions made by NPHET over care homes, yet doesn't warrant even one article in RTE (with or without comment by him).

There are a whole lot of "Listen to me I'm a doctor" voices out there, regardless of their specialty. He resigned from the Irish Medical Council BTW not NPHET. What exactly are they going to ask him as he's a care home GP and that has now been addressed?

is_that_so

growleaves wrote: »

I would like to see which countries did protect nursing homes effectively, and see that comparison.

Ireland, Sweden, UK, Spain, NYC (yeah I know its not a country) and others failed.

That will be a very short list, maybe Germany, NZ and Australia? The vast majority of countries with large nursing homes sectors ran into the issue.

Irish Aris

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Its all incredibly scientific from what I can see.

If one travels 6km from their homes on the 7th of June the grim reaper will be notified using google maps.

Likewise for the health risk of barbers which will immediately dissipate at midnight July 19th.

The way I interpret the whole easing of restrictions is that travelling only 5 km away from home, reduces the radius and makes tracing easier. On the other hand though the authorities seem to struggle on an effective tracing approach and, frankly, I think that unless they have something in place by the time of phase 2, then that's it.

On another note, I was just checking the thread with the statistics that GM228 has created and updates daily. If I read the numbers correctly, there are nearly 20000 people that recovered and around 3500 confirmed active cases. If this trend of low new daily cases continues, then the numbers will look very solid. I still don't think that they will be any acceleration for phase 2, but maybe some room to bring elements of phases 4 and 5 to phase 3.

Hurrache

CruelSummer wrote: »

You’ve answered no question re where you stand, tried to throw in an anti vaccine argument into it from nowhere, given no point of view and contributed nothing to the debate for either side.
I respect all opinions and points of view. Good day.

Because where I stand on the way forward from this point is utterly irrelevant to what you have said regarding the fact there was no need for such a lock down given the numbers we have.

Hurrache

polesheep wrote: »

There are those of us who believed, at the time, that the full lockdown was not required and that a partial lockdown of the vulnerable allied to social distancing, good hygiene, etc would have been enough. You believe that the lockdown was required, but you can no more prove it than I can prove my position.

And it's not your stance that I have issue with, we may agree or disagree on it, but that was your stance.

You're not retrospectively claiming that the lock down wasn't needed and justifying that stance using the resulting numbers.

Wibbs

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Of all restrictions right now the 5kms is daft

At the start I was very compliant with the travel restrictions(outside of work when required and what I was allowed to do).

Right until I saw ten families of Travellers were allowed to arrive in the country from one of the worst hit countries in Europe, go 50+ kms inland and set up an illegal encampment on government land. At the height of our lockdown when I and the rest of us were going through checkpoints being asked where we were going. Never mind the up and down testing, crap contact tracing, no quarantines etc. Sod that half arsed amateur hour ballsology. Since then I pretty much ignore it TBH and if needs be I'll ignore the 5Kms too. I still practice social distancing, haven't crossed the threshold of anywhere but shops since this kicked off, even wear masks when I do *gasp*, but wholly arbitrary distance limits? Bollocks.

growleaves

Link

I hope the intervention did not have too much of an impact because it most likely made the situation worse. The intervention was to ‘flatten the curve’. That means that there would be the same number of cases but spread out over a longer period of time, because otherwise the hospitals would not have enough capacity.

Now, as we know, children and young adults do not end up in hospitals. It is only those who are both elderly and have comorbidities that do. Therefore you have to protect the elderly and the nursing homes. The ideal approach would be to simply shut the door of the nursing homes and keep the personnel and the elderly locked in for a certain amount of time, and pay the staff overtime to stay there for 24 hours per day.

How long can you do that for? For three weeks, that is possible. For 18 months, it is not. The flattening of the curve, the prolongation of the epidemic, makes it more difficult to protect the elderly, who are at risk. More of the elderly people become infected, and we have more deaths.

Firstly, we have the direct consequences: suicides, domestic violence and other social consequences leading to death. And then we have people who are too scared to go to the hospitals for other problems like strokes or heart attacks. So people stay away from hospitals because of the Covid fear. And then they die.

is_that_so

growleaves wrote: »

Link

He's not saying anything terribly new at all at this stage. Yes, there is an awareness of the cure being worse than the disease and there has been since day 1. The curve flattening is almost a cliché it's been used so much. Our extended unwinding gives us plenty and to see how it goes for us and how it's going for other countries. Bear in mind it's now 13 working days to Phase 2!

Irish Aris

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest, I think we could open up the whole country tomorrow and we would be grand. Obviously we'd keep in place social distancing and hand washing etc. There might be a rise in cases and even deaths but it would be an acceptable level and we'd have to balance things.

The big challenge is air travel and sports/events etc. Stopping air travel and big events likely had a much bigger impact in reducing cases than locking down.

Thats what we'll need to be most cautious about reopening. Ironically, Leo has already mentioned air travel. We can keep Ikea closed for months but I guarantee we won't want to upset the EU when they want free movement back.

I'd be in favour of us getting our own country going again as soon as possible. I personally don't care if we wait a few months to see how air travel goes between other countries first.

In my home country Greece, as of yesterday travelling anywhere in the country is allowed.
I got an email from Aegean Airlines (the biggest airline company in Greece), that they will start domestic flights straight away. For international flights they mention: "We are getting ready to gradually restore international operations in the coming weeks and months. Initially we plan to restart operations with a limited schedule from Athens to Munich, Frankfurt, Geneva and Zurich. At the same time, we shall increase flights operating to Brussels, which is the only international destination that we didn't suspend. Soon, more destinations will be added".
in the coming weeks and months: the reality is that they don't really know exactly when they will be able to operate. I reckon demand will play a role. The cities mentioned are interesting: the plan is that tourism will operate in the summer and the Greek islands would be a popular destination for German tourists.