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

dalyboy

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah yes. Poor Donald didn't say anything stupid, he's just been misrepresented by the snowflakes at CNN. Again.

Did that excuse not get worn out after the 500th time?

No. It’s the reality of what happened so I’m not making an excuse at all. Did you here the entire exchange he was having at that briefing ?

LiquidZeb

Hurrache wrote: »

So remind me again, who's lying, what didn't happen? There may be a wall near you so don't back pedal too furiously.

I'm not backpedalling, try reading it a bit slower, you brought up deaths amongst American grocers. The article is a month old. 30 deaths out of millions of workers and there's been no coverage since so it's clearly not the calamity you portrayed it as. I hope it's simple enough for you.

Tokyo

TheCitizen wrote: »

Spoken like a true Covid denier with all the hallmarks of a Trump fanboy. Has Gemma Doherty and John Waters taken over Boards.ie now that their idiotic waste of time court case failed?

Mod: Quit it with the rhetoric and post on topic. if you don't, I'll remove you from the thread.

LiquidZeb

Hurrache wrote: »

Why are you trying to change the narrative?

It's apropos of nothing relevant to what the poster asked, and what was to read media from outside of Ireland on the topic, which I did.

You Cherry picked a month old article and the issue hasn't had any coverage since. It's irrelevant

dalyboy

TheCitizen wrote: »

OMG, you actually believe him don't you:pac:

No need for belief. I heard the entire briefing. He was being sarcastic. We can do this all day if you want , back and forth but I reckon we are waaaaaay off topic tbh

LiquidZeb

TheCitizen wrote: »

No mate, I was referring to what his hero Trump advised or suggested to him and others to do.

Classy. If someone said it to you you'd probably whinge endlessly about echo Chambers and abuse.

Irish Aris

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Just going to jump in here before someone completely misrepresents what happened at the meeting and goes on a rant. No recommendation to reduce the 2m, but bere's a bit from an article on the Independent:

Earlier this week, Mr Holohan said the 2m social distancing restriction was not a rule but rather “guidance” offered by the National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet).

“It is guidance and like any guidance it has to be interpreted by people at an individual level and then by organisations,” he added.

In other words, people should use some cop on and make their own decisions.

I think many do that already. the last few days with gatherings outside allowed, I have seen people sitting in the grass enjoying the weather - keeping some distance which in some cases looked less than 2 meters. I guess many people adjust their habits, though I'm not sure whether this social distancing will/can be maintained for very long.

snowcat

Hurrache wrote: »

It's not me that question should be directed at, it's an accurate representation of LiquidZeb.

It is you. You have floated this scaremongering suggestion that shop workers are at substantial risk with absolutely no credibility or evidence. Now post your evidence or withdraw the suggestion.

TheCitizen

dalyboy wrote: »

No need for belief. I heard the entire briefing. He was being sarcastic. We can do this all day if you want , back and forth but I reckon we are waaaaaay off topic tbh

Right I get ya.

Still in response to your post; if he was actually being sarcastic on a public health briefing well that's equally ridiculous and stupid.

Jackman25

Arghus wrote: »

If case numbers keep falling, then waiting until August won't happen.

So you think there will be a "Relaxation of Restrictions" before the scheduled plan then?

Hurrache

LiquidZeb wrote: »

I'm not backpedalling, try reading it a bit slower, you brought up deaths amongst American grocers. The article is a month old. 30 deaths out of millions of workers and there's been no coverage since so it's clearly not the calamity you portrayed it as. I hope it's simple enough for you.

Let's see shall we...


Post your basing your misunderstanding on, and also the one you said I've lied about.

Hurrache wrote: »

Ok so. USA Today, Washingpost and several others have all ran stories about the number of grocery workers who have died from Coronavirus.

But why aren't we following the US lead? Oh wait, I guess it's selectivity again, not the right 'media', not the right country, and other such bull****.

LiquidZeb wrote: »

I found one article by USA today from April 18th that said 30 have died. Across all of America. A country of 330 million people.

You acknowledged grocers died. Note I never mentioned a glut or high numbers, just posted stories related to the topic the poster asked to lookup outside of Ireland. Pretty straightforward.

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Btw your line about grocery workers in the US was absolute guff.

But hang on, you're now saying "my line" is guff. Not quite sure what you're talking about there.

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Yeah I have an allergy to guff and your post set me off. You can't criticise other people for posting nonsense and then go off about a supposed glut of deaths amongst American grocery workers that hasn't happened

More stuff about gluts. But you're now saying it's nonense. LiquidZeb won't be happy with that, only a couple of posts up did he say he read a story about 30 people dying. Didn't happen though.

Hurrache wrote: »

I never mentioned, or went off on, a glut of deaths at all.

Seems to be on point.

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Ok so. USA Today, Washingpost and several others have all ran stories about the number of grocery workers who have died from Coronavirus.

But why aren't we following the US lead? Oh wait, I guess it's selectivity again, not the right 'media', not the right country, and other such bull****.



You posted this about an alleged number of grocery workers who died. All
articles are a month old. You either lied or were ill informed.

This post has a split personality. Starts off acknowledging the story happened. Finished off with saying we were lied to, or just ill informed.

LiquidZeb wrote: »

I think the general point of contention with people is the lack of acknowledgement by the taoiseach, holohan and Harris that we as a country have done fantastically

Just messing, nothing to do with this story, but a complete fabrication all the same in keeping with your general posting.

Jackman25

Hurrache wrote: »

Why are you trying to change the narrative?

It's apropos of nothing relevant to what the poster asked, and what was to read media from outside of Ireland on the topic, which I did.

You have been badly exposed here today.

Hurrache

snowcat wrote: »

It is you. You have floated this scaremongering suggestion that shop workers are at substantial risk with absolutely no credibility or evidence. Now post your evidence or withdraw the suggestion.

Nope. Only people seemed to be seeing this story as scaremongering is yourself and the other poster.

You protest too much about a minor thing, maybe your motive is to shout down anything that you perceive may interfere with your argument? Actually, I'm certain that's your modus operandi.

Hurrache

Jackman25 wrote: »

You have been badly exposed here today.

And yet you won't be able to say why?

snowcat

Hurrache wrote: »

Nope. Only people seemed to be seeing this story as scaremongering is yourself and the other poster.

You protest too much about a minor thing, maybe your motive is to shout down anything that you perceive may interfere with your argument? Actually, I'm certain that's your modus operandi.

Jaysus. You are a little unhinged. I will just ignore you from now on.

Goldengirl

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do they have the same population density?
The same societal norms?
The same methods of recording deaths and infection rates?
The same trust in and adherence to Government advice and guidelines?
The same capacity for dealing with a sudden resurgence?
The same infrastructure in place to deal with everything?

How is any of that lacking in credibility?

Take a look around you, next time you're out. People can't even stand on a sticker on the ground, FFS. If there was a massive relaxation of restrictions, there is a sizeable portion of the population who would turn around and go "F*ck it, I'm gonna do what I want" which would possibly set us back weeks. Take your time, do it right, do it once.

Agree completely with this , and have said the same weeks ago , as it happens to the same guy
However this is an echo chamber where the same type of posters as the one you are replying to are more interested in the their own post and how many thanks they get than actually rationally discussing the issue , or listening to anything other than rants and rails against the government, NPHET , and removing restrictions And that is ok but it makes for a very tiresome thread for everyone else.
So it goes around and around..

Hurrache

snowcat wrote: »

Jaysus. You are a little unhinged. I will just ignore you from now on.

Thanks for the offer. You'll be ignoring reality in the process, but that suits you.

LiquidZeb

Hurrache wrote: »

Nope. Only people seemed to be seeing this story as scaremongering is yourself and the other poster.

You protest too much about a minor thing, maybe your motive is to shout down anything that you perceive may interfere with your argument? Actually, I'm certain that's your modus operandi.

No it's to call out nonsense. It's clear what the implication of your initial post was no matter how much you're trying to smokescreen it now. The only impression one would get from your first post is that grocers in America were dropping like flies. Now are you going to admit that's not true?

Arghus

dalyboy wrote: »

Anyone with underlined illnesses.

So we should cocoon the over 65s. Okay, not a small amount of people.

And those with underlying conditions. Equally, not a small amount of people.

What about those at increased risk from the disease. The obese? Diabetics? Asthmatics? Children and adults with developmental issues?

There's a lot of people out there that qualify as vulnerable.

Now, we'll have to keep these people isolated, presumably indefinitely - because if nobody else is under any form of restrictions or lockdown then we won't be making efforts really to suppress the disease in the community at large, so it should be spreading pretty freely, until we're all immune - which could take an indeterminate period of time - or maybe there is a vaccine, which is not guaranteed. So the risk to those cocooning is a lot greater and more prolonged if the spread in the wider community is completely unmitigated.

And what about the people who come into close contact with all these vulnerable people. Family members who live under the same roof? Carers? Nurses? Doctors? They'll have to be careful too because they'll be living and working out there in the community, where there won't be any containment measures on the virus. Maybe they should cocoon too, considering that their contact with the vulnerable is risky, but unavoidable.

And hospitals could still be a risky proposition, considering that they too more than likely will have covid floating around in them, considering that it's out there in the community.

It's quite complicated to just isolate the "vulnerable". They arent some tiny group, that's easily defined, that has no contact with outside of that group.

It's an easy solution on the surface: "isolate the vulnerable!", but when you start to look at it you realise how complicated it is and potentially never ending - because if you're letting everyone else get on with it you aren't suppressing the virus, so it'll continue to circulate, maintaining the level of risk to those in vulnerable groups.

Alternatively, you could try to eliminate community transmission of the virus by placing restrictions on place on everyone, but for a much shorter period of time. And you'll save a few extra lives too.

road_high

snowcat wrote: »

Jaysus. You are a little unhinged. I will just ignore you from now on.

I've done that already...like Simon Harris on a larger dose of something.

LiquidZeb

road_high wrote: »

I've done that already...like Simon Harris on a larger dose of something.

I wonder if the American grocers caught it off your one who went for a walk in Mourne last week?

dalyboy

dalyboy wrote: »

No need for belief. I heard the entire briefing. He was being sarcastic. We can do this all day if you want , back and forth but I reckon we are waaaaaay off topic tbh

And very Presidential - Trump does nothing that it not to the benefit of Trumps ego. Nothing else. The world is only lucky he spends most of his time stroking his ego watching Fox and reporting the latest conspiracy from judicial watch rather than actually making decisions. He is a failed businessman kept afloat because his creditors recognised that his brand could get them some of there money back. Otherwise he would be living in a condo on some dodgy golf course somewhere shouting at his neighbours. Only trouble is by stoking the embers of his brand, 45% of Americans brought into the fallacy that his was some sort of sage business genius. And to bring it back on topic, nothing in what Trump has stated throughout the whole Covid crisis has given the impression that he has any knowledge whatsoever on the subject. He should post here

Goldengirl

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The constant posts calling people fearful wasters who just want to watch netflix and don't give a feck about the economy are fairly tiresome as well.

Funny people don't seem to complain about those as much.

Probably because those posts are so not worth replying yo .
However unfortunately it does leave these posters with the impression that they are right or are in the majority.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

To put it like this, R0 in march was about 3. Each infected person infected 3 people, from, for example, 30 opportunities.
Lockdown reduced R0 to 0.5. Eg. Opportunities for infection reduced from 30 to 5. The disease did not become less infectious therefore the only way this happens is through reduced opportunities for infection.
If we then remove some restrictions, such that the opportunities for infection increase up to 15, R0 goes to 1.5. I think it is reasonable to assume that significant easing of restrictions would not do anymore than this, as large gatherings are still restricted, many people are working from home, and significant social distancing is in place, even if a small minority are flouting it.

The difference in an R0 of 1.5 and 3 is the difference between 1 case becoming 60 and 1 case becoming 20,000 over the course of 8 weeks. That's why easing restrictions now is relatively low risk. Even if what has happened in mainland Europe is off by a factor of 50%, we still have time to react, and all the evidence is that it will be 1 or lower in which case we will remain stable. The only data from Ireland that could change that analysis is new clusters, not connected to previous cases, and, well that could happen at any time

Another sensible post, hard to disagree with much of it. The only thing I'd add is in reference to the bit in bold. We don't know yet what the evidence will be. It is promising so far, yes, but the whole point of the timeline is to see the effect of any previous relaxation on the infection rate. I think this is the 5th time I've said it, but come early next week we will have a much clearer picture.

For the record, I think the restrictions should and will be lifted in a much quicker timeframe than indicated. It is clear that the phases were staggered in such a way as to cover a worst case scenario. They are under-predicting the recovery with a hope of over-delivering it. A trick that politicians have used since time immemorial.

manniot2

I see Lord Holohan has told our ministers there will be no change to the 2m rule. The man has a nation under control and he aint letting go anytime soon.

manniot2

manniot2 wrote: »

I see Lord Holohan has told our ministers there will be no change to the 2m rule. The man has a nation under control and he aint letting go anytime soon.

Lord Holohan has made it clear its a guideline not a rule, with each person free to implement what they feel is appropriate to their business

stephenjmcd

manniot2 wrote: »

I see Lord Holohan has told our ministers there will be no change to the 2m rule. The man has a nation under control and he aint letting go anytime soon.

To be fair he left it fairly open earlier in the week. I'm no fan of him or NPHET and they've got a hell of alot wrong, but there is this.
"Earlier this week, Mr Holohan said the 2m social distancing restriction was not a rule but rather “guidance”

So it's only guidance, their own booklet says 1m ideally 2m, so essentially figure out what's best in your own circumstances

manniot2

manniot2 wrote: »

I see Lord Holohan has told our ministers that the advice is there will be no change to the 2m rule. The man has a nation under control and he aint letting go anytime soon.

Fixed that for you there chief, anything to have a go at someone who is vastly more qualified to give this advice than a randomer on a chat form, though, eh?

JDxtra

manniot2 wrote: »

I see Lord Holohan has told our ministers there will be no change to the 2m rule. The man has a nation under control and he aint letting go anytime soon.

Tony needs to take a chill-pill.

Hurrache

LiquidZeb wrote: »

No it's to call out nonsense. It's clear what the implication of your initial post was no matter how much you're trying to smokescreen it now. The only impression one would get from your first post is that grocers in America were dropping like flies. Now are you going to admit that's not true?

You can't argue against your own argument. And you can only argue against what was said.

You're managing to do the opposite of both those things.

Only you can understand your own comprehension.