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

PTH2009

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Always knew there would be a benefit to living in the border. Popped 10 mins up the road with the auld fella for a few Pints, the simple things

Did you bring your PPS Number :D

Idbatterim

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We absolutely have not. Social isolation is soul destroying. Having to keep two metres away from everyone who doesn't live in your household is soul destroying. Not being able to socialise in a crowd is soul destroying. It fundamentally flies in the face of human nature and it is not remotely hyperbolic to suggest that many peoples' mental health could be affected in a fatal way if this is it for the rest of our lives.

Nobody i know is living like this ... in relation to dating , online must be going through the roof, we are all comimg into contact with people relentlessly , regardless.

People need fo cop on and do what you think is reasonable, to hell with government...

Polar101

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Main point anyway that this stemmed from earlier is yes many social outlets aren't available and for some of us including myself that is proving difficult as being in my 20s the social circle personally is sporting events and concerts.

But sure someone will probably just say snowflake to all of that because it doesn't impact them at all.

You seem to be suggesting things are somehow tougher for people in their 20's. I don't think anyone is enjoying a pandemic, and I'd assume most people can't wait to see the end of it.

I'm not in my 20's, and this probably hasn't been the toughest period of my life, but I can't wait for things to go back to "normal". And I'm sure everyone is being affected somehow, be it socially, financially, mentally or whatever.

stephenjmcd

Polar101 wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting things are somehow tougher for people in their 20's. I don't think anyone is enjoying a pandemic, and I'd assume most people can't wait to see the end of it.

I'm not in my 20's, and this probably hasn't been the toughest period of my life, but I can't wait for things to go back to "normal". And I'm sure everyone is being affected somehow, be it socially, financially, mentally or whatever.

Nope not suggesting it, only using what I know from my own age bracket as an example when another user asked what social interaction is currently not available and gave the example of myself and my group of friends.

Its different as I've said for many other people. What impacts one person or group might have no impact on another person or group.

Some people might have their social outlets already back, coffee shops etc so they couldn't care less when sporting events etc return, others don't have social outlets back and may not for a long time to come.

Like I've said and you've mentioned it too, everyone is affected in different ways

pjohnson

Polar101 wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting things are somehow tougher for people in their 20's. I don't think anyone is enjoying a pandemic, and I'd assume most people can't wait to see the end of it.

I'm not in my 20's, and this probably hasn't been the toughest period of my life, but I can't wait for things to go back to "normal". And I'm sure everyone is being affected somehow, be it socially, financially, mentally or whatever.

Some of that age bracket only think of themselves. Hence the moronic house parties. When they grow up some get sense and responsibilities.

stephenjmcd

pjohnson wrote: »

Some of that age bracket only think of themselves. Hence the moronic house parties. When they grow up some get sense and responsibilities.

come on now, house parties haven't been confined to people in their 20s.

Plenty going on with alot of people much older than their 20s.

I've been asked to a fair few and not gone but its been a fairly broad age range at them all. The only ones that make the media are the ones with younger people but reality is its all age groups.

I know of a few 50th and 60th birthday parties being held in houses this coming bank holiday weekend for example with plenty invited. Where is their sense and responsibilities so ?

thelad95

thelad95 wrote: »

Wearing a mask does make more sense now. People are back socialising, back in work, back with a wider group of close contacts.

In April, when we were queuing up for an hour to get into SuperValu, people weren't going anywhere and the only close contacts they had were those they lived with.

Masks are a pro-active long term measure to living alongside the virus. Even if there's only a 60% uptake (roughly what I see day to day), this could mean that 60% of asymptomatic cases wear masks and don't spread a virus they don't even have a clue that they have. This can only be a good thing.

What exactly is your issue with it? If you don't feel comfortable doing it for whatever reason, then don't, every shop seems to either not be bothered policing it or too scared of pissing off a customer, so it's unlikely you'll be called out on it. The rest of us who want to be responsible and protect others will get on with it while you fulfil your pointless anti-mask agenda.

That is very contradictory. You can't say people were queuing for an hour and then say nobody was going anywhere. People were queuing for the only shops that were open.

Masks didn't help to flatten to curve (early May). They haven't helped to keep the numbers low ever since.

I wouldn't take anti biotics for an illness after I get better...

Captain_Crash

I have a few questions re: masks. I'm neither for nor against them and each to their own. Personally I've no issue wearing in places that ask as much. But I've not heard a convincing answer to the below, and I'm not trying to catch anyone out by the way, generally curious.

1) In the last four months, the places this virus impacted the worst was nursing homes and hospitals, places where masks have always been part of day to day life even before covid (more so in hospitals) and yet in supermarkets and shops, there wasn't a single cluster of cases despite no masks being required?

2) Many European countries mandated the wearing of masks in public early on yet looking at the "curves" there is no obvious difference between countries where masks were mandatory and countries where they were not. Basically, the speed in which cases rose then fell was pretty consistent across Europe. Ironically, Spain, where mask wearing is strictly enforced, some areas are now seeing increases in case numbers. If masks made any significant difference surely this wouldn't be the case?

To me, this says if masks were as effective as some believe, our hospitals and nursing homes would not have been hit as badly, and in theory you should be able to look at data from a mask wearing country vs a non mask country and see a clear difference in case numbers.

Many people (including in government and on this forum) have championed how good Ireland's response has been and how are numbers are excellent etc, yet it was all done without masks and during what looks to have been the height of the pandemic so far.

sideswipe

pjohnson wrote: »

Some of that age bracket only think of themselves. Hence the moronic house parties. When they grow up some get sense and responsibilities.

That’s the nature of being that age. Younger people seem to be the centre of the pearl clutching, curtain twitchers attention, it’s as if they were never young themselves.

Students have party= stupid cretins

Hundreds of Oldies out sings ole ole for Jack= Great to see.

My point is all the tut tutting in the world isn’t fair on anybody, yes we need to be careful- but how much putting important formative years on hold for young people can we expect long term.

FintanMcluskey

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I have a few questions re: masks. I'm neither for nor against them and each to their own. Personally I've no issue wearing in places that ask as much. But I've not heard a convincing answer to the below, and I'm not trying to catch anyone out by the way, generally curious.

1) In the last four months, the places this virus impacted the worst was nursing homes and hospitals, places where masks have always been part of day to day life even before covid (more so in hospitals) and yet in supermarkets and shops, there wasn't a single cluster of cases despite no masks being required?

2) Many European countries mandated the wearing of masks in public early on yet looking at the "curves" there is no obvious difference between countries where masks were mandatory and countries where they were not. Basically, the speed in which cases rose then fell was pretty consistent across Europe. Ironically, Spain, where mask wearing is strictly enforced, some areas are now seeing increases in case numbers. If masks made any significant difference surely this wouldn't be the case?

To me, this says if masks were as effective as some believe, our hospitals and nursing homes would not have been hit as badly, and in theory you should be able to look at data from a mask wearing country vs a non mask country and see a clear difference in case numbers.

Many people (including in government and on this forum) have championed how good Ireland's response has been and how are numbers are excellent etc, yet it was all done without masks and during what looks to have been the height of the pandemic so far.

Heard some interview on the radio a few days ago, dunno who was being interviewed, didnt hear.

Essentially to summarise what was being said, only the surgical grade masks have proven capabilites.

No evidence exists for any other type they said, specifically not cotton.

If you remember that Luke o Neill dude has repeatedly said any type of face coverings is fine, well thats utter bolix seemingly.

Someone on boards made a point a few days ago, about a pattern where Covid has had a high death rate over the 1st 40 days in a country and then the death rate drops off. The cases may rise but it death rate drops off completely. It seems to take vulnerable people initially and whats left is stronger people who have no danger to their lives.

I thought it quite an interesting point, of course the perpetually offended reacted in utter consternation to the theory

munchkin_utd

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I have a few questions re: masks. I'm neither for nor against them and each to their own. Personally I've no issue wearing in places that ask as much. But I've not heard a convincing answer to the below, and I'm not trying to catch anyone out by the way, generally curious.
<snip>

in nursing homes you have people in really really close contact, nurses bathing or changing old people. You also have enclosed spaces with little ventilation(you want to keep the heat in!), and you have lots and lots of speaking, talking, chatting which produces droplets and aerosols in far higher quantities than in shops where people generally dont talk. The talking might also be quite close to peoples faces as old people can be half deaf. Theres also a problem with relief staff going from place to place so you ended up with it getting brought between nursing homes.
Also, a surgical mask will stop larger droplets as thats what they are designed for but they are fairly open at the sides, so aerosols (those things that the WHO still wont issue a guidance on) get out the side and into the enclosed unventilated space, so can build up and infect anyone in those rooms causing massive outbreaks.

as for the european countries, Spain isnt a good example for how to fight the virus.
When the country was in severe lockdown (i.e. kids not allowed to leave their apartment for 2 months, not even for excercise or to play) the cases were still crazily high and kept that way for noticably longer than Italy or New York, even Ireland had one of the highest cases per capita and got it down fairly quickly.

You don't get transmission so constantly high unless you have people blatantly ignoring the lockdown or some other breakdown in controls. Masks won't help if people are sabatoging public health measures in other ways (the only other explaination would be some sort of a link to air conditioning or ventilation systems, but theres no studies showing a link to Spains strangely consistently high cases).

hmmm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Essentially to summarise what was being said, only the surgical grade masks have proven capabilites.

I'm not a fan of masks, but it's pretty obvious that anything wrapped around your face and nose is going to stop a certain amount of droplets which otherwise would go into the air or land on surfaces. This is about risk reduction on a population-wide scale, not perfect protection. There's no one answer to stopping spread, unless we'd like to go into a complete lockdown.

In greater risk situations like hospitals, the use of masks which are guaranteed to filter close to 100% are required.

AdamD

pjohnson wrote: »

Some of that age bracket only think of themselves. Hence the moronic house parties. When they grow up some get sense and responsibilities.

Or their lives are completely different to yours. Its easy to say don't go socialise if it wasn't part of your life anyways. Though frankly from your posts you come across as a massive arsehole so that doesn't surprise me.

average_runner

Polar101 wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting things are somehow tougher for people in their 20's. I don't think anyone is enjoying a pandemic, and I'd assume most people can't wait to see the end of it.

I'm not in my 20's, and this probably hasn't been the toughest period of my life, but I can't wait for things to go back to "normal". And I'm sure everyone is being affected somehow, be it socially, financially, mentally or whatever.

In fairness it probably does affect the 20-30 age bracket alot. Their whole social scene is gone. Think back when I was that age, it was alot of sport, watching sport also and drinks and clubs on Fri and Sat night.


Now in my 40's, lockdown hasn't bothered me too much to be honest, kids and work keep me busy. Only thing that i miss are the running races.

AUDI20

hmmm wrote: »

I'm not a fan of masks, but it's pretty obvious that anything wrapped around your face and nose is going to stop a certain amount of droplets which otherwise would go into the air or land on surfaces. This is about risk reduction on a population-wide scale, not perfect protection. There's no one answer to stopping spread, unless we'd like to go into a complete lockdown.

In greater risk situations like hospitals, the use of masks which are guaranteed to filter close to 100% are required.

I agree with your post and am not a mask lover myself, but wear them where needed. One thing that puzzles me is why so many of our health service people got infected and were more masked up, gowned up and wore gloves?

Captain_Crash

Some very fair points there. This stands out to me

munchkin_utd wrote: »

you have lots and lots of speaking, talking, chatting which produces droplets and aerosols in far higher quantities than in shops where people generally dont talk.

In effect, masks only work if the person wearing it is not talking? I can understand this and would tend to agree, but the guidance given mentions nothing about refraining from speaking.

Ireland had one of the highest cases per capita and got it down fairly quickly.

And we managed that without masks

FintanMcluskey

hmmm wrote: »

I'm not a fan of masks, but it's pretty obvious that anything wrapped around your face and nose is going to stop a certain amount of droplets which otherwise would go into the air or land on surfaces.

You may well be correct, the opinion isnt mine but I thought it interesting.

The lad I was listening to didn't share your sentiment as regards risk reduction due to the nature of transmission and the unfamiliarity with mask wearing for the average person.

Something to do with the fact if you are sick with Covid a mask not sealing completely going to do very little for risk reduction as the particles are so easily transmitted.

pjohnson

AdamD wrote: »

Or their lives are completely different to yours. Its easy to say don't go socialise if it wasn't part of your life anyways. Though frankly from your posts you come across as a massive arsehole so that doesn't surprise me.

Lol shows how much you know. Being in my 20's of course socialising WAS but then theres a pandemic NOW. Notice the difference between was and now? Things have changed, dunno how you missed theres a pandemic but hostility from you lot isnt suprising.

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

Lol shows how much you know. Being in my 20's of course socialising WAS but then theres a pandemic NOW. Notice the difference between was and now? Things have changed, dunno how you missed theres a pandemic but hostility from you lot isnt suprising.

"You lot"... lol!
That type of language has been used to discriminate against minorities time and time again over the years.

munchkin_utd

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Some very fair points there. This stands out to me

In effect, masks only work if the person wearing it is not talking? I can understand this and would tend to agree, but the guidance given mentions nothing about refraining from speaking.

And we managed that without masks

if you read the german advice (which would require german) they mention breathing and speaking as being a risk factor, singing and screeching being riskier again.
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Steckbrief.html

Its simple physics. The virus is there at the back of your throat in massive quantities. If you breathe, then a certain amount comes out into the air. If you speak then thats higher again, and you get droplets which can form more aerosols.
If you in an evangelical church with the belief that god will look after everything and you go singing gospel songs in a packed church at the height of the pandemic, its worse again (especially when your congregration starts dieing one by one, as happened in the US)

The irish advice, as per WHO guidelines, only mentions coughing or sneezing as being a method of transmission. The reality is a lot more complicated than that.
Either way, if you cover the source of the virus spread into the open air , i.e. the mouth and nose, with some sort of barrier then you are stopping a portion of the contaminants getting into the air which is better than 100% of all expelled virus getting into the air regardless of whether a mask is tested to a standard or not

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is very contradictory. You can't say people were queuing for an hour and then say nobody was going anywhere. People were queuing for the only shops that were open.

Masks didn't help to flatten to curve (early May). They haven't helped to keep the numbers low ever since.

I wouldn't take anti biotics for an illness after I get better...

That's an analogy that isn't applicable in this case.

You are talking about antibiotics in the context of them being a cure: you take them, you get better, the end.

Thinking that masks should be viewed as something to this is a false equivalence.

Masks should be thought as functioning as a preventative measure, the purpose of wearing them is stop an unwanted outcome occurring in the first place: further rapid of a transmissible virus.

Rather than thinking about them in terms of antibiotics, this might be a bit closer:

If a patient has a heart attack, has treatment and recovers doctors will still advise the patient to make changes to their lifestyle to try to prevent a recurrance of that initial health problem.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

If a patient has a heart attack, has treatment and recovers doctors will still advise the patient to make changes to their lifestyle to try to prevent a recurrance of that initial health problem.

They should concentrate more on that advice.

Heart disease has killed 5 times more than Covid this year.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

They should concentrate more on that advice.

Heart disease has killed 5 times more than Covid this year.

So what you're saying is that restrictions halted the spread of the disease and saved many lives that otherwise would have been lost?

thelad95

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

They should concentrate more on that advice.

Heart disease has killed 5 times more than Covid this year.

Is heart disease wildly contagious?

Why do you think it's killed more than Covid? Also where are you plucking that statistic from?

FintanMcluskey

thelad95 wrote: »

Is heart disease wildly contagious?

Why do you think it's killed more than Covid? Also where are you plucking that statistic from?

I think its killed more than Covid because 3 million deaths attributed to heart disease is a bigger number than 700k Covid deaths.

A simple google search can uncover this information.

You dont need to be a member of the stonemasons

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I think its killed more than Covid because 3 million deaths attributed to heart disease is a bigger number than 700k Covid deaths.

A simple google search can uncover this information.

You dont need to be a member of the stonemasons

Yes, Fintan but the whole purpose of restrictions and lockdowns was to prevent excess Covid deaths.

You do understand that don't you?

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

So what you're saying is that restrictions halted the spread of the disease and saved many lives that otherwise would have been lost?

I need evidence for the restrictions saving any lives, and so far I've yet to see any.

Sweden is still the vaccine for the hysterical nonsense that none of ye want to take

joeguevara

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I need evidence for the restrictions saving any lives, and so far I've yet to see any.

Sweden is still the vaccine for the hysterical nonsense that none of ye want to take

You mean this https://www.thesun.ie/news/5693350/sweden-coronavirus-death-rate-worst-world-docs-warn-dont-dodge-lockdown/

Sweden currently has one of the worst death rates and as far as Im aware have stopped reporting. So why are you raising this as a good thing.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Yes, Fintan but the whole purpose of restrictions and lockdowns was to prevent excess Covid deaths.

You do understand that don't you?

Oh I understand only a Covid death is tragic to some.

Believe me I understand.

If next year the number of kids that die from hunger related issues on the planet doubles to 6 million, due to a collapse in global economic supports, it will be a succes in the view of some. Anything but Covid.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I need evidence for the restrictions saving any lives, and so far I've yet to see any.

Sweden is still the vaccine for the hysterical nonsense that none of ye want to take

If you're dealing with an outbreak of a highly infectious and quite dangerous disease it stands to reason that if you restrict people coming into contact with each other you'll help prevent the uncontrolled spread.

The current situation in the United States completely torpedoes any argument against the effectiveness of restrictions in controlling the spread and saving lives. They imposed restrictions, numbers eventually fell, deaths eventually fell. Then they got giddy, threw caution to the wind and opened up too early, numbers rose again, deaths began to rise again...