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

dalyboy

hmmm wrote: »

No-one has said how this is supposed to work. Lock up everyone who is at-risk, their families and everyone who has to come into contact with them? Completely unworkable and morally indefensible.


You probably need to do a bit more reading. There have been examples of reinfections where genome sequencing proves that the second infection is different from the first. Now whether this is uncommon, or whether there is something unique about these individuals is not possible to say yet until we have more data. The hope also is that subsequent infections will have fewer symptoms than earlier infections.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Re-infection-and-viral-shedding-threat-assessment-brief.pdf

Hold on now. Rational epidemiologists never suggested “locking up” elderly or vulnerable people. Sure they are already (if following guidelines) isolating with the present restrictions . Yeah / No ?
All that’s suggested is they take extra precautions and continue as they are.

The rest of society can work / socialise etc as normal for a few months and the risk to the elderly/vulnerable will be dramatically reduced

If you think this idea is somehow wrong or “off the wall” then please compare it to what we are presently doing. It’s the very essence of “off the wall”

hmmm

dalyboy wrote: »

Hold on now. Rational epidemiologists never suggested “locking up” elderly or vulnerable people. Sure they are already (if following guidelines) doing that with the present restrictions . Yeah / No ?
All that’s suggested is they take extra precautions and continue as they are.

OK we've over a million vulnerable people, and they will have families, jobs etc. Some will be in hospitals or nursing homes where other staff come in to look after them.

Your suggestion is what exactly for these vulnerable people, their families and people who work alongside them? There's a lot of vague "they need to more" references but very little said as to what exactly you want them to do. Can they go to work? What do nursing home staff do - will they have to isolate themselves? What do their families do - can their kids go to school or meet other kids? Can their spouse go to work? How will they go shopping? Can they go on holidays? Will they have to cut off all social contact? How long will they have to do this and what is your exit strategy?

You're the person above who said there have been no real re-infections when the ECDC themselves show there has been - has this changed your view any bit?

Stormyteacup

hmmm wrote: »

There are 1 million people in Ireland estimated to have high blood pressure alone. This puts them in an "at risk" group for Covid.

There about 240,000 people with diabetes.

150,000 with chronic kidney disease.

240,000 with heart disease.

There are over 300,000 with asthma.

A lot of these people have no idea they even have the underlying illness and are at risk.

Have you any age breakdown for those numbers?

Would suspect the majority of those are over 75, in which case they are well aware they are in a high risk group.

Also the indicators for being at risk with asthma, hypertension and heart disease are for those suffering chronic conditions, which again they will likely know about.

The numbers in your post add up to almost 2 million people - is that the number of people in Ireland in the high risk category in your opinion. Though I’d imagine some of them would have more than one condition, so there will be an overlap?

dalyboy

dalyboy wrote: »

Hold on now. Rational epidemiologists never suggested “locking up” elderly or vulnerable people. Sure they are already (if following guidelines) doing that with the present restrictions . Yeah / No ?
All that’s suggested is they take extra precautions and continue as they are.

The rest of society can work / socialise etc as normal for a few months and the risk to the elderly/vulnerable will be dramatically reduced

If you think this idea is somehow wrong or “off the wall” then please compare it to what we are presently doing. It’s the very essence of “off the wall”

Opening up the country and allowing people act as normal in the middle of a pandemic is absolute insanity and anyone making these suggestions cannot be taken seriously.

Stormyteacup

hmmm wrote: »

No-one has said how this is supposed to work. Lock up everyone who is at-risk, their families and everyone who has to come into contact with them? Completely unworkable and morally indefensible.


You probably need to do a bit more reading. There have been examples of reinfections where genome sequencing proves that the second infection is different from the first. Now whether this is uncommon, or whether there is something unique about these individuals is not possible to say yet until we have more data. The hope also is that subsequent infections will have fewer symptoms than earlier infections.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Re-infection-and-viral-shedding-threat-assessment-brief.pdf

But it is already working. What we are doing in the community is enough. Face coverings, distancing and good hygiene in any public place a vulnerable person may need to visit. The HSE and private residential care facilities need to step up obviously. And the messaging needs to be changed from a fear narrative to one of maintaining vigilance in protecting at risk groups.

No reason that those at low risk can’t choose whether to go to watch a sports event (even at reduced capacity), go to a pub or restaurant, travel abroad, have a dinner party, and personally assess the risk of passing it to someone vulnerable they are in regular contact with.

If you do any of the above, stay away from vulnerable loved ones for a while.

If you’re in unavoidably close contact with someone vulnerable on a regular basis, then don’t do those things - same as you can’t now. It won’t be forever, herd protection will come eventually, and you will have a functioning society to enjoy when that time comes. And in the meantime everyone else is contributing to a slow herd protection, which can only help when a vaccine comes.

hynesie08

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

Look I am sorry for anyone who cannot call home to see parents etc but this is an unpredicted situation and its unfortunate that even as things stand and in particular with Sweden's insane policies for dealing with the virus it could be a long time before anyone will be allowed to travel there as thing stand.

To answer your questions above, it would take as long as it takes until we have a vaccine. Could be 6 months could be 2 years. I would also add that there would be allowances in my plan for going abroad for reasons such as a dying relative, a funeral etc but with monitored quarantine and testing on return. As the system was streamlined it could be considered to start allowing people from abroad to visit home for just seeing family especially if it looked to be going on for a long time. (but they would have to agree to monitored quarantine in a facility not at home, and only released after a number of clear tests across a time period long enough to ensure the virus would be detected if it the person picked it up).

Danica Freezing Brow: we must protect our parents at all costs.....

Also Danica Freezing Brow: unless they live abroad, then **** them.......

SusieBlue

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

While stress levels have undoubtedly increased for some you also can’t ignore the large numbers of people who have decreased stress levels and healthier lives due to WFH etc. This also has to be considered when talking about stress etc.

I note that all of your ‘solutions’ directly benefit you and your lifestyle and conveniently involves more sacrifice and risk for those who have already lost the most.

I doubt you would be so quick to offer your own future up as you are other people’s.

ShyMets

SusieBlue wrote: »

I note that all of your ‘solutions’ directly benefit you and your lifestyle and conveniently involves more sacrifice and risk for those who have already lost the most.

I doubt you would be so quick to offer your own future up as you are other people’s.

In my experience the poster just keeps trotting out the same lines. When challenged they simply continue making the same points.

Its becoming increasingly pointless to engage with them

charlie14

dalyboy wrote: »

Lesson for tomorrow for you.

How to spot a “tin foil hat wearer”

Dr Sunetra Gupta .... Oxford

Dr Jay Bhattacharya ..... Stanford

Dr. Martin Kulldorff .... Harvard

Check out their qualifications yourself.

Then -
Compare these qualifications to our NPHET little boys & girls.

You will quickly discover that it is you that is the tin foil hat wearer yourself.

Deny reality as much as you want but you are on a loser tbh

WE could name check until the cows come home on the theoretical and it would still prove nothing.

So for today`s lesson would it not be more practical and enlightening to examine an actual case study where we have a lot of verifiable evidence on both the strategy and the people behind it.
Your stated your utopia as to the righteousness of your belief is Sweden, so why do we not start there.
1.Who devised the Swedish strategy and what were their stated aims.
2. What have been the benefits/costs of this strategy when compared to the stated aims.
3. Have the stated aims been achieved.
Quite simple points that if your are correct that you should have no problem answering.


No time limit. Take as long as you need

dalyboy

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

Opening up the country and allowing people act as normal in the middle of a pandemic is absolute insanity and anyone making these suggestions cannot be taken seriously.

What can’t be taken seriously anymore is calling covid a pandemic.

Pandemic? Where ?
How many months after a huge increase of infection numbers and low deaths are needed to realise that this virus is NOT the plague it was 1st painted up as.

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

Nox: we must protect our parents at all costs.....

Also nox: unless they live abroad, then **** them.......

Interesting piece of fiction.

hmmm

dalyboy wrote: »

Hold on now. Rational epidemiologists never suggested “locking up” elderly or vulnerable people. Sure they are already (if following guidelines) isolating with the present restrictions . Yeah / No ?
All that’s suggested is they take extra precautions and continue as they are.

The rest of society can work / socialise etc as normal for a few months and the risk to the elderly/vulnerable will be dramatically reduced

I'm not understanding you at all. You want the "at risk" groups to do no more than they are doing now, while we go back to Level 1 (or zero)?

That's a recipe for mass death. Do you realise that the "vulnerable" are part of families, have jobs, need to go shopping, rely on other people to nurse them etc? And many don't even realise they are vulnerable and will be out socialising like the rest of us?

The "vulnerable" are not just people in nursing homes.

hynesie08

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

Interesting piece of fiction.

So you don't want people to be banned from seeing their families until we have zero covid and a vaccine? It's in writing......

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

So you don't want people to be banned from seeing their families until we have zero covid and a vaccine? It's in writing......

What has seeing them got to do with protecting them from COVID? It actually does the opposite.

_Kaiser_

Newstalk on here and a caller complaining that she's not being questioned by AGS at the checkpoints she's being held up at. Want them to quiz her instead.

Another person wants a global marketing campaign across TV, Web and Netflix to teach people how to wear masks and show people end-stage Covid sufferers to reinforce the message

A third wants everyone to wear masks outdoors and everywhere really

The damage this whole thing is doing to society and individuals like the above is the only thing that's genuinely scary at this stage.

dalyboy

charlie14 wrote: »

WE could name check until the cows come home on the theoretical and it would still prove nothing.

So for today`s lesson would it not be more practical and enlightening to examine an actual case study where we have a lot of verifiable evidence on both the strategy and the people behind it.
Your stated your utopia as to the righteousness of your belief is Sweden, so why do we not start there.
1.Who devised the Swedish strategy and what were their stated aims.
2. What have been the benefits/costs of this strategy when compared to the stated aims.
3. Have the stated aims been achieved.
Quite simple points that if your are correct that you should have no problem answering.


No time limit. Take as long as you need

Sorry but look up the answers to your filibuster style questions yourself.

A five year old could tell which model makes more sense between ours and Sweden’s

hynesie08

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

What has seeing them got to do with protecting them from COVID? It actually does the opposite.

"look inga, I know you didn't see your mother in Copenhagen for 2 years before she died, and she never got to hold her grandchild, but at least you didn't give her covid"

Add councillor to the list of things that you should never become nox.....

ShyMets

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Newstalk on here and a caller complaining that she's not being questioned by AGS at the checkpoints she's being held up at. Want them to quiz her instead.

Another person wants a global marketing campaign across TV, Web and Netflix to teach people how to wear masks and show people end-stage Covid sufferers to reinforce the message

A third wants everyone to wear masks outdoors and everywhere really

The damage this whole thing is doing to society and individuals like the above is the only thing that's genuinely scary at this stage.

And if she was being questioned she'd no doubt be on complaining about Garda harassment.

They're a a few posters on this forum like that. Next they'll be advocating wearing them in our houses

scamalert

ShyMets wrote: »

And if she was being questioned she'd no doubt be on complaining about Garda harassment.

They're a a few posters on this forum like that. Next they'll be advocating wearing them in our houses

its funny every one on the extreme side suggesting what should be done, yet simple solution for them would be to fck off internet board their house and grab a jar of tomatoes to munch on till we get this global 1million dead in a year pandemic $hite crap out of the way.


paranoia and hysteria on some reading their facts on FB and other media they take as gospel seems done a number on nut job increase globally.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Newstalk on here and a caller complaining that she's not being questioned by AGS at the checkpoints she's being held up at. Want them to quiz her instead.

Another person wants a global marketing campaign across TV, Web and Netflix to teach people how to wear masks and show people end-stage Covid sufferers to reinforce the message

A third wants everyone to wear masks outdoors and everywhere really

The damage this whole thing is doing to society and individuals like the above is the only thing that's genuinely scary at this stage.

Absolutely nothing unreasonable there, in fact its bizarre anyone would find issue with the above tbh.

dalyboy

dalyboy wrote: »

Sorry but look up the answers to your filibuster style questions yourself.

A five year old could tell which model makes more sense between ours and Sweden’s

I'll give you a clue, its not Sweden's and it really shows how clueless people are that some still actually believe the disaster that is Sweden's approach is actually something that should be followed.

Ginger n Lemon

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

Opening up the country and allowing people act as normal in the middle of a pandemic is absolute insanity and anyone making these suggestions cannot be taken seriously.

The year was 2024, Ireland's covid19 cases were at record low of 3 a day but still announced daily on RTE, Nox kept posting on boards "we are in a middle of a pandemic". Charlie14 kept posting "what country has herd immunity? WHAT? WHICH?" and Hmmmm came in with the classic "we need a vaccine"

The fact that 70 + people die in this country per day is lost on some. If its not on RTE its not worth thinking about or putting in perspective. Full lockdown because Tony H recommends so.:rolleyes:

charlie14

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Have you any age breakdown for those numbers?

Would suspect the majority of those are over 75, in which case they are well aware they are in a high risk group.

Also the indicators for being at risk with asthma, hypertension and heart disease are for those suffering chronic conditions, which again they will likely know about.

The numbers in your post add up to almost 2 million people - is that the number of people in Ireland in the high risk category in your opinion. Though I’d imagine some of them would have more than one condition, so there will be an overlap?

There will naturally be crossovers in those figures of those at highest risk, but for those aged 65 and over in Ireland there are around 700,000 (14% of the population).


There are also 150,000 recovering from cancer who would be immune suppressed. Again there would be some in that group over 65 years of age, but cancer like all the other conditions that leave people at high risk is not age specific. At a conservative estimate 20-25% of the population are in the high risk category.


Is it even feasible to believe that by locking away 1 of every 4 or 5, that they will still not be touched by this epidemic, and that life will go on as before for the rest.
From what I can see, that is the proposal being favoured by some. For myself it is not only impractical, but unachievable.

_Kaiser_

ShyMets wrote: »

And if she was being questioned she'd no doubt be on complaining about Garda harassment.

They're a a few posters on this forum like that. Next they'll be advocating wearing them in our houses

I think in the first case she just wants to show her "essential worker" letter to the Garda :rolleyes:

It's always the ones who are least affected and really into showing how compliant they are who seem to be the most extreme in their "solutions"

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

"look inga, I know you didn't see your mother in Copenhagen for 2 years before she died, and she never got to hold her grandchild, but at least you didn't give her covid"

Add councillor to the list of things that you should never become nox.....

If you live far away from home across borders there is always a risk of something preventing you travelling. Its one of the reasons I'd never have any interest in living abroad and one of the reasons I want to live next door to home as being close to family is very important to me.

RobitTV

National demonstrations across Spain today
https://twitter.com/ramirezmezquita/status/1315600470006804481
https://twitter.com/JoseGananGlez/status/1315619181417631744

hynesie08

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

If you live far away from home across borders there is always a risk of something preventing you travelling. Its one of the reasons I'd never have any interest in living abroad and one of the reasons I want to live next door to home as being close to family is very important to me.

Your complete lack of empathy or understanding of the fact that other people have made different decisions to you is borderline sociopathic.

ShyMets

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

If you live far away from home across borders there is always a risk of something preventing you travelling. Its one of the reasons I'd never have any interest in living abroad and one of the reasons I want to live next door to home as being close to family is very important to me.

Would that be because you want to hide under the bed with mammy and daddy and wait this thing out:)

SusieBlue

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

If you live far away from home across borders there is always a risk of something preventing you travelling. Its one of the reasons I'd never have any interest in living abroad and one of the reasons I want to live next door to home as being close to family is very important to me.

So basically if you aren’t in a position to live at home rent free till you’re nearly 40 to save to build a house on family land next door to your parents, it sucks to be you. Got it.

Your lack of empathy and compassion is mind blowing.

RobitTV

RobitTV wrote: »

National demonstrations across Spain today
https://twitter.com/ramirezmezquita/status/1315600470006804481
https://twitter.com/JoseGananGlez/status/1315619181417631744

Mind boggling stupidity.

SusieBlue wrote: »

So basically if you aren’t in a position to live at home rent free till you’re nearly 40 to save to build a house on family land next door to your parents, it sucks to be you. Got it.

Your lack of empathy and compassion is mind blowing.

No its not what I said nor is your post accurate I have lived out of home for periods of time since my mid 20's including at the moment.