How would you feel if restrictions were lifted?

Graham

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It's particularly funny picking Belarus considered who is currently "in charge"

I suspect it's more to do with the fact that previous poster-countries for the we-should-do-nothing cheerleaders are getting thin on the ground unless you start looking towards nations with, let's call it more strategic reporting.

jmayo

GT89 wrote: »

How would you honestly feel if the government turned around tommorrow and said the pubs can reopen to full capacity, all businneses can reopen that were closed, no more restrictions on gatherings, no more mandatory masks, people working from home should go back to work, full capacity on public transport, matches can go ahead with 80k fans, no more social distancing meaning life can return to exactly how it was before last March.

And this assumes that there is not a vaccine or effective treatment the virus would essientially be let loose. How would you feel and be 100% honest. Personally I would be delighted but know our spineless coward politicians would never have the balls to pull such a move.

Hey why not try and stretch that not so often used organ between your ears and just imagine hundreds of thousands of people sick.

Now yes a lot would just have a bit of a cold type thing, some might actually be fine, but some would be really sick and would require hospital.

And a small percentage of them would require ICU and ventilators.
Now we have only got, what less than 1000 ICU beds.
How long would they last if we had huge widespread infection ?

And then what happens to someone who has heart attack, stroke, been in car very serious accident ?
Where do you put them when ICU is full, cardiac care is already full, OR step down is full and ORs are full with people using anaesthetic machines for ventilation?

That was what happened in Northern Italy back in March/April.

The idea of lockdowns round the world and people self isolating and controlling their interactions is to try and preserve our health services, because if we allowed this go unchecked then we would have health systems falling apart and a much greater loss of life.

Is that such a hard concept to grasp ?

GT89 wrote: »

So they're all vegetables in Minsk right now?

GT89 wrote: »

Is that happening in Belarus?

It is bad when you have to start using Belarus as a benchmark in an argument.
Yeah we should all believe official data coming out of a country at war with itself.

I avoided this forum for a while and looking at tulips like yourself just reaffirms my original avoidance is the best solution for one's sanity.

BTW why don't you feck off to the USA and join all the other loo las and do us all a favour.

FintanMcluskey

jmayo wrote: »

Is that such a hard concept to grasp ?

Is there any proof it works?

Please don’t get highly offended, my question is, do we have proof lockdown does work in a situation like Ireland?

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Is there any proof it works?

Please don’t get highly offended, my question is, do we have proof lockdown does work in a situation like Ireland?

If people don't move the virus around the country, it's kinda stuck.

jmayo

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Is there any proof it works?

Please don’t get highly offended, my question is, do we have proof does lockdown work in a situation like Ireland?

The alternative, like envisaged by the OP, results in super spreaders like the Atalanta Match in Milan in February when some reckon 40,000 from Bergamo went to Milan to watch their team play Valencia in champions league.
It was a mass transfer of infection.

Imagine even 40,000 in Croker or Aviva and how that could spread the virus throughout the country.

Now the argument is that sure most people are fine, but once you have more very sick people than our health service can cope with then deaths dramatically increase.
Then we start actually losing heath staff themselves as happened in Italy.
Even if they don't get very sick they would quickly start burning out.

I would love to have had foreign holiday in the sun, it would be nice to get out and about, go to the odd match in croker, go out for meal without wearing a mask, prebooking a restuarant days in advance, worry about what you are touching, but it isn't to be for the moment.

People often reference Sweden and their lack of lockdown, but Swedish people themselves locked down and Swedes are damn law abiding.
Stockholm can be very quiet of a night in my experience.

kippy

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Is there any proof it works?

Please don’t get highly offended, my question is, do we have proof lockdown does work in a situation like Ireland?

Restrictions work.
The virus needs us to be in close contact to spread. Reducing close contacts reduces spread.
Not sure why those previous two sentences are so difficult to comprehend.

GT89

jmayo wrote: »

Hey why not try and stretch that not so often used organ between your ears and just imagine hundreds of thousands of people sick.

Now yes a lot would just have a bit of a cold type thing, some might actually be fine, but some would be really sick and would require hospital.

And a small percentage of them would require ICU and ventilators.
Now we have only got, what less than 1000 ICU beds.
How long would they last if we had huge widespread infection ?

And then what happens to someone who has heart attack, stroke, been in car very serious accident ?
Where do you put them when ICU is full, cardiac care is already full, OR step down is full and ORs are full with people using anaesthetic machines for ventilation?

That was what happened in Northern Italy back in March/April.

The idea of lockdowns round the world and people self isolating and controlling their interactions is to try and preserve our health services, because if we allowed this go unchecked then we would have health systems falling apart and a much greater loss of life.

Is that such a hard concept to grasp ?

That could be solved by you know isolating the covid patients and the non covid patients. Put in a field hospital using marqee like structures if needs be and also using separate doctors to treat covid and non covid patents in hospital. Patients can be triaged if needs be.

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

If people don't move the virus around the country, it's kinda stuck.

jmayo wrote: »

The alternative, like envisaged by the OP, results in super spreaders like the Atalanta Match in Milan in February when some reckon 40,000 from Bergamo went to Milan to watch their team play Valencia in champions league.
It was a mass transfer of infection.

Imagine even 40,000 in Croker or Aviva and how that could spread the virus throughout the country.

Now the argument is that sure most people are fine, but once you have more very sick people than our health service can cope with then deaths dramatically increase.
Then we start actually losing heath staff themselves as happened in Italy.
Even if they don't get very sick they would quickly start burning out.

I would love to have had foreign holiday in the sun, it would be nice to get out and about, go to the odd match in croker, go out for meal without wearing a mask, prebooking a restuarant days in advance, worry about what you are touching, but it isn't to be for the moment.

People often reference Sweden and their lack of lockdown, but Swedish people themselves locked down and Swedes are damn law abiding.
Stockholm can be very quiet of a night in my experience.

kippy wrote: »

Restrictions work.
The virus needs us to be in close contact to spread. Reducing close contacts reduces spread.
Not sure why those previous two sentences are so difficult to comprehend.

That’s a no regarding evidence that restrictions of the healthy are worthwhile then??!

Graham

GT89 wrote: »

That could be solved by you know isolating the covid patients and the non covid patients. Put in a field hospital using marqee like structures if needs be and also using separate doctors to treat covid and non covid patents in hospital. Patients can be triaged if needs be.

your solution is; big tents will fix everything?

I lolled

GT89

kippy wrote: »

Restrictions work.
The virus needs us to be in close contact to spread. Reducing close contacts reduces spread.
Not sure why those previous two sentences are so difficult to comprehend.

Restrictions may work to stop the spread of the virus but they also kill the economy. If the economy is killed where are we going to get the money for hospitals to treat all these covid cases?

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s a no regarding evidence that restrictions of the healthy are worthwhile then??!

Here's an approximate simulation you can run at home.

Cover your hands in ink.

Stay at home.

See if the ink leaves the house.

kippy

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s a no regarding evidence that restrictions work then??!

No. It's not. It's the very obvious logic behind restrictions and individual responsibility.
If you want some evidence that restrictions work go back to march. Then review situation in late may/June. See what has happened since then as restrictions have loosened and indeed people have gotten complacent.

That's as much evidence as you'll get that restrictions work to reduce the spread and reduce pressure on healthcare

GT89

Graham wrote: »

your solution is; big tents will fix everything?

I lolled

It's a credible as thinking pieces of cloth will fix everything. At least I'm constructive in my posts it's always snide comments with you.

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

Here's an approximate simulation you can run at home.

Cover your hands in ink.

Stay at home.

See if the ink leaves the house.

I’m not looking for a banal analogy.

I just want evidence.

Do you have any?

Charles Babbage

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Is there any proof it works?

Please don’t get highly offended, my question is, do we have proof lockdown does work in a situation like Ireland?

What sort of question is that, we have of course, cases went down to half dozen a day in the previous period of restrictions.

kippy

GT89 wrote: »

Restrictions may work to stop the spread of the virus but they also kill the economy. If the economy is killed where are we going to get the money for hospitals to treat all these covid cases?

Various levels of restrictions have impacts on various levels of the economy. The greater the restrictions in place the greater the impact on the economy.
Again, individually, if more people worked within the basic restrictions of social distancing, handwashing, masks there would be less need for more restrictions.

Graham

GT89 wrote: »

It's a credible as thinking poeces of cloth will fix everything.

Sorry you think I'm being snide, it's hard not to see the comedic side in some of the more ridiculous posts.

Back on topic.

Who said pieces of cloth will fix everything?

GT89

Graham wrote: »

Sorry you think I'm being snide, it's hard not to see the comedic side in some of the more ridiculous posts.

Back on topic.

Who said pieces of cloth will fix everything?

Where did I say big tents will fix everything?

bb1234567

GT89 wrote: »

Restrictions may work to stop the spread of the virus but they also kill the economy. If the economy is killed where are we going to get the money for hospitals to treat all these covid cases?

Restrictions is a very broad term. 'Restrictions' on house parties don't affect the economy. Restrictions on face coverings on public transport do not affect the economy. Nor do 'restrictions' on house visiting, nursing home visiting, hospital visits, funeral numbers, church gatherings, numbers at local GAA matches etc.

Encouraging work from home has increased productivity in some sectors, so even restrictions such as this don't always necessary damage the economy. Certain sets of restrictions deeply affect the economy, many others have little or no effect, but a big impact on infection rates. To say they all impact the economy is just untrue. Anywho it's pretty clear from your posts you couldnt give a flying fiddlers what happens to our health services so drop that one!

FintanMcluskey

Charles Babbage wrote: »

What sort of question is that, we have of course, cases went down to half dozen a day in the previous period of restrictions.

Does a direct correlation exist between cases reducing in countries with restrict, and cases increasing with countries with none?

GT89

bb1234567 wrote: »

Restrictions is a very broad term. 'Restrictions' on house parties don't affect the economy. Nor do 'restrictions' on house visiting, nursing home visiting, church gatherings etc.Certain sets of restrictions deeply affect the economy, many others have little or no effect, but a big impact on infection rates. To say they all impact the economy is ridiculuos. Anywho it's pretty clear from your posts you couldnt give a flying fiddlers what happens to our health services so drop that one!

People go to supermarkets or off licences to buy food and drink to be consumed at house parties, people have to get to the house party either driving using fuel, taking public transport or taxi. Some people may bring in caterers for house parties. That's how the economy works everything is interlinked with the economy.

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Does a direct correlation exist between cases reducing in countries with restrict, and cases increasing with countries with none?

Ireland went into lockdown, cases decreased. Lockdown ended, cases increased.

I'm definitely seeing a correlation. You're not?

gozunda

GT89 wrote: »

People go to supermarkets or off licences to buy food and drink to be consumed at house parties, people have to get to the house party either driving using fuel, taking public transport or taxi. Some people may bring in caterers for house parties. That's how the economy works everything is interlinked with the economy.

People are still buying food and drink from supermarkets and off licences. Fuel is being purchased and people are still using public transport and taxis albeit with social distancing in mind.. The economy is still working. Many people are working - whether from home or otherwise

You just pissed because there's no 'house parties"?

Jeez ...

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

Ireland went into lockdown, cases decreased. Lockdown ended, cases increased.

I'm definitely seeing a correlation. You're not?

What country are you comparing Ireland with?

Bit cynical

smck321 wrote: »

Its always going to be a balancing act but I honestly cannot see the majority of the Irish public complying with measures to control the spread of the virus.

In just the last few weeks we've seen hundreds of examples of people and groups rationalising away personal responsibility and blaming others. How Sweden has magically done this I do not know but when you have GAA clubs rationalising dinners with 30 people, high level government ministers caught breaching restrictions and normal people ignoring restrictions on a daily level (at least in my line of work) it would never work. We could never rely on people to act in such a way that we could effectively control the spread of this virus.

How Sweden did it was that they did not let the virus run rampant. They imposed some restrictions and issued recommendations. The restrictions were not as heavy as those imposed here and it is likely that the Swedes themselves were more compliant with recommendations than we were. There were also a number of other socioeconomic factors in their favour. However their philosophy was never to reduce the virus to zero but rather keep the spread to below what the system could cope with and allow the wave to pass with as few deaths as possible.

Like Ireland they made the mistake of not fully protecting nursing homes and so sadly have similar deaths as Ireland among the elderly.

But the key difference is not in the stringency of restrictions; Ireland would always have tighter restrictions, but rather to mitigate the effect of the wave rather than to attempt to stop it King Canute style as we did.

jelem

Fact since schools reopened the level went up.
children\parents will spread whether you like that fact or not.
Until a vaccine is available which saves those that suffer most
it is not going away no matter how many lock downs you have.
A complete lock down for a month with only travel for food,
will see the immediate raise again after restrictions lifted.
Somehow this is not being stated and made clear as the
politicians are "hedging the bets" and lack man parts to
state the Fact "it is a killer and is not going away even with
a vaccine".

kippy

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What country are you comparing Ireland with?

Itself.

Where are these countries with zero restrictions anyway?

kippy

jelem wrote: »

Fact since schools reopened the level went up.
children\parents will spread whether you like that fact or not.
Until a vaccine is available which saves those that suffer most
it is not going away no matter how many lock downs you have.
A complete lock down for a month with only travel for food,
will see the immediate raise again after restrictions lifted.
Somehow this is not being stated and made clear as the
politicians are "hedging the bets" and lack man parts to
state the Fact "it is a killer and is not going away even with
a vaccine".

We had two or three months of very little rising of numbers.
I don't think anyone is trying to make it 'go away' in Ireland. The aim is to keep numbers manageable while maintaining as much of the economy as possible.

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What country are you comparing Ireland with?

I don't remember suggesting a comparison there at all FM.

If you have evidence to suggest there's no correlation between lockdowns and reduction in cases, all power to you.

gozunda

Bit cynical wrote: »

How Sweden did it was that they did not let the virus run rampant. They imposed some restrictions and issued recommendations. The restrictions were not as heavy as those imposed here and it is likely that the Swedes themselves were more compliant with recommendations than we were. There were also a number of other socioeconomic factors in their favour. However their philosophy was never to reduce the virus to zero but rather keep the spread to below what the system could cope with and allow the wave to pass with as few deaths as possible.

Like Ireland they made the mistake of not fully protecting nursing homes and so sadly have similar deaths as Ireland among the elderly.

But the key difference is not in the stringency of restrictions; Ireland would always have tighter restrictions, but rather to mitigate the effect of the wave rather than to attempt to stop it King Canute style as we did.

And Sweden has the 12th highest death rate globally and a death rate significantly above that of neighbouring Nordic countries.

Its certainly no poster child for how to handle a pandemic

Looks like they're now having to bring in stricter controls

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/10/14/sweden-students-told-to-stop-partying-as-coronavirus-cases-rise/

https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/