Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

GazzaL

I know an elderly couple who were going to cancel their usual family Christmas dinner because of COVID. One of them had a non-COVID health scare very recently, and they've now decided that life is too short, so they will be having their children and their families over for Christmas dinner as usual.

_Kaiser_

brisan wrote: »

You are assuming that either he doesn’t like his ex or she doesn’t like him or both
May not be the case at all
You can love someone but not be able to live with them

Pretty much that. We actually still get on well (which makes it easier with the little fella), but the constant negativity and fear-mongering is having a very real effect on her mental health.

She's not the only one I'm sure.

copeyhagen

folks are very much in the critical bracket, particulalruy my dad. they came home for Xmas from Spain about 3 weeks ago, restricted movements to protect themselves.

they go the shops, go out for coffee, meet family etc.

they knows theres a TINY risk but theyre at the stage of life where they would rather enjoy it and see family, than bubble wrap hugging or some other ****e.

other people will say "what if you have it and give it to your dad", pure scaremongering ****e. STILL only know 1 person that caught it since March, and that was in March.

FintanMcluskey

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I had a discussion last night with some friends and these otherwise well-educated, rational people are convinced that by doing their part, they are preventing hospitals being overrun and deaths. Lots of talk about the situation in the US given to back up their position.

This went on to the point of them saying they couldn't live with the guilt if they killed someone because of it.

It's frankly very worrying the effect that the blanket coverage, constant finger-wagging and scare-mongering is having on people.

It’s utter nonsense.

It’s all about ego. I helped fight the Covid war. They can tell their hermit grandkids Im sure.

Incidentally the restrictions will have to continue to prevent spreading all respiratory illness for the rest of time, otherwise we are playing God

_Kaiser_

Silentcorner wrote: »

It is very simple, pump enough fear into a population and you can pretty much get them to jump through whatever hoops you want...just watch as the climate crisis rhetoric will be the next wave of fear mongering.

Test cases are irrelevant, the tests themselves are an unreliable indicator but it is these test numbers that are driving the fear...the hospitalizations and deaths are on par with most years.

Take out the amount of people that got covid in hospital or died with covid (as opposed to from covid) and you can start to get a feel for how this fear is unjustified.

I do believe in restrictions, I would take a vaccine no bother...but masks and lockdowns are in my opinion not worth the damage they both cause.

Locking the over 70s into their homes for three months denying them access to their grandkids and putting masks on children is in my opinion inhumane.

This will sound like a conspiracy theory I know, but I think a large part of the last 5/6 months (when the data started to show the risks were not as great as first feared) is to determine what they can get away with and how much the general public will accept.

As you say, the "Climate Crisis" was already starting to ramp up before CV-19 overtook the headlines but we do know a lot more now about how behaviour can be modified, the impact of the right messaging, influence of social media etc

You can be damn sure that many of these "learnings" will be used in/to drive some future events.

KrustyUCC

GazzaL wrote: »

I know an elderly couple who were going to cancel their usual family Christmas dinner because of COVID. One of them had a non-COVID health scare very recently, and they've now decided that life is too short, so they will be having their children and their families over for Christmas dinner as usual.

Dead right

You never know whats around the corner and they should make the most of Christmas

average_runner

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Dead right

You never know whats around the corner and they should make the most of Christmas

Their family can reduced the risk for them also by doing simple things. Keep social circle small for that week, avoid pubs and restaurant that week.




We are having the grand parents over also

paw patrol

average_runner wrote: »

Their family can reduced the risk for them also by doing simple things. Keep social circle small for that week, avoid pubs and restaurant that week.




We are having the grand parents over also

make sure you sit them at the open window or even better in the back garden:pac:

fin12

Guys don’t play a tin whistle inside on Christmas Day, very risky behaviour lol

Mitch Connor

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

Contrast Donnelly with Matt Hancock in the UK who has said restrictions will be gone by spring. We're going to be the slow kid in the class yet again. While the rest of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea etc are ending restrictions the HSE will still be arsing around trying to vaccinate the OAPs.

I wouldn't be looking to Matt Hancock as a shinning example of where Ireland have got things wrong.

Whatsisname

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

This went on to the point of them saying they couldn't live with the guilt if they killed someone because of it.

I read a point about this a while back that was basically, every single person whos ever died from a respiratory illness, got it from somebody else. Everyone of us may have inadvertently lead to the death of someone via cold or flu before. It's very obvious but I don't think people ever think about it. And tbh, if we did constantly live in fear of it, we could never have any mass gatherings of people ever again. Theres literally nothing we can do about that, it's nature and unfortunately we're not immortal.

On the other hand, I read someone the other day say that we should never end restrictions until "PEOPLE STOP DYING", so maybe we are trying to cure mortality after all.

Whatsisname

Whatsisname wrote: »

I read a point about this a while back that was basically, every single person whos ever died from a respiratory illness, got it from somebody else. Everyone of us may have inadvertently lead to the death of someone via cold or flu before. It's very obvious but I don't think people ever think about it. And tbh, if we did constantly live in fear of it, we could never have any mass gatherings of people ever again. There's literally nothing we can do about that, it's nature and unfortunately we're not immortal.

On the other hand, I read someone the other day say that we should never end restrictions until "PEOPLE STOP DYING", so maybe we are trying to cure mortality after all.

exactly 100000%

you could get the covid vaccine but not the Flu jab, kiss your granny, give her the Flu and it's game over.. and there are other things people do daily that are worse, there's no vaccine for utter stupidity.

They say if a child is not touched, held or loved, it can actually lead to death, not my rules, I've just read this a few times and so there's the first link below I caught on google ok, don't shoot the messenger.

So you got to ask yourself applying the same rationale, what affect this is having on people in care homes with no visitors essentially, no hand holding, no eye contact, no smiles (which can establish contact as much as our eyes) and essentially a version of locked in syndrome..
we are social beings in fact many scientists agree and attribute long life to Family, social circles and pursuits. Wanting to see the grand kids graduate, get married etc.. Italians typify this idea.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/born-love/201003/touching-empathy#:~:text=Lack%20of%20physical%20affection%20can%20actually%20kill%20babies.&text=But%20touch%20is%20even%20more,lasts%20long%20enough%2C%20even%20die.

Boggles

So we are back to, We don't need restrictions, deaths are small.

Seems legit.

BryanMartin21

Boggles wrote: »

So we are back to, We don't need restrictions, deaths are small.

Seems legit.

Not just that deaths are small but that it isn't very harmful. I can't find data to refute this.

Zebra3

Boggles wrote: »

So we are back to, We don't need restrictions, deaths are small.

Seems legit.

What restrictions should be put in place to drive down non Covid related deaths to zero?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

So we are back to, We don't need restrictions, deaths are small.

Seems legit.

Some sensible restrictions are obviously helpful.
Social distancing and hand sanitizing.
Working from home were possible.
No big sport or music events
Nightclubs closed

I think most would agree that those are fairly reasonable steps.

We don’t need nonsense like 5KM limits, 9 euro meals, 90 min stay, curfews. We don’t need people telling us rubbish like don’t pass the gravy boat. We don’t need retail and hospitality closed.

Perhaps the main thing we really needed though, was to figure out ways to prevent spread in nursing homes and hospitals. There are all kinds of potential solutions. But we didn’t bother our holes with any of that.

It was ultimately easier to force people out of work and blame pubs that were closed anyways.

Proper measures in nursing homes and we could have cut our deaths in half.

Boggles

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

Not just that deaths are small but that it isn't very harmful. I can't find data to refute this.

Good for you.

Zebra3 wrote: »

What restrictions should be put in place to drive down non Covid related deaths to zero?

That would be more of an advancement in technology TBH. Quite a considerable advancement.

But who knows. We might Walt Disney back yet.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Some sensible restrictions are obviously helpful.
Social distancing and hand sanitizing.
Working from home were possible.
No big sport or music events
Nightclubs closed

I think most would agree that those are fairly reasonable steps.

We don’t need nonsense like 5KM limits, 9 euro meals, 90 min stay, curfews. We don’t need people telling us rubbish like don’t pass the gravy boat. We don’t need retail and hospitality closed.

Perhaps the main thing we really needed though, was to figure out ways to prevent spread in nursing homes and hospitals. There are all kinds of potential solutions. But we didn’t bother our holes with any of that.

It was ultimately easier to force people out of work and blame pubs that were closed anyways.

Proper measures in nursing homes and we could have cut our deaths in half.

You don't judge a once in a generation pandemic solely on deaths.

10 months in and the fact that still has to be repeated is truly bizarre.

BryanMartin21

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

Not just that deaths are small but that it isn't very harmful. I can't find data to refute this.

There is a handy resource you can use to find the data

https://www.google.com/

Whatsisname

Deleted User wrote: »

Some sensible restrictions are obviously helpful.
Social distancing and hand sanitizing.
Working from home were possible.
No big sport or music events
Nightclubs closed

I think most would agree that those are fairly reasonable steps.

We don’t need nonsense like 5KM limits, 9 euro meals, 90 min stay, curfews. We don’t need people telling us rubbish like don’t pass the gravy boat. We don’t need retail and hospitality closed.

Perhaps the main thing we really needed though, was to figure out ways to prevent spread in nursing homes and hospitals. There are all kinds of potential solutions. But we didn’t bother our holes with any of that.

It was ultimately easier to force people out of work and blame pubs that were closed anyways.

Proper measures in nursing homes and we could have cut our deaths in half.

Agree with your list of restrictions, I don't think it should have ever gone passed those.

Worth mentioning too that Sir Patrick Vallance admitted yesterday that the 10PM curfew here in the UK has no scientific evidence. They even know it's a load of rubbish.

Belgium also said recently that closing their retail stores was for shock value.

But eh, trust the science and that.

Boggles

Whatsisname wrote: »

Belgium also said recently that closing their retail stores was for shock value.

Belgium said it or someone living in Belgium said it? Have you a link to this statement?

Either way I wouldn't hold up Belgium as a manual on pandemic management.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Belgium said it or someone living in Belgium said it? Have you a link to this statement?

Either way I wouldn't hold up Belgium as a manual on pandemic management.

Printed by THE TIMES, I'm assuming you'll take their health ministers word on it then? Belgium itself is a land mass of continental Europe and like most land masses, it cannot speak, that's geology and topography for you I guess.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/belgiums-shops-were-shut-as-a-coronavirus-shock-tactic-2x9wklf7v

Shutting shops at the end of October was a “psychological shock” tactic to bring home the need for restrictions to arrest the spread of the virus, the country’s health minister has admitted.

BryanMartin21

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a handy resource you can use to find the data

https://www.google.com/

Seems to confirm it isn't that harmful

growleaves

Mexico: López Obrador says pandemic lockdowns are the tactic of dictators

The Mexican leader said pandemic measures that limit people’s movements are “fashionable among authorities … who want to show they are heavy-handed, dictatorship.

“A lot of them are letting their authoritarian instincts show,” he said, adding “the fundamental thing is to guarantee liberty.”

López Obrador’s comments came a day after the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) said that Mexico was “in bad shape” with the pandemic and urged its leaders to take the coronavirus seriously.

“The number of increasing cases and deaths in Mexico is very worrisome,” said the WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, on Monday.

“We would like to ask Mexico to be very serious,” he said. “We have said it in general, wearing a mask is important, hygiene is important and physical distancing is important and we expect leaders to be examples …”

In his commments on Wednesday, it was unclear if the Mexican leader was referring to authorities in other countries, or the mainly opposition-party local leaders in Mexico.

Boggles

rusty cole wrote: »

Printed by THE TIMES, I'm assuming you'll take their health ministers word on it then? Belgium itself is a land mass of continental Europe and like most land masses, it cannot speak, that's geology and topography for you I guess.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/belgiums-shops-were-shut-as-a-coronavirus-shock-tactic-2x9wklf7v

Shutting shops at the end of October was a “psychological shock” tactic to bring home the need for restrictions to arrest the spread of the virus, the country’s health minister has admitted.

Bit hyperbolic TBF.

But yeah he is right, shopping done correctly has limited risk.

The bulk of infections in retail come from staff.

But considering Belgium had to ask Germany to take in ICU patients, the solely

"psychological shock" reasons I'm not buying.

They needed to get their numbers down and they needed to do it quickly, which they did to TBF.

But they are still too high.

average_runner

paw patrol wrote: »

make sure you sit them at the open window or even better in the back garden:pac:

They are the in-laws:pac:

FintanMcluskey

average_runner wrote: »

They are the in-laws:pac:

It really is a welcome side effect of the restrictions.

I have a great excuse not to listen to the ****ing in laws this year.

It’s actually against the law to visit them this christmas

BryanMartin21

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

Seems to confirm it isn't that harmful

More likely confirms the search bias of those who use it

brisan

Deleted User wrote: »

Some sensible restrictions are obviously helpful.
Social distancing and hand sanitizing.
Working from home were possible.
No big sport or music events
Nightclubs closed

I think most would agree that those are fairly reasonable steps.

We don’t need nonsense like 5KM limits, 9 euro meals, 90 min stay, curfews. We don’t need people telling us rubbish like don’t pass the gravy boat. We don’t need retail and hospitality closed.

Perhaps the main thing we really needed though, was to figure out ways to prevent spread in nursing homes and hospitals. There are all kinds of potential solutions. But we didn’t bother our holes with any of that.

It was ultimately easier to force people out of work and blame pubs that were closed anyways.

Proper measures in nursing homes and we could have cut our deaths in half.

Cant be asking the HSE to start doing something they never done before
imagine the paperwork
They knew from early in the year which grouping would be the most vulnerable and they did nothing about it
They actually made it worse by putting untested patients out of hospitals into nursing homes .
Why was this done ?
to free up hospital beds from the surge
Where did the surge come from ?
,the nursing homes they had helped infect
I sincerely hope there is an open and transparent inquiry into the treatment of nursing homes when this is over
Tony Holohan ,NPHET and the HSE are directly responsible for dozens if not hundreds of deaths and should be held accountable

BeefeaterHat

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I wouldn't be looking to Matt Hancock as a shinning example of where Ireland have got things wrong.

It's not about Hancock as an individual, I mean that the UK is going to have this in the rear view mirror by spring while we're still going to be mucking about with restrictions