Covid 19 Part XXIX-85,394 ROI(2,200 deaths) 62,723 NI (1,240 deaths) (26/12) Read OP

Choosehowevr.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nphet's advice will always be lockdown more restrictions..... the government and politics has to balance the health advice with many other factors. The economic damage is also a reality that has to dealt with and to mitigate the damage as much as possible while protecting health is a balancing act I don't envy the government. Hurlers on the ditch will castigate no matter what they do.

I reckon the government has it handy enough

They can follow the advice when it suits them and diverge when it doesn't

Turtwig

is_that_so wrote: »

It's not just those who are in hospital it's also the need of others to go to hospital in the first place.

The need for others to go to hospital due to COVID will not drop at the rapid pace you seem to be suggesting.

hmmm

prunudo wrote: »

Hope so, I've yet to see any evidence they cause spread of the virus.

I haven't seen it either. Lots of evidence that spread happens in pubs and restaurants and it's obvious they should be closed, but it's not so clear with retail. Perhaps the issue is like the issue with sports clubs - on the field they are fine, it's everything around it that's a problem (meeting people, travelling there, opportunities for mixing e.g. coffee shops).

Considering the economic damage from shutting down sectors, I'd expect more of a justification.

It may be that public health are simply saying that everything possible has to shut down, which is fine and I understand that. Difficult one for government.

MadYaker

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

It's easy for NPHET to use the nuclear option (lockdown everything) anytime cases rise. But the government has to consider the economy and other things in their options.

Also it has been pointed out many times that there has been no evidence of spread in retail. So I don't think it is gonna have a huge effect on "saving people".

During the first lockdown cases dropped even when supermarkets were open, why is that? Is it because the virus only attacks people in non essential retail??

Do you need evidence to tell you water is wet? It's a respiratory virus it'll spread anywhere people are together that includes retail. Cases dropped in the first lockdown because supermarkets were literally the only thing open and capacities were tightly controlled. Shopping centres are packed with people right now. I hope non essential retail stays open but to say that it isn't contributing to the spread is not logical to put it kindly.

TonyMaloney

The government has made a bloody mess of the public health AND economic crisis.
You can insist they had to undermine the experts in order to try and find a balance with economic measures, but you also have to admit they got the balance terribly wrong.

is_that_so

Turtwig wrote: »

The need for others to go to hospital due to COVID will not drop at the rapid pace you seem to be suggesting.

Diverging views and no proof of either! I don't need to be right BTW but when it happens it is the endgame for this.

Plumbthedepths

Choosehowevr. wrote: »

I reckon the government has it handy enough

They can follow the advice when it suits them and diverge when it doesn't

Isn't that just it we elected the politicians to form a government and run the state you cannot just run the country based on one narrow agenda, Nphet's job is to give advice and that's all they are required to do. They have no hand in dictating government policy. None of the members of Nphet will be running for re-election as none of them will be on PUP wondering how to pay their bills.

TonyMaloney

podgeandrodge wrote: »

You should lay off the google data for awhile, give yourself a break!

I would, but I think this place needs more data and less nonsense.

MadYaker

Choosehowevr. wrote: »

I reckon the government has it handy enough

They can follow the advice when it suits them and diverge when it doesn't

It's as simple as that is it? You think it's an easy job trying to balance all this, being fed massive amounts of complex information in a very short period of time and then being asked to make decisions with huge consequences? You're delusional if you think it's easy.

TonyMaloney

MadYaker wrote: »

Do you need evidence to tell you water is wet? It's a respiratory virus it'll spread anywhere people are together that includes retail. Cases dropped in the first lockdown because supermarkets were literally the only thing open and capacities were tightly controlled. Shopping centres are packed with people right now. I hope non essential retail stays open but to say that it isn't contributing to the spread is not logical to put it kindly.

Agreed. And the other thing to consider is how do people visit non essential stores, because at the moment it's mostly public transport.

jackboy

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

The lockdown hadn't even begun and NPHET are already looking for more restrictions. Why don't they wait at least 2 weeks and see if the new restrictions work?

The quicker and harder we go the shorter the lockdown. Waiting for two more weeks could add many weeks to the lockdown. This is the third one now. We know that as soon as restrictions are eased, case numbers explode.

RugbyLad11

MadYaker wrote: »

Do you need evidence to tell you water is wet? It's a respiratory virus it'll spread anywhere people are together that includes retail. Cases dropped in the first lockdown because supermarkets were literally the only thing open and capacities were tightly controlled. Shopping centres are packed with people right now. I hope non essential retail stays open but to say that it isn't contributing to the spread is not logical to put it kindly.

Well the packed shopping centers should be penalized because there is supposed to be limit of the number of people indoors.

I don't think retail is some type of safe haven, immune the virus. However I don't think they are contributing a huge amount to the spread of virus. If the number of people inside is limited, and people are wearing masks/washing hands, then I think it gonna be difficult to spread the virus.

RugbyLad11

jackboy wrote: »

The quicker and harder we go the shorter the lockdown. Waiting for two more weeks could add many weeks to the lockdown. This is the third one now. We know that as soon as restrictions are eased, case numbers explode.

But there is no evidence that retail is spreading the virus.

niallo27

paddythere wrote: »

They're probably in bed at 12.45 a.m. dude

Not if her father is after going away in an ambulance kid.

Choosehowevr.

MadYaker wrote: »

It's as simple as that is it? You think it's an easy job trying to balance all this, being fed massive amounts of complex information in a very short period of time and then being asked to make decisions with huge consequences? You're delusional if you think it's easy.

What massive amounts of complex information?

prunudo

hmmm wrote: »

I haven't seen it either. Lots of evidence that spread happens in pubs and restaurants and it's obvious they should be closed, but it's not so clear with retail. Perhaps the issue is like the issue with sports clubs - on the field they are fine, it's everything around it that's a problem (meeting people, travelling there, opportunities for mixing e.g. coffee shops).

Considering the economic damage from shutting down sectors, I'd expect more of a justification.

It may be that public health are simply saying that everything possible has to shut down, which is fine and I understand that. Difficult one for government.

Even with pubs/restaurants its debatable. Ultimately it comes down to the establishments enforcement and people adhering to the guidelines. If you have a place that is packed with people mixing as has been described in some Dublin pubs then its a recipe for disaster, especially if people are meeting up friends home for Christmas.
If you want to go a for a coffee in a cafe with a friend the risk will be less. I was out twice in the last 3 weeks and both times I was impressed with the precautions the places and staff were taking.
Popping into a non essential retail shop for 15 mins while wearing a mask, keeping 2m apart and sanitising hands has no more risk than the weekly food shop.

TonyMaloney

prunudo wrote: »

Even with pubs/restaurants its debatable. Ultimately it comes down to the establishments enforcement and people adhering to the guidelines. If you have a place that is packed with people mixing as has been described in some Dublin pubs then its a recipe for disaster, especially if people are meeting up friends home for Christmas.
If you want to go a for a coffee in a cafe with a friend the risk will be less. I was out twice in the last 3 weeks and both times I was impressed with the precautions the places and staff were taking.
Popping into a non essential retail shop for 15 mins while wearing a mask, keeping 2m apart and sanitising hands has no more risk than the weekly food shop.

How was the ventilation?

jackboy

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

But there is no evidence that retail is spreading the virus.

True, it’s a shotgun approach. Throw enough restrictions at the virus and case numbers dwindle. I would expect NPHET to really broaden their recommendations soon.

MerlinSouthDub

prunudo wrote: »

Even with pubs/restaurants its debatable. Ultimately it comes down to the establishments enforcement and people adhering to the guidelines. If you have a place that is packed with people mixing as has been described in some Dublin pubs then its a recipe for disaster, especially if people are meeting up friends home for Christmas.
If you want to go a for a coffee in a cafe with a friend the risk will be less. I was out twice in the last 3 weeks and both times I was impressed with the precautions the places and staff were taking.
Popping into a non essential retail shop for 15 mins while wearing a mask, keeping 2m apart and sanitising hands has no more risk than the weekly food shop.

Whenever we reopen things again, it would be good to see them go slowly e.g. open cafes first (no alcohol)

prunudo

TonyMaloney wrote: »

How was the ventilation?

Not sure, I had the pulled pork Burger.

bb1234567

Mexico's excess deaths stand at 255,000 as of the end of November.
Over 0.2% of the country's population. Where the average person is 27 years old

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/mexico-s-excess-deaths-pass-250-000-amid-covid-outbreak
And some people still think the estimate of tens of thousands of excess deaths in Ireland in an uncontrolled COVID spread scenario was exaggerated

Choosehowevr.

bb1234567 wrote: »

Mexico's excess deaths stand at 255,000 as of the end of November.
Over 0.2% of the country's population. Where the average person is 27 years old

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/mexico-s-excess-deaths-pass-250-000-amid-covid-outbreak
And some people still think the estimate of tens of thousands of excess deaths in Ireland in an uncontrolled COVID spread scenario was exaggerated

A simple maths computation leads me to doubt that

MadYaker

Choosehowevr. wrote: »

What massive amounts of complex information?

Epidemiological modelling predictions, economic predictions from the ESRI and how best to mitigate the fallout and balance that against national debt, reports on hospital function and capacity, various ministers pushing for this that and the other, lobbyists and heads of industry applying pressure for various things. The effect of the virus on schools, how best to keep them open, plans for what happens if the virus gets out of control and the HSE is overrun etc etc and probably a load more stuff that I can't even imagine and all the information changes constantly as the situation evolves. Yeah sounds like childs play alright.

Plumbthedepths

bb1234567 wrote: »

Mexico's excess deaths stand at 255,000 as of the end of November.
Over 0.2% of the country's population. Where the average person is 27 years old

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/mexico-s-excess-deaths-pass-250-000-amid-covid-outbreak
And some people still think the estimate of tens of thousands of excess deaths in Ireland in an uncontrolled COVID spread scenario was exaggerated

Associate Professor Tomas Ryan estimated 50,000 would die without tough restrictions in his submission to government. He also estimated 100's of school children would die if the schools were reopened last September. That aged well didn't it?

JeffKenna

bb1234567 wrote: »

Mexico's excess deaths stand at 255,000 as of the end of November.
Over 0.2% of the country's population. Where the average person is 27 years old

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/mexico-s-excess-deaths-pass-250-000-amid-covid-outbreak
And some people still think the estimate of tens of thousands of excess deaths in Ireland in an uncontrolled COVID spread scenario was exaggerated

Mexico has 25 times the population of Ireland to start...

MadYaker

Obesity and diabetes are huge problems in Mexico.

Plumbthedepths

MadYaker wrote: »

Obesity and diabetes are huge problems in Mexico.

North of the border too.

TonyMaloney

Positive Swabs
1,268

Positivity Rate
5.57%

Swabs Completed
22,775

MerlinSouthDub

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Positive Swabs
1,268

Positivity Rate
5.57%

Swabs Completed
22,775

Out early today. Good to see huge amounts of testing happening anyway.

MadYaker

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

North of the border too.

You leave poor Arlene out of this!