Another full lockdown looming? - mod warning in OP

Happydays2020

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Level 5, with so much still open won’t bring down the numbers so, if that is the governments objective, I don’t see any option but for the full lockdown. Having said that, there’s not much point in it if schools ate open.

Government has a big decision to make. Stick with the levels and stubbornly high (1000?) numbers through Jan, or lock down like last year.

Dunno which way they’ll go, but I fear the latter

With pubs and hospitality closed and people not mixing in private homes the numbers should come down. Not sure what will be gained by a lockdown like last April except cost more jobs and more money.

Bass Reeves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Level 5, with so much still open won’t bring down the numbers so, if that is the governments objective, I don’t see any option but for the full lockdown. Having said that, there’s not much point in it if schools ate open.

Government has a big decision to make. Stick with the levels and stubbornly high (1000?) numbers through Jan, or lock down like last year.

Dunno which way they’ll go, but I fear the latter

1k cases per day now is not quite the same as 1k / day 8-10 weeks ago or last March/April. We are testing and tracing faster and more efficiently than 8-10 weeks ago. The R number is critical if we can get that below one we can manage the outcome. Sharp fall in case numbers is really only required when the surges get out of control.

The important thing is to get to a number that we can stabilise the infection at with keeping as much if the economy open as possible.

We struggle to get case numbers below 400/ day in late November. I think the government and NPHET would be happy with an R number below 1 and case numbers in the 5-700 bracket. The bugbear is the new infective variation of the virus and the effect that will have on the R number and the numbers

Lollipop95

Is working from home restrictions still in place? Was meant to be going back to the office in the new year but guess I’ll be remote for a while longer now

Beasty

Lollipop95 wrote: »

Is working from home restrictions still in place? Was meant to be going back to the office in the new year but guess I’ll be remote for a while longer now

You should work from home unless essential for work, which is an essential health, social care or other essential service and cannot be done from home.

JTMan

Good news ... The Tánaiste has implied that non-essential retail and gyms will stay open, the benefits outweigh the minor difference to case numbers. He's right.

"On the decision to allow non-essential retail outlets to remain open, the Tánaiste said that if Nphet advised that “closing non-essential retail would only make a small difference in cases then you have to ask is it worth all the other consequences and bear in mind any restrictions we have in place now are going to be there for a prolonged period, now we have the vaccine”.

notwhoyouthink

Beasty wrote: »

You should work from home unless essential for work, which is an essential health, social care or other essential service and cannot be done from home.

Where can I find the list of essential workers?

leanin2019

JTMan wrote: »

Good news ... The Tánaiste has implied that non-essential retail and gyms will stay open, the benefits outweigh the minor difference to case numbers. He's right.

Playing devils advocate, he is the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment so I wouldn't put too much faith in that quote.

Mike Murdock

JTMan wrote: »

Good news ... that non-essential retail and gyms will stay open, the benefits outweigh the minor difference to case numbers. He's right.

At least some common sense has prevailed.

Dempo1

facehugger99 wrote: »

What's 'worrying' about them exactly?

In a country of nearly 5 million there are a couple of dozen in ICU.

There were over double the amount in people in hospital with seasonal flu 3 years ago without the country grinding to a halt.

Highest amount of case numbers, highest amounts of Deaths, Paul Reid starts the day all excited about vaccines in cardboard boxes, Leo puts a spanner in the works, Paul Reid ends the day stating ALARMING Numbers seeking tests, sure what's to worry about

weldoninhio

JTMan wrote: »

Good news ... The Tánaiste has implied that non-essential retail and gyms will stay open, the benefits outweigh the minor difference to case numbers. He's right.

Excellent, so it’ll be almost impossible to get a bus to and from work.

Blut2

The talk earlier in the thread of everyone being vaccinated by March is insanely naive/wrong. The Sunday Business Post published an apparently very accurate schedule for Ireland a few days ago:



And thats if everything goes to plan and there are no delays, which is extremely unlikely. You can probably add months to that timeline in the real world.

Anyone advocating for a full lockdown in January has to accept that by doing so they're advocating for a full lockdown for most of 2021.

Hector Savage

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Your idiotic response and inability to actually respond to the points raised says more about your argument than mine to be honest.

Not an uncommon thing among those who spend more time bothering themselves about what others are doing I'll grant you.

Exactly, it's all they've got, anyone with any criticism of the hysteria and that aren't full on lockdown Larry/Bunker Bernie types are inbred yokels that believe the earth is flat, moon landings never happened and 5G is the cause of all this - oh yeah something about Bill Gates wanted to implant chips in us..

notwhoyouthink

Happydays2020 wrote: »

With pubs and hospitality closed and people not mixing in private homes the numbers should come down. Not sure what will be gained by a lockdown like last April except cost more jobs and more money.

Money, money, money, money, money...economy, economy, economy....

This is a public health emergency. The economy doesn't matter a dam. Nor does money. The public health officials have a single objective - protecting lives.

Everyone arguing against lock-downs never recognizes the opportunity cost of opening up the economy - it means disease and death.

The same people who are arguing that everything should be open are perfectly fine with locking down nursing homes and hospitals.

You don't see a crisis - you can't see beyond the $$$

weldoninhio

notwhoyouthink wrote: »

Money, money, money, money, money...economy, economy, economy....

This is a public health emergency. The economy doesn't matter a dam. Nor does money. The public health officials have a single objective - protecting lives.

Everyone arguing against lock-downs never recognizes the opportunity cost of opening up the economy - it means disease and death.

The same people who are arguing that everything should be open are perfectly fine with locking down nursing homes and hospitals.

You don't see a crisis - you can't see beyond the $$$

If this is a PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, why are vaccines sitting in a freezer somewhere til Tuesday? That doesn’t seem very urgent.

I don't really understand why people are so anti-lockdown in the first place to be honest. The government seem to have (financial) supports in place to cater for the vast, vast majority of people. I'm self employed, all we generally get are laughed at when it comes to supports and protections, but the govt. have given me the PUP payment straight away.

Im not sure who level 5 is actually detrimental to?

Allinall

weldoninhio wrote: »

If this is a PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, why are vaccines sitting in a freezer somewhere til Tuesday? That doesn’t seem very urgent.

Please spell out the difference it would make if they had started vaccinating today.

Stheno

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't really understand why people are so anti-lockdown in the first place to be honest. The government seem to have (financial) supports in place to cater for the vast, vast majority of people. I'm self employed, all we generally get are laughed at when it comes to supports and protections, but the govt. have given me the PUP payment straight away.

Im not sure who level 5 is actually detrimental to?

Its detrimental to a lot of peoples mental health imo

Not being able to meet colleagues, friends or families for weeks and months on end is quite lonely

notwhoyouthink

notwhoyouthink wrote: »

Money, money, money, money, money...economy, economy, economy....

This is a public health emergency. The economy doesn't matter a dam. Nor does money. The public health officials have a single objective - protecting lives.

Everyone arguing against lock-downs never recognizes the opportunity cost of opening up the economy - it means disease and death.

The same people who are arguing that everything should be open are perfectly fine with locking down nursing homes and hospitals.

You don't see a crisis - you can't see beyond the $$$

The economy doesn’t matter... Really?

weldoninhio

Allinall wrote: »

Please spell out the difference it would make if they had started vaccinating today.

Public buy-in, they’re getting it done ASAP. If it wasn’t for public outcry it would still be Wednesday til they started. It can’t be that much of an emergency if they’re sitting on vaccines and then in the future only providing them 9-5. Doesn’t sound too urgent.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

Its detrimental to a lot of peoples mental health imo

Not being able to meet colleagues, friends or families for weeks and months on end is quite lonely

But you shouldn't need to be told to not meet them. Surely people should have the cop on regardless of what 'level' we're in, to behave responsibly? We all know how the virus works.


If I'm an 'at risk' person, or I'm close to one, I'm not gonna go to a house party just because the government decide to pull back to level 1.

Allinall

weldoninhio wrote: »

Public buy-in, they’re getting it done ASAP. If it wasn’t for public outcry it would still be Wednesday til they started. It can’t be that much of an emergency if they’re sitting on vaccines and then in the future only providing them 9-5. Doesn’t sound too urgent.

So effectively no difference.

How do you know they brought it forward to Tuesday because of public outcry?

weldoninhio

Allinall wrote: »

So effectively no difference.

How do you know they brought it forward to Tuesday because of public outcry?

Because they said it would start on Wednesday, then there was public outcry, then they changed it to Tuesday. Why has the rest of the EU started vaccinating asap?

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

Public buy-in, they’re getting it done ASAP. If it wasn’t for public outcry it would still be Wednesday til they started. It can’t be that much of an emergency if they’re sitting on vaccines and then in the future only providing them 9-5. Doesn’t sound too urgent.

They have to transport them.

B.A._Baracus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The economy doesn’t matter... Really?

I do believe the poster means the economy doesn't matter when compared to saving lives.

I can see where they are coming from. On paper at least, the protection of human life is of the utmost importance. Sadly in reality it would appear the value of life isn't worth much in this world. A topic in itself I guess.

Of course no level headed person wants a recession. This is all about a balance I think. On one hand if you keep locking everything down for months and months that's not gonna be great. People will lose jobs and their homes. On the flip side of the coin if we don't have any lockdowns then thousands can die.

Supporting and disagreeing with lockdowns isn't a black and white topic I feel.

weldoninhio

bubblypop wrote: »

They have to transport them.

Ah sorry, I forgot the weekend transport ban.

martingriff

weldoninhio wrote: »

Public buy-in, they’re getting it done ASAP. If it wasn’t for public outcry it would still be Wednesday til they started. It can’t be that much of an emergency if they’re sitting on vaccines and then in the future only providing them 9-5. Doesn’t sound too urgent.

Would not make much sense having it at longer everyday given the limited amount we be getting. Do agree they could have started earlier. No one us jumping the queue anyway

weldoninhio

martingriff wrote: »

Would not make much sense having it at longer everyday given the limited amount we be getting. Do agree they could have started earlier. No one us jumping the queue anyway

When we are getting 50/70k they’ll still only be administering it 9-5 according to their plan.

martingriff

weldoninhio wrote: »

When we are getting 50/70k they’ll still only be administering it 9-5 according to their plan.

I agree it should be longer especially when getting to the other groups who may be working but 12 hour max. What hours are other countries doing

Happydays2020

notwhoyouthink wrote: »

Money, money, money, money, money...economy, economy, economy....

This is a public health emergency. The economy doesn't matter a dam. Nor does money. The public health officials have a single objective - protecting lives.

Everyone arguing against lock-downs never recognizes the opportunity cost of opening up the economy - it means disease and death.

The same people who are arguing that everything should be open are perfectly fine with locking down nursing homes and hospitals.

You don't see a crisis - you can't see beyond the $$$

What pays for hospitals? What pays doctors and nurses? What pays social benefits? What pays for roads? And water? And waste disposal? And traffic lights? All those public services require tax revenues. Money.

Close things down unnecessarily and all this will mean less doctors and nurses and hospitals and adverse health impacts which are far beyond the risks...

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ah sorry, I forgot the weekend transport ban.

It's Christmas weekend. How many people do you think want to work if they don't have to?
Monday they will transport them, to start vaccinating on Tuesday. Seems reasonable