Another full lockdown looming? - mod warning in OP

Blondini

Blondini wrote: »

Can anyone calculate the R0 of this type of post so I can decide whether to continue with this thread of not?

The r0 is quite high, but rapidly decreases to 0 when asked any questions. Tends to mutate quite frequently however so comes back again and again

GT89

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is not true. Having a condition which makes you high risk is not grounds for claiming PUP, not is having high risk relatives that you need to look after.

If you need to check the qualifying conditions for PUP they are HERE.

I live in Dublin and I can't get shopping delivered, I have been fully dependant on click and collect only since March. Which involves leaving the house.

You are clearly ill-informed.

Well then maybe it should be changed then if that's the case. Make so people with conditions that make them high risk can claim it.

Again that can be changed. Introduce schemes where high risk people can get shopping delivered as a priority or do no contact click and collect in shops where high risk people can get their shopping whilst remaining in the car or without entering the shop. It be done quite easily.

riclad

I went to 3 shops in the last week the dispensors near the entrance had no sanitiser fluid left.
Shops need to take this crisis more seriously.
People handle goods and baskets all the time it's vital everyone
can wash their hands near the main entrance as the come inside the door

Risteard81

khalessi wrote: »

You know we use them on the wards too, not a sterile environment, so go on tell us all, why they work in hospitals and not outside which is what yoou were asked. Avoidance is not an answer.

My mum was a physiotherapist who worked in hospitals all of her life. She never wore gas masks at work.

Ubbquittious

riclad wrote: »

I went to 3 shops in the last week the dispensors near the entrance had no sanitiser fluid left.
Shops need to take this crisis more seriously.
People handle goods and baskets all the time it's vital everyone
can wash their hands near the main entrance as the come inside the door

I think they should just spray people with a fine mist of alcohol as they're coming in just to be sure

khalessi

Risteard81 wrote: »

My mum was a physiotherapist who worked in hospitals all of her life. She never wore gas masks at work.

SHe was not dressing wounds.
Still haven't answered the question
AVoidance again

Risteard81

khalessi wrote: »

SHe was not dressing wounds.
Still haven't answered the question
AVoidance again

I don't dress wounds on buses or in shopping centres either...

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why haven’t doctors/nurses/hca’s been wearing them in shops, cinemas, shopping centres, public transport for years now then???

Why would they?

khalessi

Risteard81 wrote: »

I don't dress wounds on buses or in shopping centres either...

So you cant andwer the question on why masks work in hospitals and not elsewhere, as they are not just worn for dressing wounds. So your approach is to keep avoiding an answer.

Risteard81

khalessi wrote: »

So you cant andwer the question on why masks work in hospitals and not elsewhere, as they are not just worn for dressing wounds. So your approach is to keep avoiding an answer.

You brought up the dressing of wounds argument - not me. I do realise that you are not blessed with intellect, however, so I try to be understanding.

GT89

khalessi wrote: »

SHe was not dressing wounds.
Still haven't answered the question
AVoidance again

I've never seen ordinary nurses, doctors or paramedics wearing masks when dressing wounds outside of covid times. Last time I was in an A+E was 2015 and no one was wearing a mask.

Beasty

No more mask talk in this thread

Use the dedicated thread

And if you are threadbanned there but decide to discuss them here you can expect a removal of posting privileges

GT89

GT89 wrote: »

Well then maybe it should be changed then if that's the case. Make so people with conditions that make them high risk can claim it.

Again that can be changed. Introduce schemes where high risk people can get shopping delivered as a priority or do no contact click and collect in shops where high risk people can get their shopping whilst remaining in the car or without entering the shop. It be done quite easily.

I again can see that you really haven't thought this through. You are underestimating how many people have conditions that would put them in the high risk category.

Every diabetic, every asthmatic, every person with a compromised immune system, or a respiratory or cardiac condition would qualify - there are 225,000 diabetics alone, in Ireland.

And thats not counting those who are caring for high risk family members (both elderly and children).

end of the road

GT89 wrote: »

If you're high risk, have an irrational fear of catching the virus or both then you can stay home and let the rest of us live our lives normally. Why is it that difficult?

it's not that it is difficult, it's that it doesn't work.
of course you already know this and why it doesn't and can't work.

GT89 wrote: »

Stop testing and you wouldn't have over a thousand cases

you would.
reality doesn't go away because of nonsense and because you don't like it.

GT89 wrote: »

If they are unable to WFH then they can claim the pup I work with people who left back in March to claim the pup as they have vulnerable family members. Many vulnerable people are still limiting contacts.

I don't know of anyone in Dublin at least that cant get shopping delivered and that where the bulk of covid is. So it's simpler to close businesses and impose severe restrictions on the population then simply reccomend that elderly/vulnerable stay home which many are doing anyway.

closing non-essential businesses works as it removes contacts and minimises spread.
reccomending that elderly/vulnerable stay home which many are doing anyway has been done from the start, however it only works when virus spread is controlled and minimised.

end of the road

Risteard81 wrote: »

It really isn't though. New diseases come about all the time.

If we are going to impose totalitarian restrictions every time that happens then we will never be free from totalitarian restrictions. The fact is that they are not justified, were never justified and cannot ever be justified.

This is why I demand that those responsible for them be prosecuted to the extremities of the law and beyond. They are the enemy of the Irish People and all of the Peoples of the world.

it's not possible to prosecute people for dealing with facts and reality.
what you demand or what you want is irrelevant.

Risteard81 wrote: »

How are you thinking about others demanding that everyone face unlawful restrictions on their lives? You are the most selfish type of person there is. It is utterly abhorrent.

have you got a source/link/evidence to back up your claim that the restrictions are unlawful?

VeVeX wrote: »

The infection to fatality ratio is slightly different though isn't it?

Ebola has a 90% case fatality rate whereas covid19 is 0.23% link

The reason I chose Ebola is to highlight the disproportionality of the response. We're responding to covid like its a much deadlier threat than it is.

covid is a deadlier threat when uncontrolled, then it is when controlled, therefore we aren't responding to it like it 's a deadlier threat then it is .

Risteard81 wrote: »

As you well know most medical personnel are afraid to speak out - just look at what happened to Martin Feeley for daring to question the narrative of Dr. Death (Tony Holohan) himself.

he didn't speak out.
he expressed a viewpoint and forgot to mention that it was his view and his view only, hence the HSE had no option but to come out and say that he was not representing them in that view.
he then resigned of his own accord.

GT89

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I again can see that you really haven't thought this through. You are underestimating how many people have conditions that would put them in the high risk category.

Every diabetic, every asthmatic, every person with a compromised immune system, or a respiratory or cardiac condition would qualify - there are 225,000 diabetics alone, in Ireland.

And thats not counting those who are caring for high risk family members (both elderly and children).

How many of these people make up the workforce and cannot WFH, how many of these people cannot get shopping delivered and how many of these people will actually follow the advice. The pup would only be available if they can't WFH.

Children are not at risk so not really relevant. Those caring for someone at risk can take extra precautions too.

Beasty

Risteard81 will not be posting in this thread again

faceman

GT89 wrote: »

If they are unable to WFH then they can claim the pup I work with people who left back in March to claim the pup as they have vulnerable family members. Many vulnerable people are still limiting contacts.

I don't know of anyone in Dublin at least that cant get shopping delivered and that where the bulk of covid is. So it's simpler to close businesses and impose severe restrictions on the population then simply reccomend that elderly/vulnerable stay home which many are doing anyway.

And how long before the PUP can’t pay mortgages and other expenses? Banks aren’t providing mortgage moratorium beyond 6 months. And when they do, interest is applied. How long is that sustainable?

Also shopping deliveries incur a surcharge. I know of one family personally who forgo online shopping for that very reason because they’re on the PUP

GT89

faceman wrote: »

And how long before the PUP can’t pay mortgages and other expenses? Banks aren’t providing mortgage moratorium beyond 6 months. And when they do, interest is applied. How long is that sustainable?

Also shopping deliveries incur a surcharge. I know of one family personally who forgo online shopping for that very reason because they’re on the PUP

And what about all the people who have no choice but to be on the PUP because the industries they work are closed due to covid. Under my scenario the only people on the pup would be those at high risk from covid 19 whereas currently everyone who works in certain sectors eg hospitality, entertainment etc. is on it regardless if they are high risk or not.

Basically people will have the choice whether to be on the pup or not under my proposal.

GT89

GT89 wrote: »

How many of these people make up the workforce and cannot WFH, how many of these people cannot get shopping delivered and how many of these people will actually follow the advice. The pup would only be available if they can't WFH.

Children are not at risk so not really relevant. Those caring for someone at risk can take extra precautions too.

You're the one who suggested that the PUP payment should be revised so anyone who is high risk can stay home and claim it - so why don't you start researching and coming up with a few numbers? It was your suggestion, after all.

There are children with auto-immune diseases, diabetes, asthma or other conditions as well, and they most certainly are relevant.

What I am getting from your posts, is you expect everyone else to make all these efforts, yet are unwilling to make even the most basic accommodations yourself.

John O.Groats

GT89 wrote: »

Maybe if businesses starting opening and people disobeyed the government restrictions we could all live normally

That might happen in your fantasy land but in the real world where most of us live thankfully it won`t. Time you woke up and smelled the coffee.

GT89

GT89 wrote: »

And what about all the people who have no choice but to be on the PUP because the industries they work are closed due to covid. Under my scenario the only people on the pup would be those at high risk from covid 19 whereas currently everyone who works in certain sectors eg hospitality, entertainment etc. is on it regardless if they are high risk or not.

Basically people will have the choice whether to be on the pup or not under my proposal.

Right.. so if someone *chooses* to leave work due to their medical or family needs how long do you expect employers will keep those people's jobs open for them under your "proposal"?

And how can you guarantee that an employer won't use someone's condition against them it in the future as a way to dismiss them?

I guess you're re-writing employment law now as well as social welfare.

Again, your proposal is ill thought out.

GT89

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're the one who suggested that the PUP payment should be revised so anyone who is high risk can stay home and claim it - so why don't you start researching and coming up with a few numbers? It was your suggestion, after all.

There are children with auto-immune diseases, diabetes, asthma or other conditions as well, and they most certainly are relevant.

What I am getting from your posts, is you expect everyone else to make all these efforts, yet are unwilling to make even the most basic accommodations yourself.

If it allows all the businesses that shut due to covid to reopen then I'd be for it if not then we should continue as we are as it would be pointless. I'm guessing you think the should be travel restriction should be in place and pubs and the like should be closed.

I'm not expecting anyone to make any efforts at all at the end of the day they have should the choice stay at home or go to the pub and potentially catch covid it's completely up to them. You seem to think it's better to lockdown the whole population than just a proportion of the population.

We have all have been given no choice but to make huge efforts. Can't go to the pub, restaurant, cinema, gym or outside ones county etc. and this applies to everyone whether they be high risk or not. All I want is the choice I want to live my life normally and I want choices surely that not too extreme or selfish.

faceman

faceman wrote: »

And how long before the PUP can’t pay mortgages and other expenses? Banks aren’t providing mortgage moratorium beyond 6 months. And when they do, interest is applied. How long is that sustainable?

Also shopping deliveries incur a surcharge. I know of one family personally who forgo online shopping for that very reason because they’re on the PUP

IBEC were in today’s paper suggesting that 80-85% of people are better off during COVID, either because the PUP is more than what they were previously earning, or because they are WFH and saving money on commuting etc, or just working normally and not spending as much on going out. I really don’t think, other than a very vocal (and, I accept, reasonably substantial minority) who are happy enough with how things are at the moment and have no desire to move out of this too fast

(and IBEC are no lockdown merchants)

pjohnson

GT89 wrote: »

Well then maybe it should be changed then if that's the case. Make so people with conditions that make them high risk can claim it.

Again that can be changed. Introduce schemes where high risk people can get shopping delivered as a priority or do no contact click and collect in shops where high risk people can get their shopping whilst remaining in the car or without entering the shop. It be done quite easily.

Have you came up with a solution for parents yet?


Or will you just foster their kids for them?

GT89

pjohnson wrote: »

Have you came up with a solution for parents yet?


Or will you just foster their kids for them?

So why are the schools open then?

pjohnson

GT89 wrote: »

So why are the schools open then?

I was asking do you have a solution for parents who are at risk sending their kids to school.

Will you foster the kid or send him your revised PUP payment plan?

Similarly anyone living with elderly relatives (this is common now with the bonkers housing market) if they suddenly have to vacate their current home will you provide houses for them?


You lot seem to think everyone lives alone and cant possibly ever come into contact with an at risk person.

GT89

GT89 wrote: »

We have all have been given no choice but to make huge efforts. Can't go to the pub, restaurant, cinema, gym or outside ones county etc. and this applies to everyone whether they be high risk or not. All I want is the choice I want to live my life normally and I want choices surely that not too extreme or selfish.

The whole world is in the middle of a global pandemic. It is NOT a matter of choice and a normal life is not possible for anyone, at the moment.

Today we have 1296 new cases, the highest number to date since the beginning of this pandemic.

We are a long way off returning to anything even resembling normal yet.

GT89

pjohnson wrote: »

I was asking do you have a solution for parents who are at risk sending their kids to school.

Will you foster the kid or send him your revised PUP payment plan?

Similarly anyone living with elderly relatives (this is common now with the bonkers housing market) if they suddenly have to vacate their current home will you provide houses for them?


You lot seem to think everyone lives alone and cant possibly ever come into contact with an at risk person.

I don't can only provide suggestions for these people I can't provide solutions as it is up to each induvidual to make decisions that work for them for starters. But anyway I thought children were generally considered low risk of transmitting the virus hence why the schools were reopened if the government are to be believed at least.

The high risk risk parents are not sitting with the children in the school they don't even enter the building I thought. Some high risk parents are keeping their children home anyway regardless and doing home schooling and that's what works for them. That's my mantra people should be free to do whatever works for them and it should not be the government requiring businesses to close. If living like how you did back in Feburary works for you then that's how you should be allowed live if not then people are free to take extra precautions but should be forced which is what is happening.

I agree the housing market is riddiculous and people should be provided with housing but that's a debate for a different. Personally I think housing should be a constitutional right but again that a debate for a different day. People living with elderly relatives again are free to do whatever works for them.

GT89

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The whole world is in the middle of a global pandemic. It is NOT a matter of choice and a normal life is not possible for anyone, at the moment.

Today we have 1296 new cases, the highest number to date since the beginning of this pandemic.

We are a long way off returning to anything even resembling normal yet.

It may not work for everyone but right now people are to certain degree not allowed live a normal life. All I am saying is people should be allowed live a normal life if that dosen't work for some people then they don't have to live a normal life.

Today's case numbers have no relevance to one going to work, on holidays or the pub.