When will it all end?

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do people who are "pro-restriction" (for want of a better word - I know you don't want restrictions) seem to think that there is level five lockdown, open-up-let-'er-rip, and nothing in-between?

This has been a problem, driven largely by moral absolutism. When people take a high ground, on the premise that they are the ones who care about others while the anti-lockdown crowd are selfish cretins — its hard to advocate even moderate lifting of restrictions because it means at least some more people will die and Mr / Mrs Morality finds themselves in the selfish cretin bucket too...where one becomes an ‘apologist’ for the concept that even saving lives is a question of proportionality versus freedom. So the only way to maintain one’s ethical purity is to simply find the lowest risk approach and constantly advocate it, then blame others for being uncaring when an elevated risk appetite leads to at least some elevation in death numbers.

Then will come the day where Covid deaths are at a number they deem to be tolerable, and suddenly the ‘caring’ people won’t care about the deaths anymore.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And some think that one otherwise-isolating household meeting another otherwise-isolating household poses a risk, and a sip of champagne on New Years' eve should keep a driver away from a car for 12 hours.

If we ran society according to the risk tolerance of those people we'd never do anything.

The only possible vector of transmission on my restriction-breaking trips, FYI, would be a garda checkpoint. So down with that sort of thing. Too risky.

That's a neat scenario. And if the only people who chose to meet up were isolating households, then there wouldn't be a problem or any need for restrictions. Likewise if people only ever chose to drink a sip of champagne before driving, there wouldn't be any need for drink driving enforcement.

But doesn't your scenario highlight how far your example is form reality?

RGS

Scotty # wrote: »

Oh I think there is plenty in between. That's what we're aiming for. I was looking forward as much as anyone to heading down the country for a few days come May.


But I just don't think we're at the right place for lowering restrictions just yet.

You don't think we are there yet.


Can I ask what is your criteria for easing restrictions?

Apoapsis Rex

I see the legal case regarding unfair closure of certain construction will be held on April 13th.

Is this not a perfect opportunity for the government to keep construction closed "pending" the outcome of that case?

Or another fair alternative would be to close the sector of construction that is currently allowed so that there is no discrimination

ELM327

Sharpyshoot wrote: »

Nphet says no.

Just like the DUP, they will never not say no. Like the DUP we need to learn to ignore them.

ujjjjjjjjj

Scotty # wrote: »

You and I might be smart enough but can you imagine the mess if you let everyone decide for themselves?? It'd be like removing all speed limited from the roads and letting people decide their own limits.

Slightly different - while many of us feel that at times it is perfectly safe to say drive at 140 or 150kmh on a quiet motorway being asked to just drive at 120kmh isn't exactly a huge incumbence on my life - if I am driving to Cork and it takes a few minutes longer due to a speed limit it isn't exactly a huge problem or a massive invasion of my freedoms.....it is a balance.

Being prevented from working, getting into severe financial distress, having your business destroyed, dealing with mental issues in your family or kids, being prevented from travel and freedom of movement........slightly different.....despite it being a virus that is little or no risk to most of the population.

Apples and oranges really.

Doctor Jimbob

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do people who are "pro-restriction" (for want of a better word - I know you don't want restrictions) seem to think that there is level five lockdown, open-up-let-'er-rip, and nothing in-between?

I don't get this either. Sticking with the speed limit comparison, our current restrictions are akin to having a 30kmph speed limit on all motorways. We know this would reduce accidents massively, but it would be an overreaction that would have an unnecessarily severe impact on the average person's life. Why not go to a 50 or 80 kmph limit? Most people accept that conditions are too dangerous to have the normal 120kmph limit at the moment, but think the 30kmph limit is too severe.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What, specifically, is that critical mass, and what is your source for that figure?

Critical mass refers to the percentage of people who need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population. One of the aims with working towards herd immunity is to keep vulnerable groups who cannot get vaccinated (e.g. due to health conditions like allergic reactions to the vaccine) safe and protected from the disease.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19

Currently scientists estimate that somewhere between 70% and 85% of people need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/03/963373971/a-rocky-road-on-the-way-to-herd-immunity-for-covid-19?t=1612983608348&t=1615808016669

Scotty #

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Being prevented from working, getting into severe financial distress, having your business destroyed, dealing with mental issues in your family or kids, being prevented from travel and freedom of movement......

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

...despite it being a virus that is little or no risk to most of the population.

The virus itself is of low risk, but it's of huge risk to all of us if it were to collapse our health service. Do you not believe the world's health experts when they warn this? Do you not believe they know better than you and I? Or do you think they're lying?

bucketybuck

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

Its sickening to keep hearing this bull****.

No, for the vast majority of us life has not carried on, for the vast majority it has been severely curtailed and affected in a multitude of different ways.

gozunda

HansKroenke wrote: »

It's absolutely not. Healthcare workers and slaughterhouse outbreaks were abetted by the authorities in spreading covid while everyone else was knuckling down and observing the restrictions. Considering how many deaths came from nursing homes, the biggest contributor to the deaths figure is the spread of covid in care/nursing homes and hospitals which would have been from healthcare workers spreading the virus. This isn't to blame the people but to make an observation.

You sure about that? Eveyone? - even those screaming that they know better, don't care about restrictions or saying they'll do what they like?

Working in a high risk environment such as health care or living in a communal setting of vulnerable people pre-vaccination is absolutely not in the same category as those deciding they know better or even using that excuse for not sticking with the restrictions. And yes that also acknowledges that mistakes have most certainly been made.

And again that's not 'blame' simply an observation as to what has happened to date.

mikekerry

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.


The virus itself is of low risk, but it's of huge risk to all of us if it were to collapse our health service. Do you not believe the world's health experts when they warn this? Do you not believe they know better than you and I? Or do you think they're lying?

From looking at the many tik tok videos of hospital staff dancing in empty wards it doesn't look like our health system is anyway close to collapsing.

El_Duderino 09

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.


The virus itself is of low risk, but it's of huge risk to all of us if it were to collapse our health service. Do you not believe the world's health experts when they warn this? Do you not believe they know better than you and I? Or do you think they're lying?

This is the problem with people assessing the risks for themselves. Some people will assess risks more accurately than others. Some people will ignore risks they don't like to think about, as we see with people ignoring the overall risks rather than personal risks.

You also have things like the Dunning Kruger effect where, roughly speaking, the less people know about an issue the more confidently they will make assertions about them. In other works, the less someone knows about the risks, the more confidently they will calculate those risks for themselves.

M_Murphy57

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

Hundreds of thousands of people losing their livelihood overnight is not "a tiny proportion". No warning, no chance to build up savings, mortgages and other debts still there. Credit rating destroyed for years to come. The mental health toll taken from going from being a contributing member of society to unemployed in an instant.

Meanwhile the government refuse to give plans or hope or a roadmap out of this hell.


But good to know you are in the "us" for whom "life has carried on"

aido79

What is the average age of people being admitted to hospital? This is the main thing that needs to be considered before a decision can be made on opening up.

Kermit.de.frog

mikekerry wrote: »

From looking at the many tik tok videos of hospital staff dancing in empty wards it doesn't look like our health system is anyway close to collapsing.

You're not the only one who agrees with that. Personally I found the videos crass, counter productive and offensive to those patients in hospital and ICU's. Not to mention undermining of the overall message.

The HSE should have instructed all staff not to engage in it particularly on hospital grounds or in medical gear.

That stuff started in the UK and it should have been stamped out immediately.

M_Murphy57

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You're not the only one who agrees with that. Personally I found the videos crass, counter productive and offensive to those patients in hospital and ICU's.

The HSE should have instructed all staff not to engage in it particularly on hospital grounds or in medical gear.

That stuff started in the UK and it should have been stamped out immediately.

Some hospitals did explicitly instruct their staff not to do it.

M_Murphy57

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of people losing their livelihood overnight is not "a tiny proportion". No warning, no chance to build up savings, mortgages and other debts still there. Credit rating destroyed for years to come. The mental health toll taken from going from being a contributing member of society to unemployed in an instant.

Meanwhile the government refuse to give plans or hope or a roadmap out of this hell.


But good to know you are in the "us" for whom "life has carried on"

700000 unemployed... “Tiny proportion “

Kermit.de.frog

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Some hospitals did explicitly instruct their staff not to do it.

I think the HSE should have applied it to everyone under penalty.

Some of those dance routines were elaborate to the point serious hours must have been put in just to get it all in sync.

These nurses and doctors are employed by us in the middle of a public health emergency.

Totally mad and undermining of the public health message.

SnuggyBear

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

How can anyone say that with a straight face. Unbelievable

newuser99999

SnuggyBear wrote: »

How can anyone say that with a straight face. Unbelievable

There’s plenty of weirdos who would feel no different if this lockdown went on forever.

ujjjjjjjjj

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't get this either. Sticking with the speed limit comparison, our current restrictions are akin to having a 30kmph speed limit on all motorways. We know this would reduce accidents massively, but it would be an overreaction that would have an unnecessarily severe impact on the average person's life. Why not go to a 50 or 80 kmph limit? Most people accept that conditions are too dangerous to have the normal 120kmph limit at the moment, but think the 30kmph limit is too severe.

Good way to describe it.......

ArthurDayne

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.


The virus itself is of low risk, but it's of huge risk to all of us if it were to collapse our health service. Do you not believe the world's health experts when they warn this? Do you not believe they know better than you and I? Or do you think they're lying?

The problem is though Scotty that this question of a “collapsed health service” has become a kind of catch-all apocalyptic vista — and one where the concept of “severe strain” and “collapse” are seemingly conflated, along with some uncertainty in what the tangible reality of a collapsed health service actually looks like and how long this situation would persist.

The experience from Italy last spring gave many the impression that this relatively new and unstudied virus could quickly collapse the health service for an extended period of time and thus the only way to prevent an irretrievable situation was to lock down well in advance. There was still a belief then that nobody was really safe and thus the virus could debilitate society. What we have seen in the time since is that the virus has the capacity to put severe strain on the health service, we have not yet seen its ability to utterly collapse it. Of course, many will say that the restrictions have prevented that all-out collapse from happening — but others will point out that there are ways and means to move away from absolutely conservative risk tolerance which don’t necessarily mean “letting it rip”. What we have seen instead is a cycle of: (1) State goes ultra-conservative in restrictions; (2) people largely comply but feelings of frustration, sadness, loneliness, isolation start to gather: (3) government lifts restrictions and a repressed population naturally rushes to do whatever they can with the freedom they have; (4) numbers increase and Government returns to ultra-conservative restrictions. Rinse, repeat.

I know Sweden gets thrown up a lot but as a country which followed a relatively looser approach it does at least provide some insight into what might happen where you have less stringent rules. They had a notable increase in excess deaths, but not the all-out collapse and cataclysm which many wise men and women predicted. Now, I get that people will point out differences between the quality / capacity of Swedish healthcare or whatever cultural differences, but their experience has not been one which many people (if they had had a crystal ball last March) would have said necessitated a complete lockdown of society for a year. Quite simply, the view that the stringency of the Irish strategy is all that stands between us and complete “collapse” of the healthcare system does not seem compelling.

ujjjjjjjjj

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.


The virus itself is of low risk, but it's of huge risk to all of us if it were to collapse our health service. Do you not believe the world's health experts when they warn this? Do you not believe they know better than you and I? Or do you think they're lying?

Well this post just about shows where you are anyway - if you think this is life 'carrying on' I really can't continue this discussion.

Re health service collapse we have had a year of this and we still have the same old mess of a health service which collapses every winter and hasn't been functioning for decades.

Your arguments basically endlessly revolve around 'why do you think you know better than the health experts'.....in short health experts are just health experts, they can advise on what they think they are experts on but this is a much wider issue which needs 'experts' to make balanced decisions and weight up damage from lockdown v covid issues. Our health experts are embedded in a dysfunctional health service which is permanently broken so their advice is skewed to protecting this broken machine and their narrow field of expertise takes no account of wider societal issues or collateral damage because no one is asking them to take this into account.

So no I don't believe health experts (who are advocating for legal restrictions) have got the balance correct.

ujjjjjjjjj

aido79 wrote: »

What is the average age of people being admitted to hospital? This is the main thing that needs to be considered before a decision can be made on opening up.

I would really be of the opinion that all that matters is keeping an eye on ICU numbers and deaths. Hospitalization for minor treatment isn't exactly an issue.

GazzaL

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This has been a problem, driven largely by moral absolutism. When people take a high ground, on the premise that they are the ones who care about others while the anti-lockdown crowd are selfish cretins — its hard to advocate even moderate lifting of restrictions because it means at least some more people will die and Mr / Mrs Morality finds themselves in the selfish cretin bucket too...where one becomes an ‘apologist’ for the concept that even saving lives is a question of proportionality versus freedom. So the only way to maintain one’s ethical purity is to simply find the lowest risk approach and constantly advocate it, then blame others for being uncaring when an elevated risk appetite leads to at least some elevation in death numbers.

Then will come the day where Covid deaths are at a number they deem to be tolerable, and suddenly the ‘caring’ people won’t care about the deaths anymore.

Mr & Mrs Morality are the same types of people that defended mother and baby homes and institutional paedos.

Graces7

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think the HSE should have applied it to everyone under penalty.

Some of those dance routines were elaborate to the point serious hours must have been put in just to get it all in sync.

These nurses and doctors are employed by us in the middle of a public health emergency.

Totally mad and undermining of the public health message.

They were a much needed boost to morale. They all have off duty time. And needed and need a break.

They were also a sheer delight and boost to watch, as all the jerusalema entries are.

The dance itself is very very simple. Learned in minutes.

My favourite was the Dingle Coast Guard with that wonderful background.

Scotty #

Scotty # wrote: »

For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

This is true only for asocial couch potato hermits with desk jobs.

bucketybuck

My favourite was the Dingle Coast Guard with that wonderful background.

My favourite is the bit where I could have been arrested for going to that same background to make my own video.

newuser99999

Graces7 wrote: »

They were a much needed boost to morale. They all have off duty time. And needed and need a break.

Oh cut the crap.

Coming from an organisation who has NCHDs working 70+ hours a week I’m so sure that they care about the health and well being of their staff.