When will it all end?

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

Yeah, down over 90% in 8 weeks, complete failure.....

And what of the other 10%? This was supposed to reduce cases below the 100 mark, I even read some talking about single digit numbers. And now? It’s not reducing fast enough, but the cost socially and financially is the same. Probably worst than we even know.

hynesie08

Deleted User wrote: »

And what of the other 10%? This was supposed to reduce cases below the 100 mark, I even read some talking about single digit numbers. And now? It’s not reducing fast enough, but the cost socially and financially is the same. Probably worst than we even know.

Who said below 100? Or single figures?

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

Who said below 100? Or single figures?

https://www.newstalk.com/news/ireland-on-the-right-side-of-the-curve-with-covid-19-1150059

“Dr Nuala O'Connor from the Irish College of General Practitioners agreed that recent efforts to suppress the virus have been working.

The Cork GP said "things are all moving in the right direction", with her practice receiving fewer coronavirus-related calls and more "normal" work resuming.

She told Newstalk Breakfast with Susan Keogh: "It is good news that we appear to be past the worst of the third wave but we need to continue to be extremely careful because although the numbers have dropped...there's still an awful lot of disease out there."

She said it will take at least another six weeks "before we get down towards that magic number of between 100 and 150 cases a day".”

This is the most recent article I can find. Plenty of politicians and members of NPHET have intimated that even lower numbers are key to being able to lift restrictions.

Dickie10

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

See, just leave aside the deaths for a moment, how do the 'open it up' crew ( and im not necessarily opposing that) suggest we deal with the inevitable pressure on the health service?

i am granted not part of open up crew as you gathered but when 70+ are vaccinated i think slow open up then. maybe 60+ done go to level 2. risk very low then so health service should be grand. i wouldnt condone testing much after 60+are vaxxed. no need then. we dont have vulnerable to protect. variants will be there but theres hundreds of diseases and variants out there for years, unfortunatley we will have to take our chances and live with that risk. or not if people dont want to they can keep up their own self imposed restriction i am sure no body would have a probelem with that.

ingo1984

They anticipate that come start of April cases will hopefully be 150 to 100.

If that is the case I hope to god they ease some of the restrictions, namely retail and allow people back to the sports clubs. Pinning my last shreds of hope on that.

But I have a niggling feeling that the drop in cases will plateau or even rise when the schools reopen and we'll end up in level 5 with schools open until they close again come June.

PTH2009

ingo1984 wrote: »

But I have a niggling feeling that the drop in cases will plateau or even rise when the schools reopen and we'll end up in level 5 with schools open until they close again come June.

Meanwhile we will watching the rest of Europe and the UK getting back to normal and us stuck with a farce of a living with covid plan with the progression targets been almost impossible

helimachoptor

PTH2009 wrote: »

Meanwhile we will watching the rest of Europe and the UK getting back to normal and us stuck with a farce of a living with covid plan with the progression targets been almost impossible

I hope that even the most pro lockdown person once seeing Europe but firstly the brits open up will have to see the game is up, if the politicians don't then it's time to march

hynesie08

PTH2009 wrote: »

Meanwhile we will watching the rest of Europe and the UK getting back to normal and us stuck with a farce of a living with covid plan with the progression targets been almost impossible

It's great isn't it.

j@utis

PTH2009 wrote: »

Meanwhile we will watching the rest of Europe and the UK getting back to normal and us stuck with a farce of a living with covid plan with the progression targets been almost impossible

Our "living with covid" plan is called "hiding from covid" as long as we can and beyond...

hatrickpatrick

AdamD wrote: »

The people making these decisions are sheltered from the impact of them.

They are:
Middle aged with settled families
Own their own home
Social life revolves around their children and close family
Have taken no hit to their income
Still actually get to leave the house and have social interactions to do their job (TDs / NPHET)


Lockdown has a fraction of the impact on them as somebody under the age of 30

Absolutely. And I note that none of the "it's ok to talk about quasi-permanent social distancing" posters have actually addressed the content of my post around single people forming relationships, which is very telling. They don't have an answer. So either they're ok with asking hundreds of thousands of people to face indefinite celibacy and expect that not to cause widespread mental health problems, or they simply haven't thought through the obvious fact that "don't get closer than two metres to a stranger" translates to "don't date anyone and certainly don't get intimate with anyone unless you were already paired off when lockdown began".

It's absolutely ridiculous that this elephant in the room isn't being addressed. People post sh!te like "what's so bad about social distancing" without considering the fact that it essentially tells anyone single that for some indeterminate period of time now being talked about in spans of years, they are not allowed to experience any form of physical intimacy with another human.

How anyone can talk about prolonged social distancing rules without addressing how we square that from the extremely basic fact that humans are driven perhaps more than any other innate instinct by the urge to ride. Condemning it as selfish or immoral doesn't actually matter at the end of the day because it is literally impossible to enforce it. You cannot ask the population of everyone who was single when this began to defy four billion years of evolution indefinitely and expect them not to eventually throw the rulebook away. People need answers as to what the light at the end of the tunnel looks like, now that we're being told mass vaccination isn't it.

I'm not sure why you feel you can't ever touch anyone again?
Surely when you meet someone then after a few meetings you're going to be touching each other?
Why would you not be

hatrickpatrick

markodaly wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40226633.html

Polls seem to be vastly in favour of a cautious measured approach. Most of the commentary here appears to be out of touch with this.

You won't get any argument from me. The cautious measured approach is absolutely what we need while we wait for mass vaccination to be achieved. The issue which has arisen over the last week or two is the suggestion that even after mass vaccination, we still have to maintain a social distance from others - and absolutely no information whatsoever on what the criteria might be for finally getting rid of that. That's the problem. Prior to this week's commentary, the assumption, fuelled by commentary from leading politicians, was that social distancing could end once we had mass vaccination. If that isn't the case then fair enough, but people need an answer as to what event needs to occur in order for us to say we don't have to do that anymore.

Has a poll been done on how many people would be ok with restrictions continuing after mass vaccination has been achieved?

How long do you believe it's reasonable to ask young, single people to repress their sexuality and not seek intimacy or romantic partnership? Years? Decades? Forever? I'm just trying to get a handle on what exactly you believe the end game should be, because so far you've only been able to tell us what you believe it shouldn't be. I have told you what I believe it should be. What do you believe it should be? What in your opinion is an acceptable criteria for which to say, "now that X has happened, you can meet people who aren't in your household, and sit closer than two metres from them"?

Straight answers, if you want to fire questions back at me that's fine, but answer these first. What's your view on the question of social distancing essentially forcing an entire generation into indefinite, government-mandated celibacy and how long that paradigm is acceptable to continue? And what's your view on what, if not mass vaccination as was previously stated, is the goalpost at which point this government-mandated celibacy can be revoked?

hatrickpatrick

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure why you feel you can't ever touch anyone again?
Surely when you meet someone then after a few meetings you're going to be touching each other?
Why would you not be

We're being told we're not supposed to. I'm not suggesting nobody is breaking the rules, but as long as we're told to maintain a two metre social distance from strangers, it's impossible to form a new relationship with anyone without breaking them. At some point, if you're correct, that means both parties have to break the rules which say no physical contact between people who aren't already sharing a household or bubble.

How is someone who's just turned 18, left school, and can't go out to meet people or see their friends supposed to meet someone to ask out? If someone matches someone else on Tinder, how can they hold hands or kiss without breaking the two metre rule? The rule categorically prohibits physical intimacy in relationships which didn't already exist prior to the introduction of social distancing.

SnuggyBear

I went on tinder the other night. Got a few matches and messages. I thought what's the point and deleted the app.

Lockheed

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

I was surfing through facebook today and saw an article saying schools will re open 1st of March.

Them news got a lot of angry faces on FB.

1 of the comments said "unbelievable they are reopening with cases through the roof"

1 of the posters here made it sound like we are selfish for wanting to travel abroad for holidays, have a pint, work in our work places. Isnt it a bit selfish to demand everything stays closed for a bit of "safety"?

I don't get it, its just as selfish to want things to open up again at the cost of many potential lives.

dublin49

Lockheed wrote: »

I don't get it, its just as selfish to want things to open up again at the cost of many potential lives.

I would think argument has been well ventilated by now and whatever your opinio I would imagine its not for changing at this stage.

mcsean2163

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We're being told we're not supposed to. I'm not suggesting nobody is breaking the rules, but as long as we're told to maintain a two metre social distance from strangers, it's impossible to form a new relationship with anyone without breaking them. At some point, if you're correct, that means both parties have to break the rules which say no physical contact between people who aren't already sharing a household or bubble.

How is someone who's just turned 18, left school, and can't go out to meet people or see their friends supposed to meet someone to ask out? If someone matches someone else on Tinder, how can they hold hands or kiss without breaking the two metre rule? The rule categorically prohibits physical intimacy in relationships which didn't already exist prior to the introduction of social distancing.

Yeah, it's a shame the government doesn't have an expanding your bubble for a new partner clause. It's a bit like the Taliban, maybe mail order partners could become a thing.

How about a new app called sexcation.

You must exchange at least 20 messages and then can sign a legal agreement that entitles you to move to and stay in the home of someone for 14 days like a quarantine type thing.

Would something like that work? I could design the app pretty fast if you think it's a runner.

Dickie10

how about vaccinating the escorts so that people can have their hour of fun to relive themsleves?

only messing , like i say once over 70s are vaccinated then hospitalisations will drop away and health service wont be overwhelmed then we open up slowly and move on with life. anyone whos sees a problem with this pray tell what I am missing? a varient i suppose ? which we dont know of yet? ok but we have to live with that risk. open up by june.

markodaly

Micky 32 wrote: »

Lol now you are talking out of your back end . Your poll doesn’t reflect real life full stop.

It is not my poll, if you dispute its findings find me something else other than, 'I deal with the public'

markodaly

Parachutes wrote: »

People want things to go back to normal = Flat Earth believers.

Nice one.

People may want to lose weight or get rich, it doesn't change the fact that they may be poor and fat.

Desire has no basis on science or the facts of the matter.

Getting back to normal is reasonable, dismissing science and the consensus of the majority because it doesn't fit your world view, is not reasonable.

drunkmonkey

End of March over 70's should be finished, I'd expect a lot to change in April, international travel will still be an issue but things should be ok internally, israel are seeing an increase in hospitalisations in the under 70's now mainly due to the UK variant which appears to be more deadly as well as transmissible. It's not stopping them from opening slowly https://www.timesofisrael.com/synagogues-stores-could-be-reopened-for-all-sunday-malls-gyms-for-vaccinated/

Micky 32

markodaly wrote: »

It is not my poll, if you dispute its findings find me something else other than, 'I deal with the public'

You seem not to be able to take being wrong . You should work on that. The fact of the matter is the poll you posted does not reflect real life, it’s flawed. I meet a lot of people everyday and i can confirm the poll you posted doesn’t add up, sorry. Maybe you should give me something else, maybe a different more accurate poll?

markodaly

Coybig_ wrote: »

A poll which omits relevant facts about those who were polled is not worth anything. About as relevant as personal anecdotes.

Maybe if you actually read the article or the paper the poll was published in, you will find the relevant facts you need?

Jog on you bluffer.

Micky 32

markodaly wrote: »

People may want to lose weight or get rich, it doesn't change the fact that they may be poor and far.

Desire has no basis on science or the facts of the matter.

Getting back to normal is reasonable, dismissing science and the consensus of the majority because it doesn't fir your world view, is not reasonable.

It’s funny, when i see posters posting about “ science” being the answer to everything they seem to be the ones that fantasize about growing lettuce in window boxes.

markodaly

Micky 32 wrote: »

The fact of the matter is the poll you posted does not reflect real life, it’s flawed.

How exactly is it flawed because you say it is, based on personal anecdotes?

Sorry but that is not how we do critical thinking or polls or indeed any science.

The idea that "My feelings on the matter override results based on an accepted peer-reviewed standard" hold no water.

For someone who tells me that, I cannot accept I am wrong, I think best you self reflect on that notion yourself.

Micky 32

markodaly wrote: »

How exactly is it flawed because you say it is, based on personal anecdotes?

Sorry but that is not how we do critical thinking or polls or indeed any science.

The idea that "My feelings on the matter override results based on an accepted peer-reviewed standard" hold no water.

For someone who tells me that, I cannot accept I am wrong, I think best you self reflect on that notion yourself.

It’s quite simple really. Your poll doesn’t match up with my actual life experience with the public. It’s a load of bollix so i don’t believe it. I meet real people everyday and i’m quite sure you aren’t clued up at all on what’s going on out there. You haven’t a clue :rolleyes: so you rely on polls by the looks of it.

It’s already been explained by other posters why it may be skewed.

mdwexford

My partner tested positive.

8 days later myself and my two kids finally got tested as close contacts.
All three of us came back negative after being in the same house and even the same bed in my case for that whole time period. Would make you wonder.

Micky 32

mdwexford wrote: »

My partner tested positive.

8 days later myself and my two kids finally got tested as close contacts.
All three of us came back negative after being in the same house and even the same bed in my case for that whole time period. Would make you wonder.

It’s quite common. I know of lots of families where the same happened. I also know familes where everyone in the house got it. It’s a strange disease.

markodaly

Micky 32 wrote: »

It’s quite simple really. Your poll doesn’t match up with my actual life experience with the public. It’s a load of bollix so i don’t believe it. I meet real people everyday and i’m quite sure you aren’t clued up at all on what’s going on out there. You haven’t a clue :rolleyes: so you rely on polls by the looks of it.

I don't have any personal experience with Aids or HIV, that doesn't mean it exists or is a danger. That is your rationale here

Personal experiences are anecdotes, while polls take in the view of way more people, using an accepted and accredited methodology, to form a general viewpoint of what the public is thinking at that moment in time.

As per belief, well you can believe what you want, you are entitled to it, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Listen to the Science Cat.

Micky 32

markodaly wrote: »

I don't have any personal experience with Aids or HIV, that doesn't mean it exists or is a danger. That is your rationale here

Personal experiences are anecdotes, while polls take in the view of way more people, using an accepted and accredited methodology, to form a general viewpoint of what the public is thinking at that moment in time.

As per belief, well you can believe what you want, you are entitled to it, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Listen to the Science Cat.

Now you’re comparing a flawed poll to the dangers of HIV etc lol. As i said before you are talking out your back end once again.

Unlike you i don’t need a poll to tell me what i already know from actual experience. Seems like you need polls to tell you actually what’s going on outside your lockdown. Try again.

The poll you posted isn’t valid or it’s missing important data. It’s not tallying with what I’m experiencing with people out there.

Stick with your polls and i’ll stick with real life experiences.