Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

walus

walus wrote: »

It is quite simple really. It is a part of all this lockdown-until-vaccine franchise/deal that the government signed up to. Those who have come up with that strategy and sold it to a number of government across the world (mainly western world btw) have planned to benefit from the effects of economic shutdown. The wealth transfer up the ladder will accelerate dramatically in these next couple of years. This process has started already. Corporations started hoovering up smaller businesses already. It is a great deal if you can get them cheap with money at almost negative interest rate, and long terms debt maturity.

Since 1980s middle class participation in the job market in Ireland has fallen from 60% to about 40% prior to covid. These jobs are just going away and this 'pandemic' will push it even further. The need for improvement in productivity post-covid will be so high that it will be only possible to achieve with AI and automation not only in production/manufacturing but also in all other sectors where mundane work is now performed by a human (i.e. office, accounting etc.)

I'm totally staggered to watch this government play into the hands of corporations, bankers and pharma. They clearly don't understand what they have subscribed us to. Looking at the data and risk associated with retail, hairdressers, hotels I cannot see justification for slaughtering the middle class.

There is a conspiracy forum

uli84

All I can say to comment on all that is I’m jealous of those young enough who can allow having 1-2 years of their lives thrown into the bin. For someone like me for whom every day is extremely valuable at this stage it’s a disaster seeing them gone to waste just like that.

Shadow Dancer

bloopy wrote: »

Wasn't this a 'conspiracy theory' just a few weeks ago?
Even the Journal did a 'debunked' piece on it.

That website is such a shameful piece of horse manure. If it were a newspaper, I wouldn't use it to light a fire

walus

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Tomas Ryan on Newstalk this morning saying the lockdown isn’t working so wants more restrictions. He wants a 2km travel restriction now. Also said we need to get down to 10 cases per day before we can start lifting these restrictions! All said from the comfort of his home with his nice salary still rolling in.

He should really stick to what he knows. He is an expert in brain memory, and i sincerely hope that when all this is finished he remembers well ale the BS he said. If the 5km in unenforceable, how 2km will be? If he thinks they can reduce significantly the spread of the virus by hammering people with more restrictions, he needs to have his head checked.

Newuser2

walus wrote: »

He should really stick to what he knows. He is an expert in brain memory, and i sincerely hope that when all this is finished he remembers well ale the BS he said. If the 5km in unenforceable, how 2km will be? If he thinks they can reduce significantly the spread of the virus by hammering people with more restrictions, he needs to have his head checked.

What difference would that make

Wouldn't it be worse than 5K because it will be crowding people

walus

Newuser2 wrote: »

What difference would that make

Wouldn't it be worse than 5K because it will be crowding people

Looking outside, it does not seem like people care. They are getting on with their lives. I'm not sure if he understands human nature enough to know that sometimes more gets you less.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

it's not behaving like a flue virus, it spreads harder and quicker then flue, even when controlled

Since 1: A good number of flu vaccines are given out every year, and 2: We do not test healthy or even mildly ill people for flu (which is considered in any case to be up to 50% asymptomatic), it is impossible for you to make this assertion with any sort of confidence.

pjohnson

walus wrote: »

Looking outside, it does not seem like people care. They are getting on with their lives. I'm not sure if he understands human nature enough to know that sometimes more gets you less.

Yep. People getting on with their lives gets less relaxation of restrictions for those responsible.

VonLuck

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Tomas Ryan on Newstalk this morning saying the lockdown isn’t working so wants more restrictions. He wants a 2km travel restriction now. Also said we need to get down to 10 cases per day before we can start lifting these restrictions! All said from the comfort of his home with his nice salary still rolling in.

I hear this argument all the time and still don't understand it. You're basically saying that for anyone to make a decision they have to be affected by the outcome, is that right? It's like saying the minister for health has to have cancer to make decisions on radiology funding.

FintanMcluskey

VonLuck wrote: »

I hear this argument all the time and still don't understand it. You're basically saying that for anyone to make a decision they have to be affected by the outcome, is that right? It's like saying the minister for health has to have cancer to make decisions on radiology funding.

Not really, it’s similar to the minister for health banning meat because they are vegan.

The lower middle income workers will be crippled with these measures and the austerity in future

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

Yep. People getting on with their lives gets less relaxation of restrictions.

The L5 restrictions went into place on December 26th, the disease has a 4-5 day mean incubation period, and our "peak" day of this current surge came on January 10th (15 days post-lockdown). It is not clear that the surge was mainly caused by Christmas gathering, particularly considering the infiltration and spread (previously played down by NPHET but now acknowledged) of the much more transmissible UK variant.

It seems more likely that we're seeing the (expected) evolutionary course of a virus, possibly expedited by lockdowns and our efforts at containment, of increased transmissibility (and hopefully, with time, reduced virility). Which is something to be tentatively hopeful about, awful as the intervening destruction may be.

walus

pjohnson wrote: »

Yep. People getting on with their lives gets less relaxation of restrictions for those responsible.

Correct. Especially with a paternalistic government.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The L5 restrictions went into place on December 26th, the disease has a 4-5 day mean incubation period, and our "peak" day of this current surge came on January 10th (15 days post-lockdown). It is not clear that the surge was mainly caused by Christmas gathering, particularly considering the infiltration and spread (previously played down by NPHET but now acknowledged) of the much more transmissible UK variant.

It seems more likely that we're seeing the (expected) evolutionary course of a virus, possibly expedited by lockdowns and our efforts at containment, of increased transmissibility (and hopefully, with time, reduced virility). Which is something to be tentatively hopeful about, awful as the intervening destruction may be.

Peak positive tests was 6th of January. You may have heard about the issue with processing these results. This is what caused the apparent peak to be a few days after. Those who were recorded positive on the 6th were tests processed on the 5th, from people tested on the 4th/5th and referred from the 2nd to the 4th. Take 5-7 days of that and you have the 26th to the 30th.

CalamariFritti

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Tomas Ryan on Newstalk this morning saying the lockdown isn’t working so wants more restrictions. He wants a 2km travel restriction now. Also said we need to get down to 10 cases per day before we can start lifting these restrictions! All said from the comfort of his home with his nice salary still rolling in.

Ten cases a day thats 70 per week divide by 50. So he wants a 7 day incidence per 100,000 of just over 1. So he wants zero covid basically?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You may have heard about the issue with processing these results.

I hadn't. Thank you.

Where can I find the information that the peak positive testing day was January 6th?

And do you have a source for 5-7 days incubation? I've seen a few "4-5 days mean" in different studies. Or is this you accounting for the time it takes people to get concerned enough to see a doctor?

What sort of impact do you think can be attributed to the UK variant, if any, and how do we uncouple that from the Christmas gathering?

And if Christmas gathering is more responsible for the spread than the UK variant, does that make it less likely that the same will happen again if restrictions are lifted, given that we won't have the same level of gathering outside of the holiday season?

Kunta Kinte

Tandey wrote: »

Will the hotels be open for valentines weekend? Asking for a friend?

As far as the general public are concerned not a chance.

Don't Chute!

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Tomas Ryan on Newstalk this morning saying the lockdown isn’t working so wants more restrictions. He wants a 2km travel restriction now. Also said we need to get down to 10 cases per day before we can start lifting these restrictions! All said from the comfort of his home with his nice salary still rolling in.

Having a full salary is generally a key trait in the pro restrictions side.

I doubt many of the 460000 on PUP are big supporters.

It’s like Bono saying we should all give money to charity. Easy when you’re a millionaire. More difficult on an average wage with a mortgage and 2 kids in crèche.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I hadn't. Thank you.

Where can I find the information that the peak positive testing day was January 6th?

And do you have a source for 5-7 days incubation? I've seen a few "4-5 days mean" in different studies. Or is this you accounting for the time it takes people to get concerned enough to see a doctor?

What sort of impact do you think can be attributed to the UK variant, if any, and how do we uncouple that from the Christmas gathering?

And if Christmas gathering is more responsible for the spread than the UK variant, does that make it less likely that the same will happen again if restrictions are lifted, given that we won't have the same level of gathering outside of the holiday season?

The peak is 4 to 5 days representing about 20% of infections, but 60% are 5 days or more. Most estimates for the median are at 5-7 days.

Testing data is here: https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Having a full salary is generally a key trait in the pro restrictions side.

I doubt many of the 460000 on PUP are big supporters.

It’s like Bono saying we should all give money to charity. Easy when you’re a millionaire. More difficult on an average wage with a mortgage and 2 kids in crèche.

Ye have a great habit of deciding what people are like. Is there a difficultly in accepting that the argument is not the person.

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

............ So set back, relax and be content o the knowledgeable that they will pay the price for it!

Yeah, let's vote in SF or some other pack of lefty loons and see things improve :pac:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The peak is 4 to 5 days representing about 20% of infections, but 60% are 5 days or more. Most estimates for the median are at 5-7 days.

Thanks. I couldn't see this reflected in the (bookmarked!) geohive link. Where's it from?

In any case, doesn't this put the infection date from the peak at the first few days of lockdown rather than the actual period where the restrictions were lighter and people were gathering?

leahyl

Tullogher WRLD wrote: »

I was going to try and post up in this thread for a while so I here I go. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that this Covid-19 situation is getting a bit long in the day now. We are nearly a year into our first official case (this thing has obviously been here for longer than that) and I could have never imagined we would be like this again, or maybe I didn't want to. I've followed these discussions nearly since the very beginning. I've been educated, amazed, appalled, amused, confused and enlightened by what I've seen some days. To cut to the chase can we continue with the way things are right now? Not really no. Some people think we can stay closed until this virus magically disappears. Only 3 viruses have ever been completely driven to extinction on purpose: SARS, smallpox and rinderpest. Unfortunately this thing is going to be here for quite some time yet. I'm not a Covid denier, for some reason people on here that are severely fed up with the current restrictions are labelled that way. For some insight I gave up hurling with my club last summer because I'm in regular contact with my grandparents, and to be 19 years old and that be my only social outlet it was very tough. But my grandparents are my world so I didn't mind in the end. I've no siblings (now I don't mind that really) so it's just the parents and I which can be tough at times. I'm not looking for sympathy on here I just want people to understand that the way things are at the moment can't continue. I'd sometimes think that people should just "offer it up" but that isn't a sustainable mindset. I'd be happy with non-essential shops, barbers, hairdressers, gyms etc open in February along with being restricted to your county. I'm afraid that the pubs will have to remain closed for the time being. Maybe outdoor dining when Easter arrives. Me personally I just want to be able to go hurling training again, just to see the boys.Some of ye will find some fault in what I've said and fire away. Life for me doesn't seem to be worth living at the moment, but I'll keep going. To finish, people are trying to do their best. I know I am.

Excellent post. Couldn't have said it better myself. I am 35, single and still living at home and at this stage, I have become numb to it all almost. I can't even remember what it was like to socialise, to live a normal life, not to mention the fact that I'm getting older and time is ticking away to buy my own place, meet someone, get married, have kids etc. I'm very much following the guidelines, as my parents are over 70, but it has really affected them also as they are in quite good health for their age and would normally be fairly outgoing. It's affecting everyone in different ways and we can't go on like this forever - people are resilient up to a point but once these vaccines have been rolled out to a significant portion of the population, life has to return to normal. I think the vast majority of people have done their very best to stick to the "rules". Don't get me wrong, I am very worried about my parents catching it, so I will continue to do what's required until such time as they have been vaccinated at least. It will be a weight off knowing that they are protected anyway.

I just long to go for a nice meal in Cork City centre in the near future - I've barely been in my own city since last March! It's sad for all the businesses that should be booming now, all closed

Idbatterim

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Tomas Ryan on Newstalk this morning saying the lockdown isn’t working so wants more restrictions. He wants a 2km travel restriction now. Also said we need to get down to 10 cases per day before we can start lifting these restrictions! All said from the comfort of his home with his nice salary still rolling in.

ten cases a day ? will this fool be making all of the decisions on the budget cuts coming shortly? the likes of him are literally a waste of oxygen!

two posts above is right about getting back to normal asap. It wouldnt happen here, except the debt will get so outrageous, they wont have a choice and thank god that is the case. Believe me, they would lock at insane cost, finacial, societal etc, if they thought they could save one more covid death, its optics. They wouldnt care if ten people died from other things. Because what is one of the key metrics they are concerned about, actually by far the biggest? their handling of covid and deaths, that is the concern right now. They are too stupid to see, what they have build up, further down the tracks!

leahyl

leahyl wrote: »

.............once these vaccines have been rolled out to a significant portion of the population, life has to return to normal............

It will. But folk rammed into pubs and at gigs might not happen this year. Restaurants etc might well be open for sit-down service indoors in the Summer with social distancing perhaps. Summer 2021 won't be like Summer 2019.

What we saw in the last few weeks should surely make folk realise the restrictions are absolutely necessary.

Augeo

Augeo wrote: »

It will. But folk rammed into pubs and at gigs might not happen this year. Restaurants etc might well be open for sit-down service indoors in the Summer with social distancing perhaps. Summer 2021 won't be like Summer 2019.

What we saw in the last few weeks should surely make folk realise the restrictions are absolutely necessary.

Everyone who wants to be vaccinated will be vaccinated this year.

No more excuses at that point. Open up fully and carry on.

If there are still restrictions at that point, well we may as well consider them permanent.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone who wants to be vaccinated will be vaccinated this year. ..........

Yeah, I'm on about the Summer though....... not everyone who wants a vaccine is likely to have one in June or July.

Kunta Kinte

Augeo wrote: »

It will. But folk rammed into pubs and at gigs might not happen this year. Restaurants etc might well be open for sit-down service indoors in the Summer with social distancing perhaps. Summer 2021 won't be like Summer 2019.

What we saw in the last few weeks should surely make folk realise the restrictions are absolutely necessary.

It does to the vast majority but if this thread is anything to go by there are still quite a few who seem to be unable or unwilling to accept it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks. I couldn't see this reflected in the (bookmarked!) geohive link. Where's it from?

In any case, doesn't this put the infection date from the peak at the first few days of lockdown rather than the actual period where the restrictions were lighter and people were gathering?

Yep, when people who went home for Christmas were still home

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/8/e039652

ArthurDayne

Augeo wrote: »

It will. But folk rammed into pubs and at gigs might not happen this year. Restaurants etc might well be open for sit-down service indoors in the Summer with social distancing perhaps. Summer 2021 won't be like Summer 2019.

What we saw in the last few weeks should surely make folk realise the restrictions are absolutely necessary.

Why is that?

What we saw in the last few weeks was the inevitable consequence of allowing a situation to develop where there was (1) an environment in which the transmission of infection was pushed into a bottleneck; (2) an overwhelming pent up desire among people to see friends and family over Christmas knowing full well that it would be a while before they could do so again — precisely because the harshness of the approach here made it clear to people that a sense of liberty should be enjoyed while it lasted. This is called human nature — the fundamental basis for how and why we behave the way we do, and a concept which lately we seem to be pretending is some sort of social choice that we make.

What we have seen over the past few weeks is little more than a resounding vindication of the people who argued last March that the harshness of the lockdown strategy in Ireland would merely kick the can down the road — that once the moral precedent justifying lockdown was set, it would be impossible to row back on until there was a vaccine. Those people made the argument that a year of lockdowns would cause short, medium and long term effects that had to be weighed up against the risk of a virus that is mostly killing people who have reached or exceeded average life expectancy. The people making that argument were laughed out the door because of the prevailing attitude that heavy restrictions would not go on for over a year - “sure we just need to flatten the curve, ramp up capacity, and we will be in a better place by Christmas”. This complacency towards the lockdown approach then fed the odious narrative that to question the restrictions was nothing more than questioning the right to life of the old and sick.

And even at that, what have we seen over the last few weeks? With this explosion of cases, the predictions were dire as ever of an impending cataclysm. Has it been the cataclysm predicted? Nobody denies the tragedy of the loss of life, but the scales and level of tragedy have simply not hit the levels of apocalyptic disaster that are used to justify the most stringent forms of restriction.

leahyl

Augeo wrote: »

It will. But folk rammed into pubs and at gigs might not happen this year. Restaurants etc might well be open for sit-down service indoors in the Summer with social distancing perhaps. Summer 2021 won't be like Summer 2019.

What we saw in the last few weeks should surely make folk realise the restrictions are absolutely necessary.

Of course, I know that I'm saying that if we are still in these kind of lockdowns come September, there will be a LOT of very frustrated people. I've stuck rigidly to the guidelines and I mean that - have only met up with one friend twice a week for a walk since the first lockdown ended last March and then other friends (2 in total!) a handful of times for a walk, lunch during the summer when numbers were low.

I said nothing about pubs and gigs either; of course I know they are not going to happen anytime soon - I'd just even like to be able to go to town shopping without worrying about whether it's going to be busy or not and should I stay away - I don't like that I've become like this. It's just all very mentally draining; I'm an anxious person at the best of times anyway but all of this has really not helped, and I'm sure it's the same for a lot of people.

Roll on vaccine 3,4, 5 etc.

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

...........

................ Those people made the argument that a year of lockdowns would cause short, medium and long term effects that had to be weighed up against the risk of a virus that is mostly killing people who have reached or exceeded average life expectancy. The people making that argument were laughed out the door because ..........................

Laughed out the door as anyone with 2 braincells realises that if you don't have restrictions hospitals will fill up with more than "people who have reached or exceeded average life expectancy" (not that older folk are cannon fodder IMO)

ArthurDayne wrote: »

.........

And even at that, what have we seen over the last few weeks? With this explosion of cases, the predictions were dire as ever of an impending cataclysm. Has it been the cataclysm predicted? Nobody denies the tragedy of the loss of life, but the scales and level of tragedy have simply not hit the levels of apocalyptic disaster that are used to justify the most stringent forms of restriction.

We've seen hospitals jammed full of Covid patients, healthcare workers off sick with covid and L5 restrictions.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Nobody denies the tragedy of the loss of life, but the scales and level of tragedy have simply not hit the levels of apocalyptic disaster that are used to justify the most stringent forms of restriction.

Would that have anything to do with current restrictions?

VonLuck

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Not really, it’s similar to the minister for health banning meat because they are vegan.

The lower middle income workers will be crippled with these measures and the austerity in future

No, your comparison is not accurate at all. It's suggesting that the the person proposing these restrictions would prefer that people are out of work. What nonsense!

It's just unfortunate that lower income workers are affected by this. It's not like there are other options on the table that could affect those on greater incomes. People who can work from home tend to be higher earners. That's just a fact.

Deleted User wrote: »

Having a full salary is generally a key trait in the pro restrictions side.

I doubt many of the 460000 on PUP are big supporters.

It’s like Bono saying we should all give money to charity. Easy when you’re a millionaire. More difficult on an average wage with a mortgage and 2 kids in crèche.

Correlation does not equal causation. I could similarly say that those who are out of work are more likely to be less educated and are may not understand the benefits of lockdown. Of course if you have a full salary the impact of the restrictions are less severe. That doesn't mean it's the wrong decision.

You're essentially saying the same thing as the "pro-restriction" group though except from the other side. You want to change the approach so that you're ultimately not affected. You're putting your own well-being ahead of the health of the most vulnerable.

Also the Bono analogy doesn't work either. He is a public figure so would tend to have a much larger income than your average Joe Soap. No one's going to listen to an unknown office worker telling the world to give to charity.

leahyl

leahyl wrote: »

.................. I can't even remember what it was like to socialise, to live a normal life, not to mention the fact that I'm getting older and time is ticking away to buy my own place, meet someone, get married, have kids etc.........

leahyl wrote: »

Of course, I know that I'm saying that if we are still in these kind of lockdowns come September, there will be a LOT of very frustrated people..............

And I said we won't be in these lockdowns but there'll be some restrictions.

Normal life means people are rammed into pubs and there's gigs etc, just because you aren't bothered about that form of socialising it doesn't make it not part of normal life.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Would that have anything to do with current restrictions?

Some folk just can't join the dots at all.

VonLuck

VonLuck wrote: »

.............


Correlation does not equal causation. I could similarly say that those who are out of work are more likely to be less educated and are may not understand the benefits of lockdown. Of course if you have a full salary the impact of the restrictions are less severe. That doesn't mean it's the wrong decision............

Sister's fella was delighted to be on the PUP, 80 or 90% of his wages for not going to work. I doubt he's unique.

leahyl

Augeo wrote: »

And I said we won't be in these lockdowns but there'll be some restrictions.

Normal life means people are rammed into pubs and there's gigs etc, just because you aren't bothered about that form of socialising it doesn't make it not part of normal life.

Where did I say I wasn't bothered about that form of socialising??! Talk about twisting my words; I know those are part of normal life (and they are part of my life too) but I am well aware that they won't be happening anytime soon - you felt the need to point out that they won't be happening this year, you assumed that I was talking about gigs and pubs when I said normal life - there is more to life than those things, even though I very much enjoy them. Some normality at this stage, FOR ME, would be being able to go shopping at the drop of a hat without thinking about it and feeling relaxed, not anxious about it. Just going about my business as normal as possible and not worrying that I might pick up the virus, which is where a rapid vaccine rollout comes in.

Anyway, I don't really want to have a debate about it; just saying how I feel about everything.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Would that have anything to do with current restrictions?

The falls and rises were purely coincidental dont you know

retro:electro

I definitely think the restrictions are needed this time around. It’s the first time if I’m not mistaken since the pandemic occurred that hospitals here have been truly under pressure, and so yes, now is the time to be rolling out the big guns. It makes it even more baffling however when you look back to last May/June/July when we had cases > 30 and days with 0 deaths and we were still being strung along by the balls and being told off for not being good enough by Tony. That attitude and approach contributed massively to the fatigue that had well set in by November/December, and we were barely out of lockdown 1 before being thrust straight into lockdown 2 with the promise of Christmas, which never actually fully materialised. Their approach last summer was extremely over cautious and they need to realise that the whole thing had worn pretty thin for a lot of people by late summer. It felt like there was no more we could collectively do, as it was never good enough. And meanwhile the boarder wide open for every corona oozing Tom Dick and Harry to arrive through and undo all our efforts.

Losing your freedom for almost a year is extremely extremely demoralising and even more so when you do all is asked but cases still increase due to government mishandling. And if it’s going to be the same drip fed easing this time around with three weeks in between each stage, that’s going to be really tiring and depressing. So yes, in short. I agree restrictions are necessary this time around. It’s just a pity we made such a pigs ear of it last summer when we should have seized the moment like everyone else in Europe. I don’t see us doing any similar this time around either, which is contributing to the collective fatigue this time around. Everyone I’ve been speaking to agrees this one feels like the worst one yet and can’t see a way out any time soon. If there was any sense to any of it then once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated we should all be let live our lives again and have our freedom back. After all, we’ve been told all along they are who we are doing this for in the first place.

ArthurDayne

Augeo wrote: »

Laughed out the door as anyone with 2 braincells realises that if you don't have restrictions hospitals will fill up with more than "people who have reached or exceeded average life expectancy" (not that older folk are cannon fodder IMO)

We've seen hospitals jammed full of Covid patients, healthcare workers off sick with covid and L5 restrictions.

And here we have it — the immediate reversion to the black and white absolutism. I question the restrictions and you leap to the conclusion that I am somehow advocating having no restrictions at all. This has been an astoundingly problematic issue with the debate, that anything other than full agreement with the approach is invariably an argument for a completely opposite approach. Oh yes, and the tired old trope about old people being cannon fodder — yes I truly must simply be an evil person for believing that society must balance out the interest of people living well into their 80s with other important things in this world.

The effect of restrictions has already been profound. Even in the summer where things were somewhat more relaxed, society was still operating nowhere near the same levels of social interaction. The restrictions by that time had already more or less rendered the country as a socially distant world where Covid etiquette has largely been embedded and those at risk generally know the precautions.

For whatever reason, it is deemed that this is not enough to prevent some cataclysm. Instead, the government must be seen to do something, and we end up in the situation where people are once more ground down in rules preventing free movement even though the ability and likelihood to find oneself in a crowded place over 5km from home is close to zero. Explosion of cases over Christmas because of people going to see family and friends at the one big time of year people do that, in a context where people have been living in relative lockdown for most of the year? Level 5 lockdown it is — even though the things we are preventing were not actually the issue in the first place. But we must be seen to do something or the media will lynch us, the electorate will then turn against us, and our political reputations and careers are in tatters.

SAMTALK

Everyone is tired, it's been a long year and January seems to be going on forever..
Groundhog day

Life is work and home or home and home, same thing day in day out. Dark dreary days

No one is enjoying this and I get so fed up of people going on about numbers not being that high, deaths not being that high etc

They are not gone out of control because of the restrictions, because most people do what's asked. Christmas came at a price and now we are paying it

The restrictions are not just about deaths and case numbers. The hospital situation is also a very important factor in all this

No the government are not perfect, neither are most of the public.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

It makes it even more baffling however when you look back to last May/June/July when we had cases > 30 and days with 0 deaths and we were still being strung along by the balls and being told off for not being good enough by Tony. That attitude and approach contributed massively to the fatigue that had well set in by November/December

This thesis seems to have morphed into fact for some strange reason, but it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny when a spot light is shone on it.

The UK were more relaxed in their restrictions during the summer and they hit Christmas week with circa 40,000 daily infections, they reported nearly 2000 deaths in one day yesterday.

So what happened there, they were given too much freedom?

SheepsClothing

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Why is that?

What we saw in the last few weeks was the inevitable consequence of allowing a situation to develop where there was (1) an environment in which the transmission of infection was pushed into a bottleneck; (2) an overwhelming pent up desire among people to see friends and family over Christmas knowing full well that it would be a while before they could do so again — precisely because the harshness of the approach here made it clear to people that a sense of liberty should be enjoyed while it lasted. This is called human nature — the fundamental basis for how and why we behave the way we do, and a concept which lately we seem to be pretending is some sort of social choice that we make.

What we have seen over the past few weeks is little more than a resounding vindication of the people who argued last March that the harshness of the lockdown strategy in Ireland would merely kick the can down the road — that once the moral precedent justifying lockdown was set, it would be impossible to row back on until there was a vaccine. Those people made the argument that a year of lockdowns would cause short, medium and long term effects that had to be weighed up against the risk of a virus that is mostly killing people who have reached or exceeded average life expectancy. The people making that argument were laughed out the door because of the prevailing attitude that heavy restrictions would not go on for over a year - “sure we just need to flatten the curve, ramp up capacity, and we will be in a better place by Christmas”. This complacency towards the lockdown approach then fed the odious narrative that to question the restrictions was nothing more than questioning the right to life of the old and sick.

And even at that, what have we seen over the last few weeks? With this explosion of cases, the predictions were dire as ever of an impending cataclysm. Has it been the cataclysm predicted? Nobody denies the tragedy of the loss of life, but the scales and level of tragedy have simply not hit the levels of apocalyptic disaster that are used to justify the most stringent forms of restriction.

You may not have noticed, but the reason we are not on rocket ship to the Covid moon right now, is because we entered lockdown after Christmas.

I'm critical of the way this government has dealt with Covid. There has been a lack of long term thinking throughout. Our test and trace system is nowhere near good enough to contain the virus and when we had an opportunity to pursue a maximum suppression strategy last summer, we chose to "live with Covid". Having said that, if we had done what the "open the pubs!" people have been calling for over the last 9 months, we'd be in a far, far worse place right now.

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

Would that have anything to do with current restrictions?

But this is after the fact isn’t it? The explosion of cases was portrayed as being a grim indication of mass horror to come — the current restrictions don’t magically make Covid go away for those already infected. The horse has bolted so to speak, and the disaster of this huge spike in cases should already be upon us.

I mean, ground it down to common sense here. Is it beyond the borders of common sense to say that Christmas is the most sociable time of year? Is it too unscientific to say that the sociable nature of Christmas passes after the New Year? If you don’t find any of those questions particularly problematic, then ask yourself if a 5km limit of travel is really the reason why a great calamity has been averted.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But this is after the fact isn’t it? The explosion of cases was portrayed as being a grim indication of mass horror to come — the current restrictions don’t magically make Covid go away for those already infected.

Restrictions stop the spread, from preventing people who are infected from giving it to others.

The virus needs hosts, keep hosts apart the virus can't jump to another host.

What part of that is confusing you exactly?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

This thesis seems to have morphed into fact for some strange reason, but it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny when a spot light is shone on it.

The UK were more relaxed in their restrictions during the summer and they hit Christmas week with circa 40,000 daily infections, they reported nearly 2000 deaths in one day yesterday.

So what happened there, they were given too much freedom?

Oh I don’t know, let me think.. It hardly had anything to do with that new variant circulating just before Christmas that was 50% more transmissible. No?
How does that have anything to do with them being more relaxed than us in the summer? Their numbers would have exploded either way

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Oh I don’t know, let me think.. It hardly had anything to do with that new variant circulating just before Christmas that was 50% more transmissible. No?
How does that have anything to do with them being more relaxed than us in the summer? Their numbers would have exploded either way

Germany so. Go.

But if it is the new variant that is to take the blame our restrictions in October / November stopped that variant accelerating and becoming dominant entering the festive season.

leahyl

leahyl wrote: »

................. you assumed that I was talking about gigs and pubs when I said normal life - there is more to life than those things, even though I very much enjoy them. ...........

I'm not twisting any words.
Gigs and pubs are part of normal life.

I merely gave my thoughts on what the Summer holds........ I don't see why you have to nitpick the fook out of it from a personal viewpoint.

Augeo wrote: »

It will. But folk rammed into pubs and at gigs might not happen this year. Restaurants etc might well be open for sit-down service indoors in the Summer with social distancing perhaps. Summer 2021 won't be like Summer 2019.

What we saw in the last few weeks should surely make folk realise the restrictions are absolutely necessary.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Germany so. Go.

But if it is the new variant that is to take the blame our restrictions in October / November stopped that variant accelerating and becoming dominant entering the festive season.

Sorry but your original point was trying to force a narrative that the fact the UK being a lot more relaxed than us during the summer is somehow responsible for an explosion in cases and deaths being experienced now, when there is nothing to suggest that’s the case and when there are any amount of variables that could have influenced a rise in cases, including a new highly infectious variant circulating in that country and others. It is your own thesis that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when under the spotlight, I’m afraid.

leahyl

Augeo wrote: »

I'm not twisting any words.
Gigs and pubs are part of normal life.

I merely gave my thoughts on what the Summer holds........ I don't see why you have to nitpick the fook out of it from a personal viewpoint.

Yes, they are, never disputed that, but you said "just because you aren't bothered about that form of socialising it doesn't make it not part of normal life" - that's not twisting words or putting words in my mouth?? I can't see where I said anything of the sort. Anyway, could be going around in circles here so let's just leave it at that