Is it not generally accepted that there is a 3 week lag between restrictions being introduced and cases going down? Level 5, if brought in when NPHET wanted it would only have really shown a big decrease this week which is what has happened anyway
2 weeks I would have thought. Iâd also assume level 5 would bring cases down quicker than level 3. Less contacts and all that
They should have gone Level 5 anyway for a start, the differences between Level 3 and 5 are minimal so if they want a lockdown better go full hog.
they arenât really. Itâs a big change. No non essential retail is allowed in level 5 and people have to stay within 5km of their homes except for essential travel.
Also it is very strict on home visits, compared to level 3
France gone into nationwide lockdown.
Yes, Iâd say the lesson going forward is shorter full lockdowns and less of the longer Mickey Mouse intermediate lockdowns which really only appear to confuse the public.
2 Likes
Nothing really there that impacts me.
Varadkar has really strengthened NPHETS hand
With all due respects, you live in a different jurisdiction so it wouldnât, would it?
This should be good
1 Like
If youâre a working person then non-essential retail being open, being able to only drive 5k as opposed to within your county and less stricter home visits are hardly that much of a loss? Theyâve already taken away all the real stuff, theyâre just small things in the bigger picture.
As far as I can see, youâre as well just go from Level 2 to Level 5 anyway, the concessions at Level 3&4 arenât even worth talking about.
I donât really see the difference. Zero Covid is impossible so if itâs a shorter lockdown cases will just rise exponentially when you open up
Itâs not zero covid. You have a short sharp lockdown when cases show signs of going up, or you canât manage community transmission, get the numbers back to where you can trace (reduced community transmission) and go again
I donât see any situation occurring where shorter lockdowns doesnât just result in an endless circle of lockdown, open up, lockdown, open up and so on and so on
it depends on the rate of transmission after the lockdown. If you got r0 to a very low number, there would be a longer time between cases getting to the level where you had to take measures again
also, the early you catch the rise in cases and take measures, the shorter it would be to get the rate of transmission back to manageable levels to go again.
When NPHET recommended Level 5 on October 5th they did so for 2 weeks, as the numbers were at a level where they think they could have got them manageable in 2 weeks. When we did go to level 5 it was for 6 weeks then, I assume because the r0 had gone up and they needed 6 weeks to get the daily cases back to a manageable level
Shorter lockdowns are more maintainable. 2 weeks of it, is much easier to hear as opposed to 6 weeks of it.
Interesting look at Israel, they are coming out of a second lockdown but are doing it more slowly than the first time, similar to what Ireland did the first time
You probably know more than me because I donât really post much in here on the technical side of it but I donât understand how 2 week lockdowns would do much good at all. If we say that it takes 2 weeks for the cases to noticeably drop based on restrictions (I thought it was 3) then at the end of a 2 week lockdown cases will only be beginning to decrease from where they were at the start of the lockdown?
Yes but if you have the 2 week lockdown at a point where there are low daily cases, so the start of a rise, it could be possible to stop it in itâs tracks. The longer you leave it the rate of transmission grows and it becomes more difficult to get it back to manageable levels.
2 weeks at a high level of cases/ high rate of transmission would have fuck all effect whereas at lower levels it could get it back to where it can be managed with tracing etc. (reduce community transmission)
The country isnât going to accept 2 week lockdowns at times where the cases are low, even if it is the ârightâ thing to do
this is a point I canât argue against because it is utterly ridiculous. How can you speak for âthe countryâ?
âthe countryâ has just had to accept a 6 week lockdown because Varadkar made a cunt of himself on national TV