I asked the question here last week if lads think we’ll have done a good or a bad job in fighting this thing if overall deaths remain roughly consistent with the amount of deaths in a " normal " year. It was a good starting point and all bar 1 poster (@TheUlteriorMotive) didn’t bother their holes addressing it. Now all of a sudden a light has gone off in someones heads and yere tripping all over yereselves trying to figure it out. Jesus wept
1 Like
No mate I think governments are continuing on with this lockdown without a sensible exit plan and there are many people like you in the ‘lock it down until there are no covid deaths’ mindset, whic is crazy. Basing Irish policy on ‘mass graves’ in NYC is nonsensical. This mindset also betrays hypocrisy with how we’ve dealt with viruses and other diseases historically. I advocate the temporary lockdown to get a handle on things - I don’t advocate this lockdown going forward at whatever the cost, to get covid down to some arbitrary level, when this hasn’t been enforced for other past diseases.
You are advocating a lockdown for months if necessary, you’ve done that previously. Based on the known facts right now, I’m arguing against that.
3 Likes
You’ve either deliberately or otherwise missed my argument. I’ve never said lock it down until there are no deaths from the disease.
It needs to be managed on an Icu capacity basis, with good knowledge of the virus through testing and tracing. If it can be determined that we can manage capacity up to a certain point and with certain measures removed and deemed safe to do so, then do it.
You’re arguing against a point no one is making.
We’ve never had this disease before. Using historic measures for a disease we’ve never encountered is archaic.
How can you possibly have a "sensible " exit strategy when you don’t know enough about the virus bar knowing g the only way to slow down is at the moment completely dependent on people’s behaviour
You mean when we get a handle on burying the dead and spacing out the numbers?
A number of things need to happen before an exit strategy is possible here.
- Clear the backlog
- Scale up testing capacity
- Scale up test processing capacity to ensure results are returned within 48 hrs.
- Scale up contact tracing to ensure anybody in close contact is informed within 24 hours and told to isolate for 14 days.
- Monitor ICU capacity extremely closely and work on a cut off point, agreed with healthcare workers and the nphet and the HSE.
- Devise a plan that will enable the speedy rollback of easing of measures should a spike occur or even if it looks like a spike may occur
That’s a bare minimum
Some of this may happen in the next 3 weeks, but realistically I think there is too much to be done.
They’ll have to assess what industries can safely reopen based on knowledge gained from the steps above.
Point 6 is the biggest issue. If they relax any measures it could break resolve to take it back away again
3 Likes
I’m saying at least 50%n have no symptoms, and another 30% mild symptoms. Neither group likely changing their behavior much.
You in the past have referenced we should have these type measures until we have a vaccine. I can pull up your post if you like. That’s God knows how far away. We’ve never had this disease before, christ, thats the nature of new diseases - we didn’t lock down society in the past to this extent when new diseases surfaced.
We know how the disease spreads now, we know who is most vunerable, we have estimates of the death rates, a vaccine is months away, serious societal damage will be caused by a months on end lockdown. An exit plan with reduced restrictions needs to be considered now, not some vague time in a couple of months. I accept your point re ICU capicity, that should be a key consideration - but the current narrative is lock it down.
1 Like
Much more is known about the virus than what you’ve said there. If you’re not aware of it I don’t know what to say to you.
I said we’ll have to live with some form of restrictions most likely until a vaccine is found, most likely.
I’m not advocating it, I’m just saying that’s what I think will happen.
Nobody likes the current reality. But that’s what it is.
You’re saying we should treat this like other diseases we’ve seen but that’s impossible.
All the things you’ve listed out that we know there are assumed. We assume the rate of transmission etc. None of it is known and wont be for a long while yet.
Where is this narrative of lock down? I’ve not seen it. The strongest voice I’m seeing is the opposite, the open it up ta fuck
1 Like
Assumed
Some form of restrictions means no pubs and no sport as they were the first to go, and will be the last to come back.
1 Like
You’ve moved a long way in the past week, from 18 months of the current restrictions if necessary, to now a much more balanced approach. This thread has done you good.
To summarize what I am saying, we will have to live with some level of infections and some level of deaths going forward. We got off to a horrible start, effectively allowing the virus spread with no containment, suppression or mitigation efforts. We now have had a month of restrictions which are bringing the numbers down to where we are not overwhelmed. That was well worthwhile, nobody is arguing that.
But, the damage already done in terms of crashing the economy and how long we can survive that has to be faced as well. Some lads seem quite comfortable with going back to the 1930s. This is not like 2008/09 which was a banking crisis and needed intervention, but we recovered to a large degree in a few years. This has the potential to absolutely devastate the global economy, and take decades to recover from. We will have to balance limiting the damage and living with this disease, which is now with us whether we like it or not.
3 Likes
What’s it like living there? Could you tell us?
1 Like
I can’t take it seriously when you say things like some lads are happy with etc, etc.
Who are these lads?
I don’t know anybody who’s happy at any level with anything, financially or otherwise at the moment
You’re saying the current understanding of how the disease spreads is not good enough for you? I didn’t mention the rate of transmission. And who is most vunerable is not an assumption, its borne out by the stats.
You said we know how it spreads. We don’t. We don’t know the rate of transmission.
It’s not about whether it’s good enough for me. It’s about whether it’s good it enough for policy makers to confidently make decisions based on it. And it obviously isn’t
Who is most vulnerable is known, granted, but the entire list of vulnerable categories isn’t known. Certain conditions may be more vulnerable. Its very hard to get reliable data in a crisis
But shur you’ve summed it up yourself in 2 paragraphs in your above post about how much is known about the virus. Of course we all know the basics but that’s all they are basics. A lot of it is going be trial and error. My own personal opinion is that we give it another 6 weeks. At that stage we should at least have the fundamentals to halt a serious spread if not stunt its growth altogether. That together with what @anon78624367 has stated is a good basis for constructing an exit plan that has a chance of being successful. Anything sooner than that is pie in the sky stuff. But I suspect you know that already and have just decided to keep digging the hole downward in the hope of getting lucky
Go read the WHO notes on how it spreads then. I assume you’re trying some smart ass response becsuse we don’t have 100% mode of every possible transmission but carry on.
Rate of transmission is more important than mode of transmission in factoring when and how to devise an exit strategy and that is simply not known, anywhere
The asymptomatic nature of the vast majority of the cases if the pure fucking bollocks of this fucker. Its fucking the data and will do until antibody testing is available.
If you new for a fact that 60% of the population had it you could have a festival tomorrow(that’s sarcastic btw)
We simply don’t know enough. The measures and extensions are buffers