Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IV - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

hmmm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Essentially to summarise what was being said, only the surgical grade masks have proven capabilites.

I'm not a fan of masks, but it's pretty obvious that anything wrapped around your face and nose is going to stop a certain amount of droplets which otherwise would go into the air or land on surfaces. This is about risk reduction on a population-wide scale, not perfect protection. There's no one answer to stopping spread, unless we'd like to go into a complete lockdown.

In greater risk situations like hospitals, the use of masks which are guaranteed to filter close to 100% are required.

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

Some of that age bracket only think of themselves. Hence the moronic house parties. When they grow up some get sense and responsibilities.

Or their lives are completely different to yours. Its easy to say don't go socialise if it wasn't part of your life anyways. Though frankly from your posts you come across as a massive arsehole so that doesn't surprise me.

average_runner

Polar101 wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting things are somehow tougher for people in their 20's. I don't think anyone is enjoying a pandemic, and I'd assume most people can't wait to see the end of it.

I'm not in my 20's, and this probably hasn't been the toughest period of my life, but I can't wait for things to go back to "normal". And I'm sure everyone is being affected somehow, be it socially, financially, mentally or whatever.

In fairness it probably does affect the 20-30 age bracket alot. Their whole social scene is gone. Think back when I was that age, it was alot of sport, watching sport also and drinks and clubs on Fri and Sat night.


Now in my 40's, lockdown hasn't bothered me too much to be honest, kids and work keep me busy. Only thing that i miss are the running races.

AUDI20

hmmm wrote: »

I'm not a fan of masks, but it's pretty obvious that anything wrapped around your face and nose is going to stop a certain amount of droplets which otherwise would go into the air or land on surfaces. This is about risk reduction on a population-wide scale, not perfect protection. There's no one answer to stopping spread, unless we'd like to go into a complete lockdown.

In greater risk situations like hospitals, the use of masks which are guaranteed to filter close to 100% are required.

I agree with your post and am not a mask lover myself, but wear them where needed. One thing that puzzles me is why so many of our health service people got infected and were more masked up, gowned up and wore gloves?

Captain_Crash

Some very fair points there. This stands out to me

munchkin_utd wrote: »

you have lots and lots of speaking, talking, chatting which produces droplets and aerosols in far higher quantities than in shops where people generally dont talk.

In effect, masks only work if the person wearing it is not talking? I can understand this and would tend to agree, but the guidance given mentions nothing about refraining from speaking.

Ireland had one of the highest cases per capita and got it down fairly quickly.

And we managed that without masks

FintanMcluskey

hmmm wrote: »

I'm not a fan of masks, but it's pretty obvious that anything wrapped around your face and nose is going to stop a certain amount of droplets which otherwise would go into the air or land on surfaces.

You may well be correct, the opinion isnt mine but I thought it interesting.

The lad I was listening to didn't share your sentiment as regards risk reduction due to the nature of transmission and the unfamiliarity with mask wearing for the average person.

Something to do with the fact if you are sick with Covid a mask not sealing completely going to do very little for risk reduction as the particles are so easily transmitted.

pjohnson

AdamD wrote: »

Or their lives are completely different to yours. Its easy to say don't go socialise if it wasn't part of your life anyways. Though frankly from your posts you come across as a massive arsehole so that doesn't surprise me.

Lol shows how much you know. Being in my 20's of course socialising WAS but then theres a pandemic NOW. Notice the difference between was and now? Things have changed, dunno how you missed theres a pandemic but hostility from you lot isnt suprising.

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

Lol shows how much you know. Being in my 20's of course socialising WAS but then theres a pandemic NOW. Notice the difference between was and now? Things have changed, dunno how you missed theres a pandemic but hostility from you lot isnt suprising.

"You lot"... lol!
That type of language has been used to discriminate against minorities time and time again over the years.

munchkin_utd

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Some very fair points there. This stands out to me

In effect, masks only work if the person wearing it is not talking? I can understand this and would tend to agree, but the guidance given mentions nothing about refraining from speaking.

And we managed that without masks

if you read the german advice (which would require german) they mention breathing and speaking as being a risk factor, singing and screeching being riskier again.
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Steckbrief.html

Its simple physics. The virus is there at the back of your throat in massive quantities. If you breathe, then a certain amount comes out into the air. If you speak then thats higher again, and you get droplets which can form more aerosols.
If you in an evangelical church with the belief that god will look after everything and you go singing gospel songs in a packed church at the height of the pandemic, its worse again (especially when your congregration starts dieing one by one, as happened in the US)

The irish advice, as per WHO guidelines, only mentions coughing or sneezing as being a method of transmission. The reality is a lot more complicated than that.
Either way, if you cover the source of the virus spread into the open air , i.e. the mouth and nose, with some sort of barrier then you are stopping a portion of the contaminants getting into the air which is better than 100% of all expelled virus getting into the air regardless of whether a mask is tested to a standard or not

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is very contradictory. You can't say people were queuing for an hour and then say nobody was going anywhere. People were queuing for the only shops that were open.

Masks didn't help to flatten to curve (early May). They haven't helped to keep the numbers low ever since.

I wouldn't take anti biotics for an illness after I get better...

That's an analogy that isn't applicable in this case.

You are talking about antibiotics in the context of them being a cure: you take them, you get better, the end.

Thinking that masks should be viewed as something to this is a false equivalence.

Masks should be thought as functioning as a preventative measure, the purpose of wearing them is stop an unwanted outcome occurring in the first place: further rapid of a transmissible virus.

Rather than thinking about them in terms of antibiotics, this might be a bit closer:

If a patient has a heart attack, has treatment and recovers doctors will still advise the patient to make changes to their lifestyle to try to prevent a recurrance of that initial health problem.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

If a patient has a heart attack, has treatment and recovers doctors will still advise the patient to make changes to their lifestyle to try to prevent a recurrance of that initial health problem.

They should concentrate more on that advice.

Heart disease has killed 5 times more than Covid this year.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

They should concentrate more on that advice.

Heart disease has killed 5 times more than Covid this year.

So what you're saying is that restrictions halted the spread of the disease and saved many lives that otherwise would have been lost?

thelad95

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

They should concentrate more on that advice.

Heart disease has killed 5 times more than Covid this year.

Is heart disease wildly contagious?

Why do you think it's killed more than Covid? Also where are you plucking that statistic from?

FintanMcluskey

thelad95 wrote: »

Is heart disease wildly contagious?

Why do you think it's killed more than Covid? Also where are you plucking that statistic from?

I think its killed more than Covid because 3 million deaths attributed to heart disease is a bigger number than 700k Covid deaths.

A simple google search can uncover this information.

You dont need to be a member of the stonemasons

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I think its killed more than Covid because 3 million deaths attributed to heart disease is a bigger number than 700k Covid deaths.

A simple google search can uncover this information.

You dont need to be a member of the stonemasons

Yes, Fintan but the whole purpose of restrictions and lockdowns was to prevent excess Covid deaths.

You do understand that don't you?

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

So what you're saying is that restrictions halted the spread of the disease and saved many lives that otherwise would have been lost?

I need evidence for the restrictions saving any lives, and so far I've yet to see any.

Sweden is still the vaccine for the hysterical nonsense that none of ye want to take

joeguevara

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I need evidence for the restrictions saving any lives, and so far I've yet to see any.

Sweden is still the vaccine for the hysterical nonsense that none of ye want to take

You mean this https://www.thesun.ie/news/5693350/sweden-coronavirus-death-rate-worst-world-docs-warn-dont-dodge-lockdown/

Sweden currently has one of the worst death rates and as far as Im aware have stopped reporting. So why are you raising this as a good thing.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Yes, Fintan but the whole purpose of restrictions and lockdowns was to prevent excess Covid deaths.

You do understand that don't you?

Oh I understand only a Covid death is tragic to some.

Believe me I understand.

If next year the number of kids that die from hunger related issues on the planet doubles to 6 million, due to a collapse in global economic supports, it will be a succes in the view of some. Anything but Covid.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I need evidence for the restrictions saving any lives, and so far I've yet to see any.

Sweden is still the vaccine for the hysterical nonsense that none of ye want to take

If you're dealing with an outbreak of a highly infectious and quite dangerous disease it stands to reason that if you restrict people coming into contact with each other you'll help prevent the uncontrolled spread.

The current situation in the United States completely torpedoes any argument against the effectiveness of restrictions in controlling the spread and saving lives. They imposed restrictions, numbers eventually fell, deaths eventually fell. Then they got giddy, threw caution to the wind and opened up too early, numbers rose again, deaths began to rise again...

FintanMcluskey

joeguevara wrote: »

You mean this https://www.thesun.ie/news/5693350/sweden-coronavirus-death-rate-worst-world-docs-warn-dont-dodge-lockdown/

Sweden currently has one of the worst death rates and as far as Im aware have stopped reporting. So why are you raising this as a good thing.

I thought what you were going to counter argue with was going to be something that posted Sweden as the number 1 global death rate per population over 65.

Instead what you have posted is some jibberish that shows Sweden still preforming better than many European countries that underwent a strict lockdown, while the article itself compares the whole of USA to Sweden instead of individual states to Sweden.

Those tabloids are brain food for brains that are best kept on a Covid diet

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Oh I understand only a Covid death is tragic to some.

Believe me I understand.

That's a completely made up assertion that you've created in your own head.

joeguevara

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I thought what you were going to counter argue with was going to be something that posted Sweden as the number 1 global death rate per population over 65.

Instead what you have posted is some jibberish that shows Sweden still preforming better than many European countries that underwent a strict lockdown, while the article itself compares the whole of USA to Sweden instead of individual states to Sweden.

Those tabloids are brain food for brains that are best kept on a Covid diet

And I thought you were going to counter with the fact that although its economy imploded it wasn't as bad as some others. When you say performing better, they have one of the highest death rates at present, which is increasing, not allowed entry to its neighbours and its government are being investrigated for deaths of its citizens.

Captain_Crash

joeguevara wrote: »

its government are being investrigated for deaths of its citizens.

Less of the hyperbole, they aren't "being investigated", they themselves formed a commission to investigate their approach to the pandemic. Something I think every European country will be doing.

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I need evidence for the restrictions saving any lives, and so far I've yet to see any.

Sweden is still the vaccine for the hysterical nonsense that none of ye want to take

You do realise don`t you that Sweden`s herd immunity strategy has not worked out and their antibody tests show they are no nearer to achieving immunity than anyone else ?

Curious thing with Sweden`s numbers you may have missed.
They only record Covid-19 deaths for those that tested positive before they passed.
What is very curious is that for the first 6 months of this year their reported death from Covid-19 were 5,500. Yet compared to last year their excess deaths for the same period are 9,400.
Any ideas as to the cause of those almost 4,000 excess deaths ?

joeguevara

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Less of the hyperbole, they aren't "being investigated", they themselves formed a commission to investigate their approach to the pandemic. Something I think every European country will be doing.

When you have one of the worst death rates in the world, when you go against all expertise, and its not really getting better, what difference is 'being investigated' to 'commission to investigate' unless you think they are investigating themselves.

But I accept your point. I just don't think its appropriate to raise Sweden as the amazing success story that some posters do.

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I thought what you were going to counter argue with was going to be something that posted Sweden as the number 1 global death rate per population over 65.

Instead what you have posted is some jibberish that shows Sweden still preforming better than many European countries that underwent a strict lockdown, while the article itself compares the whole of USA to Sweden instead of individual states to Sweden.

Those tabloids are brain food for brains that are best kept on a Covid diet

They really didn`t.
Of 51 European countries they are neck and neck with Italy for 4th as having most deaths per capita.

joeguevara

charlie14 wrote: »

They really didn`t.
Of 51 European countries they are neck and neck with Italy for 4th as having most deaths per capita.

And looking like getting worse. They are becoming neck and neck with the US. And they are being seen like a hazardous waste problem by their Nordic neighbours.

MickeyLeari

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Less of the hyperbole, they aren't "being investigated", they themselves formed a commission to investigate their approach to the pandemic. Something I think every European country will be doing.

Indeed and when we do it we need to look at the following:

- number of missed cancer screenings
- The cost of the future lack of investment in the health sector.
- mental health issues including depression and suicide.
- reputational damage as a result of reversing 60 years of a small open economy industrial policy compared to a narrow minded fascist regime.

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

They really didn`t.
Of 51 European countries they are neck and neck with Italy for 4th as having most deaths per capita.

They really did.

The proposed functionality of the lockdown you are defending is the fact that without it we would see 100-200k excess deaths in Ireland without it.

The point is no evidence exist as to the protection lockdown offers nursing home citizen's. And Sweden is proof.

And they fact they are 4th with no restrictions is further proof.

They death rate is intrinsically linked to the population of citizen's in the over 65 age bracket.

If Sweden were 1st in the deaths per million they would need to have at least double the death rate to have any correlation between lockdown and death rate.

Interesting post I read on here recently thought that the virus death rate peaked and lowered significantly after 40 days or say. I found that interesting. What lowers the death rate is perhaps the fact that vulnerable citizens unfortunately died in the first few weeks and the healthier folk survived.

Lockdown didnt save lives, Covid just seem to kill the vulnerable at a faster rate than usual

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

You do realise don`t you that Sweden`s herd immunity strategy has not worked out and their antibody tests show they are no nearer to achieving immunity than anyone else ?

Curious thing with Sweden`s numbers you may have missed.
They only record Covid-19 deaths for those that tested positive before they passed.
What is very curious is that for the first 6 months of this year their reported death from Covid-19 were 5,500. Yet compared to last year their excess deaths for the same period are 9,400.
Any ideas as to the cause of those almost 4,000 excess deaths ?

Fron what I can gather the anti body testing is rather innaccurate and highly debated at present.

So now that Sweden have been rather successful in the approach to combat Covid, we can move on to conspiracy theories and cover ups?