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

completedit

Watched a documentary on the Black Death let night and how countries responded and recovered from it.

I think naturally with winter coming we should start to be cautious. I believe for morale purposes, things should have been eased over the he summer for a month or so to give people something to hold onto. I know most things are actually open but it's what it feels like to people. A lot of people are saying this is the worst part of the last 6 months. We are in limbo.

The winter is looming and I'm sure this is causing a lot of worry. If history is doomed to repeat itself, let's hope this virus doesn't mimic the Spanish Flu. However, it doesn't appear that the virus is like the one of 1918. Even today we are much better set up to deal with such an outbreak.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

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?

There were restrictions in Sweden Fintan, it wasn't just business as usual. There were numerous measures they took that were in line with other countries.

They weren't as severe as others overall, but there were still many restrictions on everyday life. It's a total myth to claim that everyday life for Swedes was unaffected. It was.

Your "vaccine" being the Swedish approach is a vaccine that leaves thousands more dead. That is one crappy vaccine Fintan. And we all know Sweden is under reporting deaths. So the true costs of that vaccine are even worse. Sweden wasn't successful.

MickeyLeari

MickeyLeari wrote: »

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.

People are not bothered to question those sort of things.

I personally want to know how we are suddenly able to pay a chunk of the population 350 a week over several months, offer financial support to businesses, order in lots of PPE, fund the schools with hundreds of millions and offer tax breaks for people to staycation. As well as apparently having lots of money to pump into restarting the economy. I want to know what the cost of that will be to me! I want to know what cuts will need to made for the coming years to pay the bill back.

I'd love to know how many will die from the months of no testing / screening and treatments. That will be swept under the carpet. Our CMO's are good at that I hear.

Covid seems to be the only thing that matters right now. And the experts know themselves that the deaths have been WAY overstated. And they know its practically harmless for people under 65.

With just 5 in ICU right now, I have no idea why they won't just open the country fully and advise cocooning for the elders.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Your "vaccine" being the Swedish approach is a vaccine that leaves thousands more dead. That is one crappy vaccine Fintan. And we all know Sweden is under reporting deaths. So the true costs of that vaccine are even worse. Sweden wasn't successful.

How does it leave thousands more dead?

They are 4th overall in Europe?

How does that mean restrictions on citizen's are the only option?

Im struggling to understand your defense with no evidence?

If lockdowns save lives Sweden would be by far, and by a magnitude of 100k, the worst performing country in Europe, but there not. So now the argument has moved onto hyperbole.

I know whats wrong. Some posters were so hysterical early on, they cant admit they were wrong, such was there condemnation of other posters who questioned restriction.

completedit

Yeah it seems logical. But surely they're doing this for a reason. That's what I can't get my head around. I think if winter comes and goes without any scares, my belief is that 2021 with or without a vaccine will not be restrictive. I think they're in the dark pretty much and hoping that a vaccine will be announced. I think once the vaccine is announced things will ease up, even before it's rolled out.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People are not bothered to question those sort of things.

I personally want to know how we are suddenly able to pay a chunk of the population 350 a week over several months, offer financial support to businesses, order in lots of PPE, fund the schools with hundreds of millions and offer tax breaks for people to staycation. As well as apparently having lots of money to pump into restarting the economy. I want to know what the cost of that will be to me! I want to know what cuts will need to made for the coming years to pay the bill back.

I'd love to know how many will die from the months of no testing / screening and treatments. That will be swept under the carpet. Our CMO's are good at that I hear.

Covid seems to be the only thing that matters right now. And the experts know themselves that the deaths have been WAY overstated. And they know its practically harmless for people under 65.

With just 5 in ICU right now, I have no idea why they won't just open the country fully and advise cocooning for the elders.

Maybe because not everyone believes in locking away 20% of the population

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People are not bothered to question those sort of things.

I personally want to know how we are suddenly able to pay a chunk of the population 350 a week over several months, offer financial support to businesses, order in lots of PPE, fund the schools with hundreds of millions and offer tax breaks for people to staycation. As well as apparently having lots of money to pump into restarting the economy. I want to know what the cost of that will be to me! I want to know what cuts will need to made for the coming years to pay the bill back.

I'd love to know how many will die from the months of no testing / screening and treatments. That will be swept under the carpet. Our CMO's are good at that I hear.

Covid seems to be the only thing that matters right now. And the experts know themselves that the deaths have been WAY overstated. And they know its practically harmless for people under 65.

With just 5 in ICU right now, I have no idea why they won't just open the country fully and advise cocooning for the elders.

It's killed over a 100 people under the age of 65 - but practically harmless.

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe because not everyone believes in locking away 20% of the population

Bizzare.

So the answer is lockup 100%?

Or am I wrong?

I need to take my tablets

completedit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe because not everyone believes in locking away 20% of the population

But they should be doing it anyway. It's personal responsibility. If you're at risk then a level of it is required when you're dealing with a virus like this. The virus doesn't care how it gets to you. It's a sad reality but people in this situation re in a precarious situation and have to do what they can if they want to avoid getting it

Spanish Eyes

Deleted User wrote: »

People are not bothered to question those sort of things.

I personally want to know how we are suddenly able to pay a chunk of the population 350 a week over several months, offer financial support to businesses, order in lots of PPE, fund the schools with hundreds of millions and offer tax breaks for people to staycation. As well as apparently having lots of money to pump into restarting the economy. I want to know what the cost of that will be to me! I want to know what cuts will need to made for the coming years to pay the bill back.

I'd love to know how many will die from the months of no testing / screening and treatments. That will be swept under the carpet. Our CMO's are good at that I hear.

Covid seems to be the only thing that matters right now. And the experts know themselves that the deaths have been WAY overstated. And they know its practically harmless for people under 65.

With just 5 in ICU right now, I have no idea why they won't just open the country fully and advise cocooning for the elders.

Most "elders" as you call them are voluntarily being very cautious anyway. What more can they do? Many elders are active and vivacious too and are missing normal life by generally being cautious now.

I dunno what the answer is anymore, but am getting used to life as it is. Not much I can do about it really, apart from being careful and respectful to others by wearing a mask, keeping my distance from strangers and so on. Pubs don't interest me, and going for a meal now seems too much hassle to bother anymore. But have done so... however the experience just wasn't the same.

Staying in Ireland for the holliers too, now that's a first! Am looking forward to it actually and hope to put some money back in the economy that way at least.

Shopping is a pain and I won't do it now. Supermarket delivery, the rest is 95% online tbh.

It is a new way of existing, not living, but all the ranting and raving won't change it much.

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

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

They didn`t actually and it`s not just a case of the figures speaking for themselves. More a case of them not with 4,000 excess deaths in Sweden for the first half of the year above and beyond reported excess deaths from Covid-19.


Speculation that lockdown does not save lives. Is just that, speculation.
Sweden`s Nordic neighbours used it and their infections and deaths have been a fraction of those of Sweden.
All around the world when it was introduced infection rates and deaths fell.



Vulnerable people die because they are exposed to the virus which is what lockdown is intended to minimise. The fact that we didn`t protect our nursing homes with our lockdown was our fault. Nothing to do with the theory governing lockdown. Had we used it properly to protect nursing homes it would have shown how incorrect Sweden were. As their Nordic neighbours showed.


Btw. Sweden did have restrictions. Still do.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Bizzare.

So the answer is lockup 100%?

Or am I wrong?

I need to take my tablets

Are you locked up Fintan?

Can you leave the house?

Have you been taken prisoner? Should we phone the authorities?

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

It's killed over a 100 people under the age of 65 - but practically harmless.

That is a tiny percentage of the population.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Bizzare.

So the answer is lockup 100%?

Or am I wrong?

I need to take my tablets

Who is locked up? Everyone sacrifices a little so that all can have some level of normality

charlie14

joeguevara wrote: »

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.

It is already much worse.
John Hopkins deaths from Covid-19 per 100,000. U.S.A. 45.62. Sweden 55.99.

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

They didn`t actually and it`s not just a case of the figures speaking for themselves. More a case of them not with 4,000 excess deaths in Sweden for the first half of the year above and beyond reported excess deaths from Covid-19.


Speculation that lockdown does not save lives. Is just that, speculation.
Sweden`s Nordic neighbours used it and their infections and deaths have been a fraction of those of Sweden.
All around the world when it was introduced infection rates and deaths fell.



Vulnerable people die because they are exposed to the virus which is what lockdown is intended to minimise. The fact that we didn`t protect our nursing homes with our lockdown was our fault. Nothing to do with the theory governing lockdown. Had we used it properly to protect nursing homes it would have shown how incorrect Sweden were. As their Nordic neighbours showed.


Btw. Sweden did have restrictions. Still do.

Im going to try and summarise the credibility in your argument here.

You said Sweden didnt impose restrictions and many excess citizen's died.

I said they didn't have excess deaths, not in any significant numbers, and performed better then many European countries that did impose strict lockdowns

You now say Sweden did have restrictions

So i wonder which is it so?

They did or didnt have restrictions, and did or didn't those restrictions have any correlation with death rate or not?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is locked up? Everyone sacrifices a little so that all can have some level of normality

I doubt anyone dying of undiagnosed cancer due to lack of screening will feel like they sacrificed a little.

Many people's lives and futures are been sacrificed to keep the covid numbers looking good.

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

It is already much worse.
John Hopkins deaths from Covid-19 per 100,000. U.S.A. 45.62. Sweden 55.99.

So the USA has done much better than the 4th perfoming country in Europe in terms of death rate.

Thats positive news. It surely makes sense to get those tourists in from America at that rate

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is a tiny percentage of the population.

It sure is. Thankfully we managed to get the spread under control. Otherwise that figure would have been much higher.

According to Prof. Philip Nolan it's estimated that between 1-5% of the population were exposed to the virus, thanks to the efficacy of the measures used to prevent the spread. So you can do the maths yourself about the estimated death toll without any counter measures.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

It sure is. Thankfully we managed to get the spread under control. Otherwise that figure would have been much higher.

According to Prof. Philip Nolan it's estimated that between 1-5% of the population were exposed to the virus, thanks to the efficacy of the measures used to prevent the spread. So you can do the maths yourself about the estimated death toll without any counter measures.

Ill do the maths.

Without counter measures we will take Sweden.

2 million citizens over 65 - 5730 death's =
286 deaths per 100k

With counter measure we will consider Ireland

650k citizen's over 65 - 1764 death's =
271 per 100k

The population of a nation over 65 has a striking correlation to death rate

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ill do the maths.

Without counter measures we will take Sweden.

2 million citizens over 65 - 5730 death's =
286 deaths per 100k

With counter measure we will consider Ireland

650k citizen's over 65 - 1764 death's =
271 per 100k

The population of a nation over 65 has a striking correlation to death rate

But, Fintan you argument falls apart because Sweden did take counter measures.

MickeyLeari

Arghus wrote: »

It sure is. Thankfully we managed to get the spread under control. Otherwise that figure would have been much higher.

According to Prof. Philip Nolan it's estimated that between 1-5% of the population were exposed to the virus, thanks to the efficacy of the measures used to prevent the spread. So you can do the maths yourself about the estimated death toll without any counter measures.

And then deGascun was highlighting that it was disappointing so few of the population had antibodies and thus a degree of immunisation. We are in a science experiment and the fascists are taking over.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

But, Fintan you argument falls apart because Sweden did take counter measures.

Ah seriously thats now the argument?

Sweden were accused of granny killing, but now the numbers dont support it, ara sure they had a lockdown really!

Arghus

MickeyLeari wrote: »

And then deGascun was highlighting that it was disappointing so few of the population had antibodies and thus a degree of immunisation. We are in a science experiment and the fascists are taking over.

But that only proves that it's actually more dangerous to let the virus run riot.

DeGascun saying that he expected to see more antibodies in the general population, underlines how so few people actually came into contact with, which, given the death toll, further underlines how dangerous the disease actually is.

It's not a science experiment. You can throw caution to the wind if it's an experiment, you can't if it's a situation where lives are at stake.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ah seriously thats now the argument?

Sweden were accused of granny killing, but now the numbers dont support it, ara sure they had a lockdown really!

Okay, we can be specific so.

When you refer to "no counter measures" in relation to Sweden, do you mean that they took no counter measures in response to the virus. None at all? Because that isn't true.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

It's not a science experiment. You can throw caution to the wind if it's an experiment, you can't if it's a situation where lives are at stake.

So postponing cancer treatment and countless other procedure's was an experiment in manslaughter by mismanagement?

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

So postponing cancer treatment and countless other procedure's was an experiment in manslaughter by mismanagement?

No.

joeguevara

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

So postponing cancer treatment and countless other procedure's was an experiment in manslaughter by mismanagement?

Are you saying cancer treatment was postponed? I had 3 family members continue with chem and radiation therapy during lockdown.

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Im going to try and summarise the credibility in your argument here.

You said Sweden didnt impose restrictions and many excess citizen's died.

I said they didn't have excess deaths, not in any significant numbers, and performed better then many European countries that did impose strict lockdowns

You now say Sweden did have restrictions

So i wonder which is it so?

They did or didnt have restrictions, and did or didn't those restrictions have any correlation with death rate or not?

I never said Sweden did not have restrictions. The restrictions they had, and still have, did not work to the same effect that lockdown did for their Nordic neighbours which is plain to see if you compare their numbers.

You do not seem to know what Sweden`s excess death numbers are.
For 2019 their total death were 88,766. That equates to 44,383 for 6 months.
For first 6 months of this year their total death were 53,786. Excess deaths of close to 9,500.
Their reported Covid-19 deaths in that period were around 5,500.

That still leaves 4,000 excess deaths unaccounted for.
I am not aware of anything in Sweden that would account for that large number of deaths in that 6 month period but perhaps you are ?

FintanMcluskey

joeguevara wrote: »

Are you saying cancer treatment was postponed? I had 3 family members continue with chem and radiation therapy during lockdown.

Youre fully correct. It was the screening that was postponed.

Very perceptive of you