All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

aido79

Tea drinker wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/further-year-of-covid-curbs-needed-to-protect-public-says-top-health-official-1.4460359?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Ffurther-year-of-covid-curbs-needed-to-protect-public-says-top-health-official-1.4460359

only another year to go lads

So are you saying the covid19 measures aren't permanent and they're only in place until enough people are vaccinated and the restrictions can be relaxed?

ShatterAlan

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Id assume they keep covid wards separate from other wards to reduce the risk of infection to non covid patients.
The other wards are mostly empty because with everything locked down, people are getting into less accidents, people arent injuring themselves in work for example,
less people are going to hospital for other issues - youd be surprised how many people go straight to hospital for minor problems when all they need to do is go to their GP or contact a doctor on call - theres been a reduction in people going to hospital for minor issues in the last year. Theres also been a reduction in people going to hospital when they should be going - hence why the HSE and Tony Holohan has been encouraging people to go to hospital if they need treatment.

I think youre coming from an extremely privileged place, youre young with no underlying conditions so you dont feel you have an immediate need to worry about your own health but youre also not close to anyone who is vulnerable or has gotten sick. Theres a bang of im alright jack off covid deniers.

I know first hand that the virus exists because I know people who died from it. I know one very young person aged 19 who died from complications of covid but had no underlying conditions. I also know elderly people who died.
A colleague was in hospital for weeks with the illness after my place of work had multiple outbreaks over the last year. This colleague is in her 40's, a healthy non smoker with no vulnerabilities. I have another colleague who smokes everyday but had no symptoms besides a mild cough. No one knows how their body is going to react to this illness, thats what makes it so frightening and so unpredictable.

You won't get into any ward. Covid or otherwise.

ShatterAlan

aido79 wrote: »

What measures do you think will remain in place? This is the basis for your conspiracy theory so what are you worried might remain in place?

What conspiracy of "mine"? I didn't start this thread.


But just so you are asking what restrictions do YOU think might never go away?


Last I saw Bin Laden was killed and Afghanistan and Iraq, the alleged purveyors of 9/11 have been invaded and decimated but none of the laws and restrictions introduced since Sept 11 to curb terrorism have been rolled back. I don't know, maybe some have but I can't think of any.

runawaybishop

Tea drinker wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/further-year-of-covid-curbs-needed-to-protect-public-says-top-health-official-1.4460359?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Ffurther-year-of-covid-curbs-needed-to-protect-public-says-top-health-official-1.4460359

only another year to go lads

As per the headline, restrictions to stay in place until enough people have been vaccinated. Can't see it taking a full year though.

runawaybishop

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What conspiracy of "mine"? I didn't start this thread.


But just so you are asking what restrictions do YOU think might never go away?


Last I saw Bin Laden was killed and Afghanistan and Iraq, the alleged purveyors of 9/11 have been invaded and decimated but none of the laws and restrictions introduced since Sept 11 to curb terrorism have been rolled back. I don't know, maybe some have but I can't think of any.

You didn't try very hard to think of any, or make even a cursory search. The patriot act, which had several section expire, was replaced in 2015 with the freedom act, which greatly curbed the previous acts powers.

arccosh

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What conspiracy of "mine"? I didn't start this thread.


But just so you are asking what restrictions do YOU think might never go away?


Last I saw Bin Laden was killed and Afghanistan and Iraq, the alleged purveyors of 9/11 have been invaded and decimated but none of the laws and restrictions introduced since Sept 11 to curb terrorism have been rolled back. I don't know, maybe some have but I can't think of any.

killing Bin Laden didn't end terrorism overnight

what 9/11 brought in was security measures that were unfamiliar to westerly societies who were used to minimal ish security.... if you flew to a lot of middle eastern countries before 9/11 you would have been subjected to similar security measures as you see nowadays...

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Last I saw Bin Laden was killed and Afghanistan and Iraq, the alleged purveyors of 9/11 have been invaded and decimated but none of the laws and restrictions introduced since Sept 11 to curb terrorism have been rolled back. I don't know, maybe some have but I can't think of any.

Terrorism hasn't disappeared, the threat (as we all know) is still there. Hence we still have e.g. locked aircraft cabins, extensive searches, etc.

The virus on the other hand isn't an ideology, it's a virus, that tries to spread. Once it's gone or almost gone, then most measures will be gone.

ShatterAlan

arccosh wrote: »

killing Bin Laden didn't end terrorism overnight

what 9/11 brought in was security measures that were unfamiliar to westerly societies who were used to minimal ish security.... if you flew to a lot of middle eastern countries before 9/11 you would have been subjected to similar security measures as you see nowadays...

Terrorism existed for thousands of years before Bin Laden.


Rolling the clock forward to King John at Runymede and the armed barons they came up with the Magna Carta and the idea of Habeaus Corpus. That was the guts of 1000 years.



There was "terrorists" back then too.


I don't see Guantanamo Bay shutting anytime soon since the war on terror has been won.

arccosh

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Terrorism existed for thousands of years before Bin Laden.


Rolling the clock forward to King John at Runymede and the armed barons they came up with the Magna Carta and the idea of Habeaus Corpus. That was the guts of 1000 years.



There was "terrorists" back then too.


I don't see Guantanamo Bay shutting anytime soon since the war on terror has been won.

what's that got to do with the introduction of security measures after 9/11..?

Bin Laden was mentioned because you mentioned him, insinuating that when he died, airport security measures should have been reduced...

unless you meant something completely different...?

runawaybishop

arccosh wrote: »

what's that got to do with the introduction of security measures after 9/11..?

Bin Laden was mentioned because you mentioned him, insinuating that when he died, airport security measures should have been reduced...

unless you meant something completely different...?

aido79

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What conspiracy of "mine"? I didn't start this thread.


But just so you are asking what restrictions do YOU think might never go away?


Last I saw Bin Laden was killed and Afghanistan and Iraq, the alleged purveyors of 9/11 have been invaded and decimated but none of the laws and restrictions introduced since Sept 11 to curb terrorism have been rolled back. I don't know, maybe some have but I can't think of any.

The way you post seems to indicate that you believe that some of the covid19 measures will be permanent. If not why not post in a different thread? Or maybe you are like the rest of us like myself who believe they are temporary measures brought into the restrict the spread of covid19?

What are you on about with Bin laden and Afghanistan? Has terrorism disappeared now? What anti terrorism laws would you like to see rolled back?

patnor1011

The longer they go the more permanent they appear. Mainly when some posters argue that they will be here only till enough people will be vaccinated and we know that current vaccine does not provide immunity to infection and it dies not prevent transmission either. It was said that maybe second or third generation of vaccine may be able to offer immunity or prevent transmission. Who knows when they come if ever.

What is even more concerning is that main tools used against covid - lockdowns and stay at home orders according to latest peer reviewed study does not slow down transmission but there is belief that they actually accelerated it as there is more chance of transmission when people are confined to small places for most of the time - like home or apartment.

The study's lead author is an associate professor in the Department of Medicine at Stanford.
"The study did not find evidence to support that NPIs were effective in preventing the spread," according to Outkick, who published the report.

The study, co-authored by Dr. Eran Bendavid, Professor John P.A. Ioannidis, Christopher Oh, and Jay Bhattacharya, studied the effects of NPIs in 10 different countries, including England, France, Germany and Italy.

And, when all was said and done, it concluded that: “In summary, we fail to find strong evidence supporting a role for more restrictive NPIs in the control of COVID in early 2020."

In fact, the study found “no clear, significant beneficial effect of more restrictive NPIs on case growth in any country.”

From the study:

“In the framework of this analysis, there is no evidence that more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020. By comparing the effectiveness of NPIs on case growth rates in countries that implemented more restrictive measures with those that implemented less restrictive measures, the evidence points away from indicating that more restrictive NPIs provided additional meaningful benefit above and beyond less restrictive NPIs. While modest decreases in daily growth (under 30%) cannot be excluded in a few countries, the possibility of large decreases in daily growth due to more restrictive NPIs is incompatible with the accumulated data.”

The study even looked into the potential of stay-at-home orders facilitating spread of the virus:

“The direction of the effect size in most scenarios point towards an increase in the case growth rate, though these estimates are only distinguishable from zero in Spain (consistent with non-beneficial effect of lockdowns). Only in Iran do the estimates consistently point in the direction of additional reduction in the growth rate, yet those effects are statistically indistinguishable from zero. While it is hard to draw firm conclusions from these estimates, they are consistent with a recent analysis that identified increase transmission and cases in Hunan, China during the period of stay-at-home orders from increased intra-household density and transmission. In other words, it is possible that stay-at-home orders may facilitate transmission if they increase person-to-person contact where transmission is efficient such as closed spaces.”

It continues: “We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures. The data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits. However, even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures. More targeted public health interventions that more effectively reduce transmissions may be important for future epidemic control without the harms of highly restrictive measures.”

Full study paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484

Dohnjoe

patnor1011 wrote: »

The longer they go the more permanent they appear.

The longer the virus persists, the longer we will have measures against it. And no, these measures don't disappear as soon as the vaccine arrives, it's going to take months or longer to vaccinate the world pop to a level that protects (to a relative level) against the virus.

As if to underscore all of this, when many lockdown measures were reduced this summer, the virus came back with a vengeance.

patnor1011

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The longer the virus persists, the longer we will have measures against it.

Virus is not going anywhere.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And no, these measures don't disappear as soon as the vaccine arrives, it's going to take months or longer to vaccinate the world pop to a level that protects (to a relative level) against the virus.

But as of this moment we do not have vaccine which will protect you against contracting covid or which may stop transmission.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As if to underscore all of this, when many lockdown measures were reduced this summer, the virus came back with a vengeance.

Some argue that current spike is more weather related. There are countries with lax or pretty much zero restrictions and yet they fare the same as countries with most draconian restrictions. Some even argue that confining people in small places actually accelerate transmission due to more chance of contact in confined spaces.

Dohnjoe

patnor1011 wrote: »

Virus is not going anywhere.

It's fluctuating all the time.

Which is why lockdown measures were reduced when virus cases decreased. It's not an "on/off" thing.

When a large amount of people are vaccinated against the virus, it's effect will be drastically reduced, ergo measures to tackle the spread of the virus will be reduced.

Tea drinker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's fluctuating all the time.

Which is why lockdown measures were reduced when virus cases decreased. It's not an "on/off" thing.

When a large amount of people are vaccinated against the virus, it's effect will be drastically reduced, ergo measures to tackle the spread of the virus will be reduced.

*dependant on the vaccines having a long efficacy against current strain and future strains. We've already seen mutations threaten the vaccine regimen so long term it's suck it and see.

runawaybishop

Tea drinker wrote: »

*dependant on the vaccines having a long efficacy against current strain and future strains. We've already seen mutations threaten the vaccine regimen so long term it's suck it and see.

No evidence that current vaccines will be ineffective in a short timeframe. New vaccines will take 6 weeks to develop. Viruses mutate, that doesn't mean they become more virulent. Can easily become less harmful and transmissible.

arccosh

patnor1011 wrote: »

The longer they go the more permanent they appear. Mainly when some posters argue that they will be here only till enough people will be ....................

.................
Full study paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484

Fair play for supporting an argument with some actually tangible evidence... it's far and few between ....

it'll be interesting what's left of this paper after it's finished the peer review process, and what other studies come up with, there's a few in progress which should be getting published....

PintOfView

patnor1011 wrote: »

The longer they go the more permanent they appear. Mainly when some posters argue that they will be here only till enough people will be vaccinated and we know that current vaccine does not provide immunity to infection and it dies not prevent transmission either. It was said that maybe second or third generation of vaccine may be able to offer immunity or prevent transmission. Who knows when they come if ever.

What is even more concerning is that main tools used against covid - lockdowns and stay at home orders according to latest peer reviewed study does not slow down transmission but there is belief that they actually accelerated it as there is more chance of transmission when people are confined to small places for most of the time - like home or apartment.

The study's lead author is an associate professor in the Department of Medicine at Stanford.
"The study did not find evidence to support that NPIs were effective in preventing the spread," according to Outkick, who published the report.

The study, co-authored by Dr. Eran Bendavid, Professor John P.A. Ioannidis, Christopher Oh, and Jay Bhattacharya, studied the effects of NPIs in 10 different countries, including England, France, Germany and Italy.

And, when all was said and done, it concluded that: “In summary, we fail to find strong evidence supporting a role for more restrictive NPIs in the control of COVID in early 2020."

In fact, the study found “no clear, significant beneficial effect of more restrictive NPIs on case growth in any country.”

From the study:

“In the framework of this analysis, there is no evidence that more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020. By comparing the effectiveness of NPIs on case growth rates in countries that implemented more restrictive measures with those that implemented less restrictive measures, the evidence points away from indicating that more restrictive NPIs provided additional meaningful benefit above and beyond less restrictive NPIs. While modest decreases in daily growth (under 30%) cannot be excluded in a few countries, the possibility of large decreases in daily growth due to more restrictive NPIs is incompatible with the accumulated data.”

The study even looked into the potential of stay-at-home orders facilitating spread of the virus:

“The direction of the effect size in most scenarios point towards an increase in the case growth rate, though these estimates are only distinguishable from zero in Spain (consistent with non-beneficial effect of lockdowns). Only in Iran do the estimates consistently point in the direction of additional reduction in the growth rate, yet those effects are statistically indistinguishable from zero. While it is hard to draw firm conclusions from these estimates, they are consistent with a recent analysis that identified increase transmission and cases in Hunan, China during the period of stay-at-home orders from increased intra-household density and transmission. In other words, it is possible that stay-at-home orders may facilitate transmission if they increase person-to-person contact where transmission is efficient such as closed spaces.”

It continues: “We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures. The data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits. However, even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures. More targeted public health interventions that more effectively reduce transmissions may be important for future epidemic control without the harms of highly restrictive measures.”

Full study paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484

Can I ask you how you think Ireland got the virus somewhat under control last Summer?
It seemed to me that the lockdown from Paddy's day to June was the reason why we had a relatively low incidence of the virus over the Summer.
If we hadn't had a lockdown then do you think the virus would still have reduced on its own last Summer?

patnor1011

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's fluctuating all the time.

Which is why lockdown measures were reduced when virus cases decreased. It's not an "on/off" thing.

When a large amount of people are vaccinated against the virus, it's effect will be drastically reduced, ergo measures to tackle the spread of the virus will be reduced.

I do not know. From what is happening right now we clearly see that people most at risk are in some places actually being advised to consider if taking vaccine may be good for them due to high risk of adverse reactions. (like in Denmark).Since vaccine does not stop infection or transmission and majority of detected cases do not have or develop any symptoms what virus effect exactly do you expect to be drastically reduced?

patnor1011

PintOfView wrote: »

Can I ask you how you think Ireland got the virus somewhat under control last Summer?
It seemed to me that the lockdown from Paddy's day to June was the reason why we had a relatively low incidence of the virus over the Summer.
If we hadn't had a lockdown then do you think the virus would still have reduced on its own last Summer?

Why do you think we had it under control?
Low case number was because we simply carried less tests. We do more tests daily now than what we did weekly then.
Pretty much the same is happening everywhere you look. Since 80% of positive cases do not have any symptoms and never even develop any it was hard to find more cases before but now we are able to test much more people so cases are easier to find. Mainly because most of them do not have a clue they are positive.

PintOfView

patnor1011 wrote: »

people most at risk are in some places actually being advised to consider if taking vaccine may be good for them due to high risk of adverse reactions. (like in Denmark)

What is happening in Denmark? Who is being advised not to take the vaccine?

patnor1011 wrote: »

Since vaccine does not stop infection or transmission

If a vaccinated person is exposed to the virus then their body will be able to immediately start fighting the virus and eliminate it much quicker than in non-vaccinated people. Surely this effectively stops the disease in that person, and by doing so will prevent transmission?

Did this not work in Ireland 50 years ago with Polio vaccine and TB vaccines?
And today with MMR vaccines?

PintOfView

patnor1011 wrote: »

Why do you think we had it under control?
Low case number was because we simply carried less tests. We do more tests daily now than what we did weekly then.

I don't think our testing capacity has increased dramatically since November?
If that is the case why did our incidence rate increase dramatically in the past 6 weeks?

As regards having it under control last summer. If you discount the numbers of positive cases from testing, how do you explain the drop in the numbers of Covid patients needing hospital treatment last Summer and Autumn?

patnor1011 wrote: »

Since 80% of positive cases do not have any symptoms and never even develop any it was hard to find more cases before but now we are able to test much more people so cases are easier to find. Mainly because most of them do not have a clue they are positive.

Why do you say that 80% of positive cases don't have any symptoms?

Dohnjoe

patnor1011 wrote: »

Why do you think we had it under control?
Low case number was because we simply carried less tests. We do more tests daily now than what we did weekly then.

Why did the number of people in hospital with Covid decrease significantly in that period?

runawaybishop

patnor1011 wrote: »

I do not know. From what is happening right now we clearly see that people most at risk are in some places actually being advised to consider if taking vaccine may be good for them due to high risk of adverse reactions. (like in Denmark).Since vaccine does not stop infection or transmission and majority of detected cases do not have or develop any symptoms what virus effect exactly do you expect to be drastically reduced?

You mean Norway I guess? They are concerned that people at a high level of frailty may find any issues or side effects to be life threatening.

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health judges that “for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side-effects can have serious consequences. For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”

With regards to vaccines and transmission we do not know they won't affect transmission, the data isn't in. Early studies are tentatively saying they may lower transmission.

PintOfView

patnor1011 wrote: »

... Since 80% of positive cases do not have any symptoms and never even develop any ...

See the following quote from the BMJ of 21/12/2020
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851

"Earlier estimates that 80% of infections are asymptomatic were too high and have since been revised down to between 17% and 20% of people with infections.12 "

ShatterAlan

aido79 wrote: »

The way you post seems to indicate that you believe that some of the covid19 measures will be permanent. If not why not post in a different thread? Or maybe you are like the rest of us like myself who believe they are temporary measures brought into the restrict the spread of covid19?

What are you on about with Bin laden and Afghanistan? Has terrorism disappeared now? What anti terrorism laws would you like to see rolled back?

What am I on about with Bin Laden and Afghanistan? I thought it was pretty simple.



Ridiculous airport security measures were introduced and will remain in place. From what I understand they haven't thwarted a single terrorist plot in 20 years.



Any chemistry student will tell you that you simply cannot make a bomb with a 500ml bottle of Ballygowan and a tub of Brylcreme. What difference does it make if a laptop is in a bag or outside of a bag?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's fluctuating all the time.

Which is why lockdown measures were reduced when virus cases decreased. It's not an "on/off" thing.

When a large amount of people are vaccinated against the virus, it's effect will be drastically reduced, ergo measures to tackle the spread of the virus will be reduced.

Do you think vaccination will be made mandatory?

PintOfView

ShatterAlan wrote: »

... Ridiculous airport security measures were introduced and will remain in place. From what I understand they haven't thwarted a single terrorist plot in 20 years.

Can I ask you how you came to that understanding?
If there was no security at the airports, and before you get on planes, do you think there would be no attempts at attacking a plane?

ShatterAlan wrote: »

... What difference does it make if a laptop is in a bag or outside of a bag?

I don't know, but I would assume the xray machine will get a better picture of the laptop, and a better picture of what's in the bag.
Are you inferring that there is another reason why they want the laptops removed from bags (apart from just wanting to inconvenience people)?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Do you think vaccination will be made mandatory?

Among the general public? nope. But maybe in particular areas, e.g. certain hospitals may have a requirement for certain staff to have vaccinations.

What measures do you believe are permanent and why?