Lockdown and restrictions all for nothing?

bb1234567

air wrote: »

How many predictions did our own "experts" make for deaths in Ireland throughout this charade that have been proven to have been inaccurate by orders of magnitude, not mere double digit percentages as per your own example?
I know who I have more confidence in at this point.

And you accussed me of diverging from the point? What is causing the massive excess in the USA air? And before you might try to claim the excess deaths are lockdown related, why are there not comparably high levels of excess deaths in neighbouring Canada which had a lockdown? Just massive excess deaths in USa and Mexico, where COVID is running wild. Quite the coincidence that, wouldn't you say.

And for the record, yes I agree original predictions were very inaccurate, however it doesn't mean I agree that COVID is no threat.

air

bb1234567 wrote: »

Chemistry is very far removed from epidimolgy. Sorry but I would say that claiming they are in any way similar is a massive diversion from the point. If there are so many others in agreement with Cummins why mention LEvitt at all given his irrelevant qualifications and track record of completely false claims? It actually massively weakens your argument and makes it seems as though there are very few well regarded academics in agreement with him,

They are both branches of science.
Medical practitioners practice (primarily) on the basis of what they're told by science, a doctor isn't well positioned to analyse scientific data, they're busy treating patients.

You're the one with the obsession with Levitt, I only mentioned him as one of many well regarded guests Cummins has had, leave him out of it if you so wish. You're taking the debate on a complete tangent.

plodder

bb1234567 wrote: »

What's your opinion on the fact that levitt predicted deaths to stop abruptly at 170,000 in the US when in fact USA has reported excess deaths of over 250,000 as of September and 300,000 deaths predicted by January? Epidemiology is certainly not something he appears to be very competent in so I would say your position is very controversial to favour his opinion over qualified medical staff. Anyone speaking against your preconceived notions would have been completely dismissed without question by now if they had made such disastrously wrong predictions so recently.

Prof Michael Levitt: here’s what I got wrong

air

bb1234567 wrote: »

And you accussed me of diverging from the point?

I did because you were.

bb1234567 wrote: »

What is causing the massive excess in the USA air? And before you might try to claim the excess deaths are lockdown related, why are there not comparably high levels of excess deaths in neighbouring Canada which had a lockdown? Just massive excess deaths in USa and Mexico, where COVID is running wild. Quite the coincidence that, wouldn't you say.

I'm not familiar with the US figures, but there are innumerable differences between the US and Canada in terms of lifestyle, rates of obesity, access to healthcare etc. all of which could combine to make it's population more vulnerable to Covid.
Furthermore the virus has spread across the country in waves and it would be more appropriate to look at individual states than the country as a whole as their experiences vary wildly and they are effectively at different points in the epidemic.

bb1234567 wrote: »

And for the record, yes I agree original predictions were very inaccurate, however it doesn't mean I agree that COVID is no threat.

I never said Covid was "no threat" and neither did anyone else here.

From an Irish perspective it has killed very few people (perhaps 200 people I would estimate).
Yes, we have ~1800 deaths "with Covid" but have only admitted less than 450 to ICU.
So either we didn't bother treating the remainder or they died of something else.
For those that died in ICU "with Covid" I believe ~50% is a generous estimate as to those for whom Covid was the primary cause of death.

All this is also tempered by the median age of deaths which is around 83 IIRC.
This means that the number of life years lost by those 200 deaths, is in the grand scheme of things on a population basis, completely negligible.
The lockdown and economic impact will cost us thousands of times more lost life years down the road.

bb1234567

plodder wrote: »

Prof Michael Levitt: here’s what I got wrong

At least he has admitted to being completely wrong. But yes the discussion is going on a tangent, perhaps referencing academics with relevant and successful track records might help steer the discussion in the right direction from now on.

bb1234567

air wrote: »

I did because you were.



I'm not familiar with the US figures, but there are innumerable differences between the US and Canada in terms of lifestyle, rates of obesity, access to healthcare etc. all of which could combine to make it's population more vulnerable to Covid.
Furthermore the virus has spread across the country in waves and it would be more appropriate to look at individual states than the country as a whole as their experiences vary wildly and they are effectively at different points in the epidemic.


I never said Covid was "no threat" and neither did anyone else here.

From an Irish perspective it has killed very few people (perhaps 200 people I would estimate).
Yes, we have ~1800 deaths "with Covid" but have only admitted less than 450 to ICU.
So either we didn't bother treating the remainder or they died of something else.
For those that died in ICU "with Covid" I believe ~50% is a generous estimate as to those for whom Covid was the primary cause of death.

All this is also tempered by the median age of deaths which is around 83 IIRC.
This means that the number of life years lost by those 200 deaths, is in the grand scheme of things on a population basis, completely negligible.
The lockdown and economic impact will cost us thousands of times more lost life years down the road.

What is your theory that deahs are '200' in Ireland based on ? Anything at all? Completely unsubstantiated rubbish. All of your points are easily dismissed by the fact that excess deaths in Ireland are still hundreds above normal.

air

He got it a lot less wrong than the experts who are setting our current policies as you have rightly acknowledged.

air

bb1234567 wrote: »

What is your theory that deahs are '200' in Ireland based on ? Anything at all? Completely unsubstantiated rubbish. All of your points are easily dismissed by the fact that excess deaths in Ireland are still hundreds above normal.

I stated exactly where it came from, we have admitted less than 500 people to ICU with Covid since the epidemic began, per the HSE figures.
What's your explanation for why none of the remaining people were not admitted to ICU?
Could it be perhaps that they were very elderly people who were going to die this year anyway.

bb1234567 wrote: »

All of your points are easily dismissed by the fact that excess deaths in Ireland are still hundreds above normal.

Excess deaths are through the floor in Ireland, across all age categories, check for yourself.
And perhaps consider spouting less of your unsubstantiated rubbish.
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#excess-mortality

bb1234567

Also here is the US excess death figures as of late August:
https://weinbergerlab.github.io/excess_pi_covid/

So, 4x or so times higher than the worst flu season in recent memory 2018 which had excess deaths of 60,000-80,000 , and we are only 7 months into the pandemic.

Yes those unspecified'experts' who you reference overstated the risk. But you, and for example Cummins are going the other way, understating the risk.

Biker79

My guess is that there are no correct decisions with COVID - only decsions that are most likely to yield the best results for everyone.

My guess is also that this data was considered by NPHET/ Government etc, and the decisions they have made were based on weighing up all available data and their subsequent possible scenarios.

Clearly, this leaves ANY decision open to fault finding. Its a strange situation we find ourselves in, but we're getting away with what is Global emergency very lightly ( by historical standards ), so I would not be too critical of government policies, they are clearly working quite well.

bb1234567

air wrote: »

I stated exactly where it came from, we have admitted less than 500 people to ICU with Covid since the epidemic began, per the HSE figures.
What's your explanation for why none of the remaining people were not admitted to ICU?
Could it be perhaps that they were very elderly people who were going to die this year anyway.

Excess deaths are through the floor in Ireland, across all age categories, check for yourself.
And perhaps consider spouting less of your unsubstantiated rubbish.
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#excess-mortality

Sorry did I say excess deaths had not fallen or were still remaining elevated as of now? No, I said total excess deaths for the year so far are still above normal, almost 1000 above normal.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0828/1161895-excess-mortality-figures/

air

bb1234567 wrote: »

Sorry did I say excess deaths had not fallen or were still remaining elevated as of now? No, I said total excess deaths for the year so far are still above normal, almost 1000 above normal.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0828/1161895-excess-mortality-figures/

And they're now way below normal, even looking back as far as 2017. so we're well on track to have no excess deaths by year end if the current trend continues.
I note you haven't addressed my rebuttal of your earlier argument at all and have continued to move the goalposts.

circadian

How hard is it to understand that lockdown = dropping numbers? I swear some people are being intentionally thick and not looking at the most basic logic of causation.

bb1234567

air wrote: »

And they're now way below normal, even looking back as far as 2017. so we're well on track to have no excess deaths by year end if the current trend continues.
I note you haven't addressed my rebuttal of your earlier argument at all and have continued to move the goalposts.

Your argument about ICU? Yes, many of them are frail and would die within the while. Too weak to withstand ICU treatment, or died at home before getting treatment. But not all, or most, as you seem to suggest, otherwise excess deaths would not be almost 1000 above normal.

If deaths turn out below normal, then it will dramatically change my opinion on this topic. But so far the evidence is not there to say that, excess deaths are always far below normal in summer. This will change dramatically come winter. Anyway, as I have said examples in Mexico and USA show that letting covid loose will result in extremely high excess deaths uncomprable to any prior bad flu seasons.

air

bb1234567 wrote: »

Your argument about ICU? Yes, many of them are frail and would die within the while. Too weak to withstand ICU treatment, or died at home before getting treatment. But not all, or most, as you seem to suggest, otherwise excess deaths would not be almost 1000 above normal.

If deaths turn out below normal, then it will dramatically change my opinion on this topic. But so far the evidence is not there to say that, excess deaths are always far below normal in summer. This will change dramatically come winter. Anyway, as I have said examples in Mexico and USA show that letting covid loose will result in extremely high excess deaths uncomprable to any prior bad flu seasons.

I read your article, it doesn't even say deaths are up for the year, just for the first 5 months.
As you can see from the graphs, deaths were well below normal the previous year (there was no normal flu spike) so those people that would have died then were always going to pass at some point.

It also supports my point on the death numbers saying:
that up to half of those whose deaths were either "confirmed, probably or possibly" caused by Covid-19 during the first five months of the pandemic could have been likely to pass away from other causes during that period but that Covid-19 hastened their passing.

All told it's hard to attribute anything significant to Covid from an Irish perspective as far as I can see.

bb1234567

air wrote: »

I read your article, it doesn't even say deaths are up for the year, just for the first 5 months.
As you can see from the graphs, deaths were well below normal the previous year (there was no normal flu spike) so those people that would have died then were always going to pass at some point.

It also supports my point on the death numbers saying:
that up to half of those whose deaths were either "confirmed, probably or possibly" caused by Covid-19 during the first five months of the pandemic could have been likely to pass away from other causes during that period but that Covid-19 hastened their passing.

All told it's hard to attribute anything significant to Covid from an Irish perspective as far as I can see.

I agree with your last point, although I think based on precedence in other countries that means there is potential covid would cause large excess death if it became widespread here, especially given our population is quite old relative the the rest of the world. That's where our opinions differ, you seem to equate the fact that it so far hasn't already with that never becoming a possibility.

And yes the fact that deaths were low previous flu season is of course interesting but so far it could be completely correlational. If there is no big winter spike in deaths, I'll be convinced that the large number of European deaths were so far were exaggerating the true effect of COVID lethality due to the dry tinder effect. I'm open to change of mind once theres actual evidence. So far there isn't ,as I said based on the fact excess deaths are so large in countries where COVID is very prevalent strongly suggests this theory may not be correct despite the correlational evidence suggesting it may be.

air

I think we're in broad agreement at this point which is positive.
Our population isn't old relative to Europe though.
I of course hope that there isn't another spike in winter and I'm optimistic that there won't be a very big one.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly with regard to "totally correlational".

Our weakest die every winter from flu, in the 2018/2019 winter the flu strain was particularly mild so many elderly folk had a bonus year effectively and survived until Covid.

If you take the area under our March spike and subtract say the 2017/2018 winter spike (to allow for no flu the year before), it leaves you with far fewer real Covid deaths.

It leaves you with a figure which is in line with my own estimate which is based on the HSE ICU admission figures.

I accept that it's reasonable to look at the experience of other countries but there are so many differing factors at play in each one, and wildly different reporting standards that it can be very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.

plodder

bb1234567 wrote: »

At least he has admitted to being completely wrong. But yes the discussion is going on a tangent, perhaps referencing academics with relevant and successful track records might help steer the discussion in the right direction from now on.

I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss people completely when they get things wrong, especially when they admit it.

Even though I dont agree with all of it, I found there was some quite interesting stuff in that Ivor Cummins video. Makes me think we should be looking a lot closer at Sweden. They seem to be the only ones who have "learned to live with it".

But, concerning the question posed by the OP, Levitt accepts now that lockdown was not a waste, and he's a lot less strident in what he does claim now eg the question about which is worse: flu or covid, is more about flu being with us forever, whereas Covid looks more stable genetically and therefore more possible to eliminate.

is_that_so

plodder wrote: »

I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss people completely when they get things wrong, especially when they admit it.

Even though I dont agree with all of it, I found there was some quite interesting stuff in that Ivor Cummins video. Makes me think we should be looking a lot closer at Sweden. They seem to be the only ones who have "learned to live with it".

But, concerning the question posed by the OP, Levitt accepts now that lockdown was not a waste, and he's a lot less strident in what he does claim now eg the question about which is worse: flu or covid, is more about flu being with us forever, whereas Covid looks more stable genetically and therefore more possible to eliminate.

No it's not but when they are so forceful about it initially they do need to be reminded of the hubris of it. The Swedish experiment has a lot of contingent factors. The primary ones are that nearly 40% live alone and their society has an extremely strong sense of social solidarity.

air

circadian wrote: »

How hard is it to understand that lockdown = dropping numbers? I swear some people are being intentionally thick and not looking at the most basic logic of causation.

I take your point, and it's an important one.
Mortality is down across all age groups due in large part to lockdown.

The upshot of that though is that there is inevitably going to be a spike in mortality post lockdown - even if Covid disappeared off the planet tomorrow - we all have to die, if deaths drop below the average for a long period they must exceed it at some future point.

Now given that it's not going to disappear, I think this underlines the critical importance of distinguishing clearly between deaths WITH and FROM Covid.

They are too completely different things and if we continue to treat deaths WITH Covid as we have been (complete panic), we're locking ourselves into a cycle of total overreaction for a long, long time.

TRANQUILLO

Louche Lad wrote: »

Long Twitter thread by an actual doctor here: https://twitter.com/juniordrblog/status/1305861383607771137?s=19

And a very long video from him: https://youtu.be/DUDg5ossirU

He's also releasing a book about covid coincidentally. A shill with a hippocratic oath

TRANQUILLO

https://youtu.be/eKKIr425b40

A rebuttal to the rebuttal. Cummins bites back.

TRANQUILLO

On both sides of the coin in this thread we have a myriad of posters attacking the messenger instead of the message. Low rent discourse from the cheap seats at its finest.


These threads are a waste of time. No one is willing to have their mind changed.

is_that_so

TRANQUILLO wrote: »

On both sides of the coin in this thread we have a myriad of posters attacking the messenger instead of the message. Low rent discourse from the cheap seats at its finest.


These threads are a waste of time. No one is willing to have their mind changed.

Low rent indeed with the silly catchphrases. Minds can be changed when people put on paper what they claim to be true. I doubt I'm alone in being unwilling to sit through someone's "skilfully" edited meanderings. There's information out there to be explored but most of it is a very long way from YouTube and sadly for those who like their evidence neatly packaged much of it doesn't reach definitive conclusions.

irishblessing

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don't know enough to say whether one side is right over the other, or whether both sides have elements of truth. What I do know is that our government funded national broadcaster doesn't allow such debates to take place. Anybody who challenges the consensus will not be given a platform. We are all completely brainwashed at this stage, mindlessly sitting by our TV screens waiting eagerly for the latest case numbers, to get our daily hit of misery which we have become heavily addicted to.

That's not my take. We need a cohesive plan and approach with simplicity and clarity. Unless you fancy being more like the divided sh!t show that the US is.

air

A cohesive plan from government is of course essential but it's ridiculous to state that the merits or otherwise of it shouldn't be open to debate on the likes of current affairs shows, which they are not currently.

There is only one point of view that is permitted and the only alternative that gets any air time is fringe lunatics like Gemma O Doherty whom I suspect are only shown in an attempt to discredit any alternative views.

There is also a serious lack of acknowledgement of the scale of mismanagement of the whole situation by the HSE & government since it began.

TRANQUILLO

TRANQUILLO wrote: »

https://youtu.be/eKKIr425b40

A rebuttal to the rebuttal. Cummins bites back.

inferences as he puts it

irishblessing

air wrote: »

A cohesive plan from government is of course essential but it's ridiculous to state that the merits or otherwise of it shouldn't be open to debate on the likes of current affairs shows, which they are not currently.

There is only one point of view that is permitted and the only alternative that gets any air time is fringe lunatics like Gemma O Doherty whom I suspect are only shown in an attempt to discredit any alternative views.

There is also a serious lack of acknowledgement of the scale of mismanagement of the whole situation by the HSE & government since it began.

Could you explain that view a bit more? Because I'm seeing critical discussions online everywhere and hearing debates about decisions all over radio. I'm thinking of those involved in GAA and the vintners and teacher/principal associations, those with special needs, and restaurant owners, especially. And everyone in between to the ordinary person in their town or village. I don't think it's just fringe lunatics- it sounds like quite a bit of reasoned discussion to me. Sure didn't M.M. just get an absolute grilling the other day?

Once we get a bit more hindsight and distance from the whole thing, there may yet be a serious reckoning for how it has been handled. Personally, I think the school situation and a lack of a blended/hybrid learning model is going to blow up in their faces sooner rather than later...

air

irishblessing wrote: »

Could you explain that view a bit more? I don't think it's just fringe lunatics- it sounds like quite a bit of reasoned discussion to me. Sure didn't M.M. just get an absolute grilling the other day?

I should have been clearer, yes they are in recent times giving air time to complaints from the general public.

What has not been permitted though has been alternative opinions from medical or scientific experts.

A HSE doctor spoke out last week & this week has been forced to resign.

How many HSE staff were forced to resign for setting a policy that sent staff back to work in March (without testing) on return from holidays in Northern Italy?

is_that_so

air wrote: »

I should have been clearer, yes they are in recent times giving air time to complaints from the general public.

What has not been permitted though has been alternative opinions from medical or scientific experts.

A HSE doctor spoke out last week & this week has been forced to resign.

How many HSE staff were forced to resign for setting a policy that sent staff back to work in March (without testing) on return from holidays in Northern Italy?

The opinions are out there uncensored. Many of them are not worth the bytes they consume and are self-righteous, selective or just plain wrong. That doctor is a poor example. He was effectively agitating against his employer. As they said that was untenable and no employer will tolerate that.