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

OldRio

You do realise the number of deaths would have been much greater without a 'lockdown'?

MadYaker

OldRio wrote: »

You do realise the number of deaths would have been much greater without a 'lockdown'?

You’re wasting your time mate. This isn’t a thread for people who want to learn.

road_high

MadYaker wrote: »

You’re wasting your time mate. This isn’t a thread for people who want to learn.

If only we could have some "Re-neducation" camps for Coronavirus mania

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPII9cfFe34

Stormyteacup

end of the road wrote: »

we left the first one in june.
the first lock down was a success, this one is a success also as cases are going down.
there isn't going to be national bankruptsy, i beleive that recently there were figures posted showing that tax income is at a good level, possibly even up compared to last year, i can't remember, but it was good news whatever it was.

We did not ‘leave the first one in June’.

15th June for shopping centres - 3 full months closed. 29th June for restaurants - 3 and a half months closed.

Both with restrictions limiting trade still in place.

Aviation and their related suppliers, travel and tourism industries, pubs and those employed in the Arts still heavily restricted.

Of course lockdowns get numbers down - limit movement of people and slow the spread of a virus. A sophisticated and complicated strategy it isn’t, and a ‘success’ is subjective especially if they fail to manage their way out of lockdowns (the difficult bit, the task they’re been paid to do but have made a bags of to date).

Refusing to lift restrictions (and yes they have been warranted for short periods to protect under-resourced health system) is lazy and easy, a mollifier for those living in greatly disproportionate fear. And a good way to distract from the long-time collective failings of government and HSE.

FintanMcluskey

OldRio wrote: »

You do realise the number of deaths would have been much greater without a 'lockdown'?

Judging by where most of the deaths occurred (nursing homes) and the age of those deaths I wonder how lockdown helped?

You won’t have any data to prove anything of course without quoting some criminally incorrect modelling used to initially justify lockdown.

Perhaps social distance and mask wearing would have been an adequate measure.

darconio

OldRio wrote: »

You do realise the number of deaths would have been much greater without a 'lockdown'?

Do you realise the death toll was inflated to make you believe we needed and need a lockdown?

https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/fi...9-epidemic.pdf


As of mid April, in line with World Health Organization (WHO) guidance, death reporting was extended to include deaths both in patients with probable COVID-19 in addition to deaths among confirmed cases.
By definition, such deaths must result from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 (for example, trauma).

FintanMcluskey

MadYaker wrote: »

You’re wasting your time mate. This isn’t a thread for people who want to learn.

Good lord.

What nonsense.

This is a thread where stats get ripped apart, and dodgy data likewise, by people who not only have jobs, but also are likely accountable and held responsible in their professional lives and struggle to see the lack of accountability between NPHET and the HSE.

Captain_Crash

Penfailed wrote: »

You wouldn't have heard of NPHET because it wasn't around before 'all this Covid stuff'.

NPHET were set up in 2019. Just so happens that COVID happened a few months after they were established and shot them into the limelight.

paw patrol

road_high wrote: »

The goalposts change every 5 minutes- keep it going into ad finitum. There’s good money to be made for certain cohorts out of all of this.

regardless of what your beliefs on covid and it's seriousness.


It's plain as day that Tony Holohan and NPHET are making this up as they go along. They may be experts on something but this isn't it.
they have no plan and that is the tragedy - we will all pay for these folks and the government farting about poking covid with stick to see it's reactions instead of running with a plan to get out of covid.


There is no solution in their plan - level 1 - 5 still including measures like social distancing at the lowest level. they have no exit strategy

and I see that we have now extended the masks on public transport till june 2021....it's like that haven't a clue and are waiting to see what the EU does and follow that.

Ironically as I'm not a massive fan of the EU , I'm left hoping our country will be saved my Merkel and Macron cos I've lost all faith in our leadership. How weird is that?

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Judging by where most of the deaths occurred (nursing homes) and the age of those deaths I wonder how lockdown helped?

You won’t have any data to prove anything of course without quoting some criminally incorrect modelling used to initially justify lockdown.

Perhaps social distance and mask wearing would have been an adequate measure.

We had masks and social distancing and the number were rising.
Lockdown and the numbers are dropping.
Probably just a coincidence Fintan

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

We had masks and social distancing and the number were rising.
Lockdown and the numbers are dropping.
Probably just a coincidence Fintan

So masks and social distance are a waste of time in your opinion?

Maybe you are right

darconio

charlie14 wrote: »

We had masks and social distancing and the number were rising.
Lockdown and the numbers are dropping.
Probably just a coincidence Fintan

As far as I remember masks were not mandatory during the first lockdown? So either one measure work and the other doesn't or both don't work or simply the curve is following its course, and it would have gone down without a lockdown either way.

charlie14

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Nothing personal but you're just being silly on this. Not sure what you think you're going to achieve with that.

To me silly is attempting to re-invent mathematics by using guesswork and modelling systems that have wholly discredited while ignoring independently provided data from health authorities worldwide.

Cyrus

charlie14 wrote: »

To me silly is attempting to re-invent mathematics by using guesswork and modelling systems that have wholly discredited while ignoring independently provided data from health authorities worldwide.

to me silly is clinging to the notion that the number of people infected by covid in the country is the number of confirmed positive tests.

OldRio

OldRio wrote: »

You do realise the number of deaths would have been much greater without a 'lockdown'?

Would they? How much greater?

Sweden suggests not by much at all.

road_high

Deleted User wrote: »

Would they? How much greater?

Sweden suggests not by much at all.

Because RTE and St. Tony said so...that's da why

johndanielmoore

road_high wrote: »

Imagine a country where an unelected medical autocrat decides if and when shops etc are going to reopen for Christmas - by jasus he isn’t giving it up anytime soon that’s for sure
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/holohan-rules-out-early-advice-to-shops-pubs-and-restaurants-for-christmas-39728316.html

Meanwhile in Wales shops have actually reopened- and remember the furore over there about it all.

It's like something that you'd expect to happen in Iran

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

So masks and social distance are a waste of time in your opinion?

Maybe you are right

A few posts back you were confident masks and social distancing were all that was needed to get the numbers down.
I just simply pointed out to you that with the drop in numbers due to lockdown the statistics were not your friend on that Fintan.

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

A few posts back you were confident masks and social distancing were all that was needed to get the numbers down.
I just simply pointed out to you that with the drop in numbers due to lockdown the statistics were not your friend on that Fintan.

So is there a correlation between mask wearing and low case numbers Charles?

road_high

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

So is there a correlation between mask wearing and low case numbers Charles?

If only we could have a peer reviewed study into mask efficacy?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-scientific-journals-reject-controversial-danish-study-on-effectiveness-of-face-masks-against-coronavirus-report%3f_amp=true

OldRio

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Judging by where most of the deaths occurred (nursing homes) and the age of those deaths I wonder how lockdown helped?

You won’t have any data to prove anything of course without quoting some criminally incorrect modelling used to initially justify lockdown.

Perhaps social distance and mask wearing would have been an adequate measure.

And your data comes up with is 'perhaps' and 'I wonder'
I'll stick with the scientists thank you.

OldRio

Deleted User wrote: »

Would they? How much greater?

Common sense tells us, of course.
Your second question is unanswerable and you know it.

AssetBacked2

MadYaker wrote: »

You’re wasting your time mate. This isn’t a thread for people who want to learn.

A perfect example of an ignorant Doomer. Refuses to engage with the data, just dismisses it as his reality is not reflected in the data. Jog on back to an echo chamber on Twitter if you don't want a discussion.

end of the road

road_high wrote: »

Imagine a country where an unelected medical autocrat decides if and when shops etc are going to reopen for Christmas - by jasus he isn’t giving it up anytime soon that’s for sure
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/holohan-rules-out-early-advice-to-shops-pubs-and-restaurants-for-christmas-39728316.html

Meanwhile in Wales shops have actually reopened- and remember the furore over there about it all.

in relation to the first part of your post, which country are you referring to? it certainly isn't ireland, as you missed advice in the title of the article and it is the government who will make the decision.
in relation to wales, they had a 2 week lock down hence they are now open given that is over, and the issue over shops was based on confusion from a tweat from what i remember.

Stormyteacup wrote: »

We did not ‘leave the first one in June’.

15th June for shopping centres - 3 full months closed. 29th June for restaurants - 3 and a half months closed.

Both with restrictions limiting trade still in place.

Aviation and their related suppliers, travel and tourism industries, pubs and those employed in the Arts still heavily restricted.

Of course lockdowns get numbers down - limit movement of people and slow the spread of a virus. A sophisticated and complicated strategy it isn’t, and a ‘success’ is subjective especially if they fail to manage their way out of lockdowns (the difficult bit, the task they’re been paid to do but have made a bags of to date).

Refusing to lift restrictions (and yes they have been warranted for short periods to protect under-resourced health system) is lazy and easy, a mollifier for those living in greatly disproportionate fear. And a good way to distract from the long-time collective failings of government and HSE.

we did leave the first one in june, we still had some restrictions but we ultimately left lock down.
aviation, travel and tourist industries had little demand anyway, we weren't going to get tourists here during a pandemic, at least not to the levels the tourist industry needs, and during a pandemic, aviation and the travel industry was never going to get the numbers it normally has, dispite people being technically able to travel.
minimal restrictions are needed while this virus is a threat, the health system has to be protected from overload on a full time basis while the risk of it being overloaded due to this remains.

darconio wrote: »

Do you realise the death toll was inflated to make you believe we needed and need a lockdown?

https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/fi...9-epidemic.pdf


As of mid April, in line with World Health Organization (WHO) guidance, death reporting was extended to include deaths both in patients with probable COVID-19 in addition to deaths among confirmed cases.
By definition, such deaths must result from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 (for example, trauma).

no, i don't realise the death toll was inflated to make people believe we needed and need a lockdown, because it's absolute nonsense.
yes, the deaths were predicted to be a certain amount, and as evidence grew it showed the numbers wouldn't be what was predicted originally. + with virus spread minimisation measures the numbers would go down again.
we needed a lock down, it was unavoidable, and no i'm afraid sweden doesn't show that this wasn't the case which will be no doubt the next line of argument.
reporting deaths due to probable covid until proven otherwise is not really that big of a deal as they are reported as such based on the evidence available at the time, and will be proven otherwise once more information is available.

Deleted User wrote: »

Would they? How much greater?

Sweden suggests not by much at all.

sweden suggests by quite a lot actually.
sweden as proof of anything has been debunked, ironically by sweden itself given at least local lock downs are on the way.

AssetBacked2

OldRio wrote: »

You do realise the number of deaths would have been much greater without a 'lockdown'?

This is just your hunch, I don't see how you can say that definitively.

charlie14

Cyrus wrote: »

to me silly is clinging to the notion that the number of people infected by covid in the country is the number of confirmed positive tests.

I`m not using a notion. I`m using verifiable data.
A notion is an assumption/guesswork with no date to back up either.

OldRio

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

This is just your hunch, I don't see how you can say that definitively.

Please. It's common sense.

batman75

It will be interesting to see long term what the population impact of corona virus is. Not in the sense of deaths but in terms of people are not meeting as before. Therefore new couples are not being formed as is the societal norm. The longer the pandemic goes on the more profound the effect will be.

batman75

batman75 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see long term what the population impact of corona virus is. Not in the sense of deaths but in terms of people are not meeting as before. Therefore new couples are not being formed as is the societal norm. The longer the pandemic goes on the more profound the effect will be.

Depopulation

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Most people aren't fully ahdering to the lockdowns. There's a poll on another thread and I think over half admitted they're flouting the 'rules' (albeit most in a more cautious way).

People have lost interest in the whole lockdown thing. They can see that a virus with less than 0.1% fatality rate for majority of the population doesn't justify turning their life completely upside down for. The death figures are very low, and the average age of Corona deaths is the same as the average age of people dying anyway.

You can champion lockdowns all you want and stay in your house until your government tell you it's safe to leave. The rest of us will get on with our lives. Not having a go at you, but it's just reality.

the evidence on the ground is suggesting otherwise, that most people are abiding by the restrictions, the case numbers going down also bare this.
the death figures are low due to us controlling the virus, people of course already know this.
don't worry the rest of us are certainly getting on with our lives while doing our bit.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, my friend, you're saying what you want to be true as opposed to what actually *is* true. Over half of people are not adhering to lockdown rules. See the poll on other thread.

Better yet, walk outside and see for yourself. People meeting up and hanging out, going to their parents houses, visiting their friends, playing sports etc etc. The only game that is 'up', is lockdown itself.

In the end, the deadly virus turned out to be not so deadly. We move on.

i'm saying what is actually the case and what is born out by the poles and the goings on on the ground.
look we know some aren't abiding, nobody is saying otherwise, that issue existed during lock down 1, but it is the anti-restrictions crowd who are saying what they want to be true and are exaggerating the figures in relation to compliance.
the pole on the other thread is only showing that half of those who voted aren't abiding, i wouldn't take boards poles as representative on certain issues as those of us who post here to discuss certain issues whether it be corona virus or politics etc are generally a niche given we would be more enthusiastic in terms of discussing issues compared to the general public. we are issue discussion enthusiasts essentially.
as for the deadly virus, it turned out to be not so deadly because we implemented measures to control it.