Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Silentcorner

froog wrote: »

the difference is that no one ever said anything in your post, it's a work of complete fiction. whereas everything in my list has been said verbatim many times.

Only it hasn't now has it....you added your own hyperbole for effect, just like I did....your post was silly!!!

weldoninhio

Arghus wrote: »

Mate, we eased restrictions for less than a month, resulting in a huge surge and people have been dying at an unprecedented rate for the last month as a direct result.

What more evidence do you need? It's pretty conclusive!

The surge began before lockdown ended, as per the experts.

Windmill100000

Some good news. Homeless figures drops.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eviction-ban-sees-homeless-figures-drop-to-8200-including-2327-children-1072684.html

froog

froog wrote: »

to sum up the views held by the regular posters in this thread;

1. covid is no worse than the flu
2. no one actually dies from covid, all deaths are from something else
3. lockdowns haven't saved a single life
4. no sympathy for nurses, they have jobs don't they?
5. ireland has been in hard level 7 lockdown since march
6. old people need to step up and lock themselves away so we can get back to our lives
7. tony holohan wants to rule ireland with absolute power and stop drinking for good

please tell me if i'm way off here.

Yeah... literally nobody has ever said those things.

Show me a quote were somebody has said that ALL deaths are from something else.

Show me a quote were somebody has said that lockdown hasn’t saved a single life.

The point about the nurses is true. They have jobs. Half a million haven’t.

The point about old people is just common sense. If you are elderly and your health is not great, you should take precautions.

Please provide actual quotes to back up your post. I’ll wait.

froog

Silentcorner wrote: »

Only it hasn't now has it....you added your own hyperbole for effect, just like I did....your post was silly!!!

that's the sad thing, there was no hyperbole in my list at all.

Arghus

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do you always need to be spoon fed.

I said level 3...

You think level 3 alone would have been sufficient to reduce the instance of disease at that time?

weldoninhio

Arghus wrote: »

Niall Boylan tweeted it today.

But where's the proof that it's recent footage?

The Swiss police did the stupid dance and then challenged the Gardai to do it. Challenge went out on 21st January 2021. Now maybe the minority report section of AGS were ahead of the Swiss issuing the challenge, but I doubt it. There’s videos of various stations doing it. The lads are flat out....................dancing.

Silentcorner

Arghus wrote: »

You think level 3 alone would have been sufficient to reduce the instance of disease at that time?

Jesus that took a while....

PTH2009

Good news on the vaccine front but knowing our lads they will keep the restrictions as long as possible just to be safe

Silentcorner

PTH2009 wrote: »

Good news on the vaccine front but knowing our lads they will keep the restrictions as long as possible just to be safe

Knowing our lads they will probably exchange the vaccines for New Jersey state lottery tickets....

The HSE shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the vaccines and distribution!!!! We all know it!!!

AlekSmart

froog wrote: »

the difference is that no one ever said anything in your post, it's a work of complete fiction. whereas everything in my list has been said verbatim many times.

Was everything on your list said verbatim by everybody else many times ?

Arghus

Silentcorner wrote: »

Jesus that took a while....

Okay, level 3 - glad to you answered that conclusively. I wasn't sure whether you'd try to dodge it and talk around it.

Okay, lets examine that.

You think level 3 on its own would have been sufficient to not just sustain the incidence of thousands and thousands at that time but to reduce it?

And don't forget you need to reduce it quickly because you don't have infinite hospital capacity and can't wait and wait for it to come down in its own time. You have to bring the numbers down and quickly.

And considering that even level 5 itself takes weeks and months to bring cases down to a below surge level, you think that level 3 would have been the right approach then?

That doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.

froog

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah... literally nobody has ever said those things.

Show me a quote were somebody has said that ALL deaths are from something else.

Show me a quote were somebody has said that lockdown hasn’t saved a single life.

The point about the nurses is true. They have jobs. Half a million haven’t.

The point about old people is just common sense. If you are elderly and your health is not great, you should take precautions.

Please provide actual quotes to back up your post. I’ll wait.

...

Lundstram wrote: »

And of those 2M deaths worldwide, the vast majority died with the virus not because of it. That’s per WHO.

The hysteria continues, however. Facts seem to be an afterthought.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But yet those nations who didn’t lockdown didn’t have any more excess than those nations who did.

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

...

Those posts don’t support your argument

froog

froog wrote: »

...

Those quotes don’t say what you said... Not even close

ypres5

Silentcorner wrote: »

To sum up the rest

1 Covid is worse than the Spanish flu
2 Severe Lockdowns are the only way to save lives
2 Severe Lockdowns don't cost lives
3 Ireland hasn't changed at all since 2019
4 No sympathy for people who are facing serious financial difficulties because they're jobs were going anyway.
5 IT is important not to listen to people who don't agree with you.
6 Children don't really need schools
7 The Elderly are better off never seeing their families than taking a tiny chance that they might get sick.

See how silly these kinds of posts are?

no one gains anything from all the stupid pigeonholing on both sides surely we can all have a civil discussion without all the strawman stuff

Silentcorner

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, level 3 - glad to you answered that conclusively. I wasn't sure whether you'd try to dodge it and talk around it.

Okay, lets examine that.

You think level 3 on its own would have been sufficient to not just sustain the incidence of thousands and thousands at that time but to reduce it?

And don't forget you need to reduce it quickly because you don't have infinite hospital capacity and can't wait and wait for it to come down in its own time. You have to bring the numbers down and quickly.

And considering that even level 5 itself takes weeks and months to bring cases down to a below surge level, you think that level 3 would have been the right approach then?

That doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.

I don't believe that Level 5 lockdowns can control this virus because almost a year in there is no suggestion that is can control it.

When we left level 5 back in May/June the numbers didn't go up....when we entered level 5 in Oct/Nov we didn't see any meaningful change in hospitizations or ICU pressure during that 6 week period, certainly not enough to justify the level 5.

I think just like Mar/April the virus surges and then declines...it will be around for the foreseeable future but we can easily live with this if we backed down from the hysterical media coverage we witness and stop testing people en mass...it has served no purpose.

Level 3 is still severe restrictions but less punitive on the greater population, and if people want to impose greater restrictions on themselves then that is their personal choice.

froog

triggered hard by their very own viewpoints. i wasn't expecting that. no harm to look in the mirror once in a while anyway.

CalamariFritti

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, level 3 - glad to you answered that conclusively. I wasn't sure whether you'd try to dodge it and talk around it.

Okay, lets examine that.

You think level 3 on its own would have been sufficient to not just sustain the incidence of thousands and thousands at that time but to reduce it?

And don't forget you need to reduce it quickly because you don't have infinite hospital capacity and can't wait and wait for it to come down in its own time. You have to bring the numbers down and quickly.

And considering that even level 5 itself takes weeks and months to bring cases down to a below surge level, you think that level 3 would have been the right approach then?

That doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.

FWIW i probably agree with you there.

I think the mistake was made in October. I dont know to what degree that set us up for December or to what degree December would have happened anyway. But I think October was a bad decision. An overreaction, not giving level 3 enough time. Which definitely contributed to a penned up demand in December. We will never know now but its plausible had we stayed on level three all throughout we would not be worse off or better.

Silentcorner

CalamariFritti wrote: »

FWIW i probably agree with you there.

I think the mistake was made in October. I dont know to what degree that set us up for December or to what degree December would have happened anyway. But I think October was a bad decision. An overreaction, not giving level 3 enough time. Which definitely contributed to a penned up demand in December. We will never know now but its plausible had we stayed on level three all throughout we would not be worse off or better.

What happened in Oct was political.

Houlihan returned and had to impose his presence if you recall, he came back a day early and made a statement to the press on a Sunday...the man should step down, this has gotten the better of him!

Jinglejangle69

Silentcorner wrote: »

What happened in Oct was political.

Houlihan returned and had to impose his presence if you recall, he came back a day early and made a statement to the press on a Sunday...the man should step down, this has gotten the better of him!

Leo got slated my the media and opposition parties for speaking up and soeakong sense.

All a game to them.

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

triggered hard by their very own viewpoints. i wasn't expecting that. no harm to look in the mirror once in a while anyway.

Are you actually ok?

You seem to be imagining a lot of things and talking to yourself tonight.

Perhaps a symptom of cabin fever

The illness peaks all over Europe at roughly the same times. The spike in cases is more to do with the illness peaking than people having a small bit of freedom for 3 weeks. And yet here we are still blaming people for having a scone with their ma.

It’s not scientifically proven, but perhaps some restrictions during those periods can help. Especially if you can get the timing right. This is where trigger happy Tony got things horribly wrong. Jumping into lockdown weeks before the spike. Not to mention heavy restrictions during periods were Covid was practically gone from the community.

Having your ICU capacity ready for these peaks would be brilliant but we seem to believe that that’s not important in Ireland or too difficult despite the billions we have to spend.

But looking at the latest news on the financial front, we need to learn to live with this very soon without locking down 9 months a year. We’ve already added 30+ billion to our national debt in under a year...

We need as many people as possible back to work before the end of 2021 or the country will be on its knees financially. (We already are more or less)

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Are you actually ok?

You seem to be imagining a lot of things and talking to yourself tonight.

Perhaps a symptom of cabin fever

Maybe he needs a Wilson, like in Cast Away

Boggles

CalamariFritti wrote: »

FWIW i probably agree with you there.

I think the mistake was made in October. I dont know to what degree that set us up for December or to what degree December would have happened anyway. But I think October was a bad decision. An overreaction, not giving level 3 enough time. Which definitely contributed to a penned up demand in December. We will never know now but its plausible had we stayed on level three all throughout we would not be worse off or better.

Our 2nd wave started in October, we pushed it further on. The UK pretty much banned Christmas, so we know what would have happened.

Restrictions from November also prevented the UK strain becoming more dominant here.

Hitting a 1000 cases a day Christmas week is what was responsible for the surge, NPHET tried to counter it, the government went a different way.

DrSpongeBobz

Only light at the end of the tunnel this year will be Christmas lights.

Arghus

Silentcorner wrote: »

I don't believe that Level 5 lockdowns can control this virus because almost a year in there is no suggestion that is can control it.

Apart from the disease incidence dropping each time as a result of being in level five.

No suggestion? What are you talking about? There's firm evidence. Are you denying that level five reduces the incidence of the disease?

Because if you are that's absolute nonsense and the exact opposite of what has happened and - on more than one occasion. Level 5 brings the numbers down. Fact.

When we left level 5 back in May/June the numbers didn't go up....when we entered level 5 in Oct/Nov we didn't see any meaningful change in hospitizations or ICU pressure during that 6 week period, certainly not enough to justify the level 5.

The numbers did begin to climb again once we left lockdown in May/June, but because we were coming off a very, very low base it took a while for them to start to climb again at pace.

I would dispute that we didn't see any meaningful change in ICU or hospital admission numbers during the October/Nov period. Hospital numbers were doubling, albeit coming off low totals, roughly every two weeks by September, rates of admissions and average numbers in ICU were all increasing during the month of October.

You seem to think that because we avoided the worst outcome that was predicted if we did nothing, that somehow invalidates the decisions we made to avoid that worst outcome. That's completely nonsensical, flat out illogical. Lockdown was put in place to avoid that outcome.

I think just like Mar/April the virus surges and then declines...it will be around for the foreseeable future but we can easily live with this if we backed down from the hysterical media coverage we witness and stop testing people en mass...it has served no purpose.

I disagree.

There's more to this than hysterical media coverage. It's a highly infectious disease that grows exponentially and if left unchecked becomes impossible to control and inevitably would result in a collapsed health system and suffering and death on an enormous scale. The events of the last 6 weeks or so in this country should make that blindingly obvious to anyone.

As you would say yourself...do you always have to be spoon fed?

Level 3 is still severe restrictions but less punitive on the greater population, and if people want to impose greater restrictions on themselves then that is their personal choice.

I'm not advocating constant level 5 btw. That's unsustainable, but, unfortunately there are times where it's necessary. In a perfect world I'd hope that level 3 would be a more sustainable proposition, but we're currently nowhere near where you'd want to be to realistically consider it and to suggest that it was the right approach for January, with thousands of cases and hospitals rapidly filling up is entirely silly.

AlekSmart

ypres5 wrote: »

no one gains anything from all the stupid pigeonholing on both sides surely we can all have a civil discussion without all the strawman stuff

+1 to that.

The reality of the current situation is one of a polarization on the ongoing Official Handling of the Pandemic.

Like it or not,mainstream media and social media,taken together appear to be the most favoured method for people to take their guidance from.

The newly arrived shamen in all of this are now known as "Influencers",with no vaccine tet available to mitigate their,often less than desireable,manipulation of their audience.

Whilst the National Media tend to focus on Infection Rates,ICU numbers and the ever present Fatalities,there appears to be little effort at contextualization in any of the "Daily Media".

Hence it can be a bit of a search to get tiny,but important details such as the Case Fatality Ratio for Covid-19...It is out there,but hidden amongst the long-grass.

https://www.britannica.com/science/case-fatality-rate

Case fatality rate, also called case fatality risk or case fatality ratio, in epidemiology, the proportion of people who die from a specified disease among all individuals diagnosed with the disease over a certain period of time. Case fatality rate typically is used as a measure of disease severity and is often used for prognosis (predicting disease course or outcome), where comparatively high rates are indicative of relatively poor outcomes. It also can be used to evaluate the effect of new treatments, with measures decreasing as treatments improve. Case fatality rates are not constant; they can vary between populations and over time, depending on the interplay between the causative agent of disease, the host, and the environment as well as available treatments and quality of patient care.

The HSPC reports do offer a wider perspective than many other such works....

https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/epidemiologyofcovid-19inirelandweeklyreports/

https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/epidemiologyofcovid-19inirelandweeklyreports/COVID-19%20Weekly%20Report_%20Week%203_%20Slidset_HPSC%20-%20Website.pdf

From the pdf,the CFR Total since March 2020 is 1.45% with the CFR for week 3 2021 standing at 0.35%

These figures DO merit discussion and robust Public (as opposed to peer) Review,which luckily,is still possible on here.

Boards is thus somewhat unique in Ireland at the moment.....;)

Ginger n Lemon

Arghus wrote: »

I'm not advocating constant level 5 btw. That's unsustainable, but, unfortunately there are times where it's necessary. In a perfect world I'd hope that level 3 would be a more sustainable proposition, but we're currently nowhere near where you'd want to be to realistically consider it and to suggest that it was the right approach for January, with thousands of cases and hospitals rapidly filling up is entirely silly.

I think Ive asked you before and you didnt answer, there are 4 different posters here and actually my mothers partner also who works in a hospital, all saying that hospitals are pretty quiet, within last 2 weeks.

Are you talking about ICUs or do you know which hospitals are filling up quickly?



In level 3 we have 15% unemployment. When you say sustainable you mean sustainable to handle the cases only right? Or do you think 15% unemployment is also sustainable?

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

The illness peaks all over Europe at roughly the same times. The spike in cases is more to do with the illness peaking than people having a small bit of freedom for 3 weeks. And yet here we are still blaming people for having a scone with their ma.

It’s not scientifically proven, but perhaps some restrictions during those periods can help. Especially if you can get the timing right. This is where trigger happy Tony got things horribly wrong. Jumping into lockdown weeks before the spike. Not to mention heavy restrictions during periods were Covid was practically gone from the community.

Having your ICU capacity ready for these peaks would be brilliant but we seem to believe that that’s not important in Ireland or too difficult despite the billions we have to spend.

But looking at the latest news on the financial front, we need to learn to live with this very soon without locking down 9 months a year. We’ve already added 30+ billion to our national debt in under a year...

We need as many people as possible back to work before the end of 2021 or the country will be on its knees financially. (We already are more or less)

Both ourselves and the UK majored from the outset at a policy to reduce the strain on our respective Health Services,yet 12 months on,neither of these services appears to have been in any way refined or remodelled to take account of the new requirements for treatment.

I accept that very few juristictions across the Western European map have fared much better,but realistically, we can only focus on our own parish.

Normal human interaction with some recognition from The State that we citizens have had our self-confidence and belief structures demolished,is an absolute requirement.

We have to be shepherded back out into the meadow,as if we remain locked up in the haggard we will starve !