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

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

They are all listed as Covid deaths.

But for some reason according to Fintan only the deaths prior to this most recent period can be directly attributed to Covid.

Blurred lines indeed.

But you just said you can’t know if they died exclusively from Covid.

Have you a short memory?

They may be listed but Covid is not always the primary cause

Or did you not mean what you said

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But you just said you can’t know if they died exclusively from Covid.

Have you a short memory?

They may be listed but Covid is not always the primary cause

Or did you not mean what you said

The reason I said that was to illustrate your thought process.

I've never questioned the reliability of the figures, you have. Read back over it again.

Thee metric you initially used to judge the success or failure of lockdown was the amount of deaths, but you aren't certain if that's a reliable metric: you've said so yourself.

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But you just said you can’t know if they died exclusively from Covid.

Cause of Death: COVID

I'll ask again, do you have evidence to the contrary? I know facts aren't your strong point but at least try.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

But the metric you initially used to judge the success or failure of lockdown was the amount of deaths, but you aren't certain if that's a reliable metric: you've said so yourself.

Perhaps it’s not, because I can’t see any correlation between a low death rate and lockdowns.

Ireland had the longest restrictions in Europe but the 3rd highest death rate

Death rates in Ireland at 390 per million are similar to the EU/UK average of 380 per million. The countries with the highest rates of fatalities were Belgium (1,015), Spain (764) and the UK (699 per million).

Perhaps the death rate is not an acceptable metric to use

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Perhaps it’s not, because I can’t see any correlation between a low death rate and lockdowns.

Ireland had the longest restrictions in Europe but the 3rd highest death rate



Perhaps the death rate is not an acceptable metric to use

Okay, now deaths don't matter.

Gas how you're now quoting excerpts that paint a different picture to what you were initially saying.

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Perhaps it’s not, because I can’t see any correlation between a low death rate and lockdowns.

You can't see correlation between increased restrictions and decreasing infections either so I'm not convinced your analysis stand up to much scrutiny.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, now deaths don't matter.

Gas how you're now quoting excerpts that paint a different picture to what you were initially saying.

No I said I can’t see a correlation between low death rate and lockdown.

Your straw man skills are underrated

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

You can't see correlation between increased restrictions and decreasing infections either so I'm not convinced your analysis stand up to much scrutiny.

Is that how I phrased that question?

I do remember asking for proof of cost effectiveness of stay at home measures and business closures

Atlantic Dawn

ypres5 wrote: »

i think though restrictions should start winding down permanently around May/June, whenever the elderly and vulnerable are in line for vaccines otherwise it's getting a bit gratuitous, simple fact is there can always arguably be a case for lockdown and restrictions but at some point it needs to be accepted that the state and the people have done the best they can

If it isn't I hope they kept the receipts from the vaccine suppliers that we pumped billions in to.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

No I said I can’t see a correlation between low death rate and lockdown.

Your straw man skills are underrated

If it's a strawman to take your arguments to their logical, or frequently illogical conclusion then: guilty as charged.

You see no correlation between lockdown and death rates? Even though lockdown and/or restrictions result in less infections, which lead to less deaths.

And you still see no correlation despite the events since December running exactly like this - restrictions are lifted, cases rise dramatically , hospitalisations rise dramatically, deaths rise dramatically.

Followed by - lockdown reimposed, cases fall, hospitalisations stabilise and fall and - eventually, over the forthcoming period - deaths will fall.

No correlation? Just a coincidence?

ypres5

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If it isn't I hope they kept the receipts from the vaccine suppliers that we pumped billions in to.

if it isn't then id just give up at that point we've already had one vaccine company fold after promising and promising for months on end so god knows what will happen next. I think the goal should be level 1-0 by late July at the absolute latest depending on vaccine rollout

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I do remember asking for proof of cost effectiveness of stay at home measures and business closures

Can't say I've ever checked.

I've certainly never suggested we should be looking for pandemic solutions on the cheap.

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

Can't say I've ever checked.

I've certainly never suggested we should be looking for pandemic solutions on the cheap.

That’s my argument.

To many like yourself ignore the sunk costs of lockdown

It’s precisely why it needs to be managed delicately

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s my argument.

To many like yourself ignore the sunk costs of lockdown

I'm not ignoring them at all, in fact I'd rather we were spending significantly more as I've posted about previously.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s my argument.

To many like yourself ignore the sunk costs of lockdown

It’s precisely why it needs to be managed delicately

Who has argued that lockdown doesn’t come with terrible costs?

I certainly haven't.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

If it's a strawman to take your arguments to their logical, or frequently illogical conclusion then: guilty as charged.

You see no correlation between lockdown and death rates? Even though lockdown and/or restrictions result in less infections, which lead to less deaths.

Weren’t we told at one stage that 50% of those in hospital with Covid contracted the disease in hospital?

Can you display how lowering community transmission, which is all strict lockdown achieves, can this lower the contracted in hospital rates of the disease?

Do we have an exact figure for community transmission hospitalisation rate? It’s appears we don’t

Graham

Arghus wrote: »

Who has argued that lockdown doesn’t come with terrible costs?

Nobody has but it is a handy way of moving on when you're asked questions you really can't answer :pac:

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Who has argued that lockdown doesn’t come with terrible costs?

I certainly haven't.

You have defended it to such a rate that you argue with those who dare question it

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

Nobody has but it is a handy way of moving on when you're asked questions you really can't answer :pac:

It’s late Graham. You are up to your usual tricks.

Post the questions you want answers to

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

I'm not ignoring them at all, in fact I'd rather we were spending significantly more as I've posted about previously.

What exactly do you mean here?

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Weren’t we told at one stage that 50% of those in hospital with Covid contracted the disease in hospital?

Can you display how lowering community transmission, which is all strict lockdown achieves, can this lower the contracted in hospital rates of the disease?

Do we have an exact figure for community transmission hospitalisation rate? It’s appears we don’t

If you lower the rate of community transmission you lower the absolute amount of people in hospital with the disease - that's a fact, regardless of how many contract the disease in hospital.

For instance, right now the amount of people in hospital with the disease is finally decreasing, as, you've guessed it, the rates of community transmission are falling.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You have defended it to such a rate that you argue with those who dare question it

But I've never downplayed the financial, psychological and societal impact of lockdowns and restrictions. Ever.

You're pretty good at constructing those strawman yourself Fintan, to be fair.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

But I've never downplayed the financial, psychological and societal impact of lockdowns and restrictions. Ever.

You're pretty good at constructing those strawman yourself Fintan, to be fair.

You have often made posters aware of your displeasure that we allowed severe mitigation measures to relax for a short period over Christmas.

Do you not see a conflict in what you have said

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You have often made posters aware of your displeasure that we allowed severe mitigation measures to relax for a short period over Christmas.

Do you not see a conflict in what you have said

Not particularly.

I don't think lockdowns and restrictions are any fun, but I don't think the alternative of having none and letting the virus spiral out of control is any fun either.

Just because I don't like them and recognise how damaging they are doesn't mean that I don't recognise them as a necessary evil to prevent an alternative which is even worse.

I think we were wrong to relax mitigation measures over Christmas - which we were wrong to do to the extent that we eventually did - but it's not like I can't empthaise with people's hatred of them, but I think people's hatred of them clouds their judgement over their unfortunate neccessity.

And people do this willingly, because it's easier to be mad at something and feel a degree of agency about that, even a righteousness, in the midst of a time where as an individual you can feel powerless.

I wouldn't defend them if I thought there was a better way.

Penfailed

bettyoleary wrote: »

They could but the who cares.

All of them? Even Pete Townsend?

Windmill100000

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s my argument.

To many like yourself ignore the sunk costs of lockdown

It’s precisely why it needs to be managed delicately

What right do you actually have to tell others how they should feel and to what degree about something?We are all entitled to think what we want. No one on here is unaware of the costs of lockdown.

Perhaps it's time to accept that for many people managing in the here and now is what matters to them.

Most of us of a certain age have dealt with unemployment and a flailing economy through recessions. We have lived through it and will again. And for others, accepting they have a choice to support restrictions and the need for them, especially since Christmas is their right.

I think a lot of your frustration is not enough see the situation as you do, not on here but in the wider community. People are going along with what is being asked of them not just because the government says so but because they believe saving life trumps everything- and had we not locked down there would have been more deaths. Yes, you say lockdowns have no benefit but many the world over believe they do. At the end you can say you were right, there is a payback. But dont delude yourself we dont all know that. It's just for many we understand why it had to happen and always will irrespective of the cost.

Ashleigh1986

When all this is over and it will be soon , real leadership would ...
(1) take a 25 % pay cut Taoiseach
(2) ministers 20 %
(3) all tds 15 %.....

This of course won't happen ,and the ones that lost their jobs ,or got cuts in their wages , are the ones whose going to really suffer the payback .
Yes we will have our freedom back to enjoy the things we all took for granted ,but the price to be paid for all this , especially with the " dads army crew" we have as leaders , will show it was an enormous price we paid .

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Wow....we really don't tolerate questions around here!

It is very important that people feel free to question what is being rammed down our throats every day in media because it has such a massive impact on our daily lives for the foreseeable future.

So, regarding the massive surge in deaths this month, then asking how that compares to Jan 2020 or even last month is pertinent...as is what was the cause of death of these people, I saw a list of deaths for last year, and in December we recorded lower deaths (I can't find this document, so I can't expect anyone to trust what I am saying), IF that is the case then it is no wonder we are seeing a spike this month....in the same way, if we had a particularly low number of deaths in 2019, then it isn't a huge surprise to see an upswing in 2020....IF that is the case.

It's like saying we have had 350,000 excess deaths across Europe...that figure alone doesn't necessarily make sense until you compare it to the last ten years...surely you can understand that much right?

350,000 is only part of Europe. Deaths do not swing 12.5% across half a continent without cause. For context, 2019 had 50,000 excess deaths, 2%annual variation, 2018 around 5-6%. Much more substantial. Why was this - a very active flu season and an unusually cold winter.

Seweryn

Silentcorner wrote: »

Excellent some context at last....thank you.

What percentage of deaths does that represent, is it a 20% surge or a 2% surge?

Because in this country the amount of deaths from covid alone is very small...our excess deaths couldn't be high at all.

Our excess deaths are more less zero in comparison with the previous year's average.

Ginger n Lemon

Arghus wrote: »

Not particularly.

I don't think lockdowns and restrictions are any fun, but I don't think the alternative of having none and letting the virus spiral out of control is any fun either.

Just because I don't like them and recognise how damaging they are doesn't mean that I don't recognise them as a necessary evil to prevent an alternative which is even worse.

I think we were wrong to relax mitigation measures over Christmas - which we were wrong to do to the extent that we eventually did - but it's not like I can't empthaise with people's hatred of them, but I think people's hatred of them clouds their judgement over their unfortunate neccessity.

And people do this willingly, because it's easier to be mad at something and feel a degree of agency about that, even a righteousness, in the midst of a time where as an individual you can feel powerless.

I wouldn't defend them if I thought there was a better way.

Arghus are you suggesting we should have been in level 5 lockdown from October to March? Seeing how you think we were wrong the "relax our restrictions"...

I do wonder, do you really think people will live like hermits to keep others safe? The very fact that cases go up once restrictions are relaxed - suggests not.