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

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

the evidence that lock down prevented deaths has already been posted plenty of times.
as we know though, you don't do evidence.
twisting and misrepresenting on the other hand.

Please post this evidence.
I haven’t seen it. Certainly haven’t seen to anything to suggest 50M deaths prevented.

hynesie08

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

We better leave it Graham.

You have served only to prove my point about a deficiency in the population of understanding the numbers behind the statists.

We can though conclude by saying a citizen over 65 was at a higher risk of dying from Covid in Ireland

And yet, more actually died in Italy....

Silentcorner

hynesie08 wrote: »

And yet, more actually died in Italy....

We know the demographic that are most vulnerable to Covid, you can see it in our stats.

The countries with the highest numbers of people in that demographic will have the highest covid death rates.

This is primary school level stuff!

Covid is one of those weird illnesses were countries with excellent healthcare systems actually get punished in the death stats for Covid for having an older population and a naive general public who fail to understand the demographics of this illness...

FintanMcluskey

Silentcorner wrote: »

We know the demographic that are most vulnerable to Covid, you can see it in our stats.

The countries with the highest numbers of people in that demographic will have the highest covid death rates.

This is primary school level stuff!

I’m now convinced that those most in favour of stay at home orders and business closures don’t actually understand what it is there are seeing regarding death rate.

Some believe Ireland protected its vulnerable better than Italy?

Do some also believe severe restrictions prevented 80,000 deaths in Ireland?

If Ireland had a similar population to Italy, the death rate would be higher than Italy’s.

hynesie08

Silentcorner wrote: »

We know the demographic that are most vulnerable to Covid, you can see it in our stats.

The countries with the highest numbers of people in that demographic will have the highest covid death rates.

This is primary school level stuff!

So they were a lower risk of death according to posters here, but yet by every metric their over 65 deaths were higher than ours. So their government completely and utterly failed them.

But these are the lads we're supposed to admire today......

Silentcorner

hynesie08 wrote: »

So they were a lower risk of death according to posters here, but yet by every metric their over 65 deaths were higher than ours. So their government completely and utterly failed them.

But these are the lads we're supposed to admire today......

I can't understand what you are trying to suggest here!!

I can only guess, but I'd say the admiration is for the people who stood up to the draconian measures by peacefully protesting the best way they could, which in turn forced the government to act.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Please post this evidence.
I haven’t seen it. Certainly haven’t seen to anything to suggest 50M deaths prevented.

you saw it alright as it was discussed.
you are the only one mentioning 50 million deaths, as a way to misrepresent the original point that started this line of discussion.

Kunta Kinte

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair play to the Italians.
A country that actually appear to be closer to “All in it together “ than any other country.

Their people obviously aren’t comfortable leaving 20% of their workforce on peanuts.

Could be very short lived. We will see I suppose. Another bitter anti authority comment by you too I see. No surprise there considering your posting history of anti government digs on this forum.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

No Graham try to understand why Italy protected its vulnerable better than Ireland.

Italy have 15,000,000 vulnerable citizens.

Covid is such a paradox, Ireland’s poor healthcare service has meant we have very few citizens over 65 compared to other countries.

That means less citizens vulnerable to Covid. In fact Ireland has Europe’s youngest population.

Still had the longest lockdown though

Ireland has the 8th highest life expectancy in Europe.

froog

multiple studies in June estimated some 3 million lives were saved across europe alone due to lockdowns. add in the winter peak would be 6 million lives saved.

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/large-scale-lockdowns-in-europe-saved-millions-of-lives/25046
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52968523
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/418451-trending-science-lockdowns-in-europe-saved-millions-of-lives-say-researchers

china's (population 1.3 billion) lockdown was swift and the harshest in the world. let's say 5 million lives saved. being very conservative.

the US (half the population of europe) had various levels of lockdown, not to the extent of china and europe. let's be ultra conservative and say 2 million.

you're at 13 million now just looking at a quarter of the world's population (europe + china + USA) and being very conservative.

my original post estimated 20-50 million lives saved.

Arghus

Silentcorner wrote: »

We know the demographic that are most vulnerable to Covid, you can see it in our stats.

The countries with the highest numbers of people in that demographic will have the highest covid death rates.

This is primary school level stuff!

It's that simple is it?

How do you explain then an example like the UK's death rate compared to Germany.

Germany has both a higher proportion of Over 65's and a higher absolute amount of total population compared to the UK.

But yet the UK's death rate per 1 million people is more than twice that of The Germany's - and in absolute terms they have roughly twice as many deaths as Germany's, despite having less population

So The UK has less Over 65's both in proportion and in the absolute - but yet has a much higher death rate and numbers of deaths.

It obviously can't be solely down to simple demographics.

Silentcorner

Arghus wrote: »

It's that simple is it?

How do you explain then an example like the UK's death rate compared to Germany.

Germany has both a higher proportion of Over 65's and a higher absolute amount of total population compared to the UK.

But yet the UK's death rate per 1 million people is more than twice that of The Germanys - and in absolute terms they have roughly twice as many deaths as Germany's, despite having less population

So The UK has less Over 65's both in proportion and in the absolute - but yet has a much higher death rate and numbers of deaths.

It obviously can't be solely down to simple demographics.

Well, it is having the most devastating impact on a particular demographic across the world....without exception as far as I can see.

So, of course there will be other factors, diet, vit d levels, health system, exposure to previous corona viruses, state of nursing home facilities etc.

But there is no getting away from the particular demographic that are most vulnerable....and therefore the countries with the highest numbers of that demographic will see higher rates of covid death!

Windmill100000

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I’m now convinced that those most in favour of stay at home orders and business closures don’t actually understand what it is there are seeing regarding death rate.

Some believe Ireland protected its vulnerable better than Italy?

Do some also believe severe restrictions prevented 80,000 deaths in Ireland?

If Ireland had a similar population to Italy, the death rate would be higher than Italy’s.

That is so incredibly patronising.

We will never know exactly how many lives were saved because of lockdown. But most people believe lives were saved.

Arghus

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, it is having the most devastating impact on a particular demographic across the world....without exception as far as I can see.

So, of course there will be other factors, diet, vit d levels, health system, exposure to previous corona viruses, state of nursing home facilities etc.

But there is no getting away from the particular demographic that are most vulnerable.... and therefore the countries with the highest numbers of that demographic will see higher rates of covid death!

Not necessarily. I've just proved that.

There's no dispute that it disproportionately impacts the over 65's, but to say it's solely down to the proportion of over 65's clearly is a simplification.

froog

froog wrote: »

multiple studies in June estimated some 3 million lives were saved across europe alone due to lockdowns. add in the winter peak would be 6 million lives saved.

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/large-scale-lockdowns-in-europe-saved-millions-of-lives/25046
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52968523
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/418451-trending-science-lockdowns-in-europe-saved-millions-of-lives-say-researchers

china's (population 1.3 billion) lockdown was swift and the harshest in the world. let's say 5 million lives saved. being very conservative.

the US (half the population of europe) had various levels of lockdown, not to the extent of china and europe. let's be ultra conservative and say 2 million.

you're at 13 million now just looking at a quarter of the world's population (europe + china + USA) and being very conservative.

my original post estimated 20-50 million lives saved.

Hahaha, you are literally just making numbers up!!!

And those 3 links... they all mention “estimates” based on “modelling”.

Is this the same kind of modelling that the experts used early on to suggest bodies piling up on the streets? Or that prompted Leo to say that 250K Irish could die?

You’ll have to try harder than that.

Windmill100000

Windmill100000 wrote: »

That is so incredibly patronising.

We will never know exactly how many lives were saved because of lockdown. But most people believe lives were saved.

And yet you have no evidence other than a “feeling”.

Horrible for all those whose lives have been destroyed because we “believe” lockdown saves lives.

froog

Deleted User wrote: »

Hahaha, you are literally just making numbers up!!!

And those 3 links... they all mention “estimates” based on “modelling”.

Is this the same kind of modelling that the experts used early on to suggest bodies piling up on the streets? Or that prompted Leo to say that 250K Irish could die?

You’ll have to try harder than that.

that's right jac, in the absence of time machines and the ability to change how governments acted, we use "estimates" and "modelling" to evaluate how many lives were saved by lockdown.

now let's have an actual debate. give me your own rebuttals to the figures i posted, and challenges to the scientists models and estimates.

or continue posting "ha ha" and dismissing everything with no actual arguments like a child.

froog

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet you have no evidence other than a “feeling”.

Horrible for all those whose lives have been destroyed because we “believe” lockdown saves lives.

what's your evidence that lockdowns don't save lives.

take your time.

Silentcorner

Windmill100000 wrote: »

That is so incredibly patronising.

We will never know exactly how many lives were saved because of lockdown. But most people believe lives were saved.

Now you said it...we will never know.

It could be a few hundred, a few thousand we don't know...we are asking a lot of our population to do something we have no idea is actually worth it!!!

If we look at countries that went down the lighter side of restrictions (Sweden, Croatia) we don't see differences in outcomes....given the variables that we now understand, it should be very clear that lockdown saves lives if they do...but that data has not manifested itself 11 months in...in fact if anything, it suggests severe lockdowns don't save many at all!

froog

froog wrote: »

that's right jac, in the absence of time machines and the ability to change how governments acted, we use "estimates" and "modelling" to evaluate how many lives were saved by lockdown.

now let's have an actual debate. give me your own rebuttals to the figures i posted, and challenges to the scientists models and estimates.

or continue posting "ha ha" and dismissing everything with no actual arguments like a child.

Nothing to rebutt.
I didn’t make these claims, you did.

I look at the facts. 2M dead worldwide in a year.

A lot of those were people that would have died anyways with or without Covid.

I prefer fact than fiction.

hynesie08

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to rebutt.
I didn’t make these claims, you did.

I look at the facts. 2M dead worldwide in a year.

A lot of those were people that would have died anyways with or without Covid.

I prefer fact than fiction.

Any evidence of this, or is it just a feeling?

froog

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to rebutt.
I didn’t make these claims, you did.

I look at the facts. 2M dead worldwide in a year.

A lot of those were people that would have died anyways with or without Covid.

I prefer fact than fiction.

so your argument that lockdowns don't save lives is that "2 million people died"??

that isn't even an argument. i'm not even sure what it means.

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

Any evidence of this, or is it just a feeling?

Excess deaths

Arghus

Silentcorner wrote: »

Now you said it...we will never know.

It could be a few hundred, a few thousand we don't know...we are asking a lot of our population to do something we have no idea is actually worth it!!!

If we look at countries that went down the lighter side of restrictions (Sweden, Croatia) we don't see differences in outcomes....given the variables that we now understand, it should be very clear that lockdown saves lives if they do...but that data has not manifested itself 11 months in...in fact if anything, it suggests severe lockdowns don't save many at all!

I don't know where you are getting your statistics, but Croatia's death rate is roughly twice ours.

froog

Deleted User wrote: »

Excess deaths

are you just throwing out random phrases now, hoping they might congeal into some kind of a point?

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You initially made a staggering claim that I was advocating people to ignore public health advice

You then tried to support your preposterous claim by alluding to me wanting to ease restrictions now. There is a huge difference and that’s a massive leap and a completely unnecessary attack on my credibility

Let me try to be more clear. You want the government to ease restrictions on the population. The government are currently following public health advice. So, if you want restrictions eased, it's not a massive leap to assume that you want the government (and, in turn the population) to ignore public health advice.

froog

froog wrote: »

so your argument that lockdowns don't save lives is that "2 million people died"??

that isn't even an argument. i'm not even sure what it means.

I’ve never actually said that lockdowns don’t save any lives, you made that up, which you are good at.

But I don’t think they saved many lives at all. Have a good look at Sweden. No lockdown and an elderly population. They don’t have a huge number of deaths. Even less excess deaths.

Proof that not locking down doesn’t lead to hospitals getting overwhelmed and bodies piling up on the streets.

And if it doesn’t save many lives, than why do we have half a million unemployed and every school in the country closed.

Over to you. Actual proof that lockdown saved millions of lives. Oh yeah... you don’t have it.

ypres5

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Could be very short lived. We will see I suppose. Another bitter anti authority comment by you too I see. No surprise there considering your posting history of anti government digs on this forum.

sounds like you almost want it to turn out badly for the italians out of spite

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

If Ireland had a similar population to Italy, the death rate would be higher than Italy’s.

Eh? I thought Ireland had the youngest population in Europe? I thought this thing only affected the elderly and infirm? You are tying yourself up in knots now.