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

Lundstram

Deleted User wrote: »

So you're ok with people in the at most risk category being put out to pasture? Like I said earlier, nice.

You're just making up stuff now. You're fooling no one.

Protect the vulnerable, let the other 99.5% live their lives with some normality.

Turtwig

Lundstram wrote: »

Don't know, I'm not the one claiming to be an infectious disease expert.

But you are making the claim their prediction was ridiculous. If you don't know how to make such a prediction, how can you make an objective assessment of its validity?

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

I didn't ask that. Not even sure why you're bringing it up.

I asked the poster, and now you, how you would do McConkeys prediction?

Maybe not bother until I have actually done research and can give a reasonably accurate figure.

And how do you think that would work, exactly?

Arghus

Lundstram wrote: »

You're just making up stuff now. You're fooling no one.

Protect the vulnerable, let the other 99.5% live their lives with some normality.

How is that done in practice.

The vulnerable is a fairly big category and they live with people too - they'd have to isolate too if Covid was absolutely rampant out there in the community at large - and their doctors and carers and nurses would also require indefinite isolation - because the risk of them bringing an infection into contact with one of the patients/clients would be sky high, if you're letting it spread unchecked in the community.

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

So you're ok with people in the at most risk category being put out to pasture? Like I said earlier, nice.

If we had an adult conversation, do you realise over 30,000 people die each year in Ireland?

Now I know you don’t, I’ve realised lately most people have no idea about the mechanics of life, or death, certainly not from what I’ve seen online.

The only thing I’ll say is there is nothing unusual about death and life

Turtwig

Lundstram wrote: »

You're just making up stuff now. You're fooling no one.

Protect the vulnerable, let the other 99.5% live their lives with some normality.

I love this idea too but how do we practically implement it.

HSE figures btw put 30% of the population at risk of serious illness but let's assume it is just. 0.5%, how do we protect these people?

Keep in mind that if they're vulnerable they'll likely need access to health care for other reasons. If every non vulnerable gets covid many will still need access to health services - the same health services that the vulnerable are probably more frequently using.

We haven't even gotten into the nightmare of degrees of separation between vulnerable and non vulnerable in society in general yet either.

Turtwig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe not bother until I have actually done research and can give a reasonably accurate figure.

Then you should have no difficulty in showing how the prediction was poor research and unreasonable.

FintanMcluskey

Turtwig wrote: »

I love this idea too but how do we practically implement it.

HSE figures btw put 30% of the population at risk of serious illness but let's assume it is just. 0.5%, how do we protect these people?

Keep in mind that if they're vulnerable they'll likely need access to health care for other reasons. If every non vulnerable gets covid many will still need access to health services - the same health services that the vulnerable are probably more frequently using.

We haven't even gotten into the nightmare of degrees of separation between vulnerable and non vulnerable in society general yet either.

Last I heard 70-80% of nursing home patients survived Covid.

Knowing that, and the fact a significant number of positive cases have no symptoms, I struggle to believe the 30% figure of vulnerable

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Can you just answer the question?

back in Sept I listened to an interview on local radio with a doctor who spoke out against lockdowns, whose name I cannot recall, but he had to stand down from a board position in local health authority...wasn't a hope this guy would get national media coverage.

I also saw a so called leading expert predict the freezer trucks and mass graves.

This was the Tonight Show, the clip is not on youtube.

You either believe me or not, that is up to you, but you can still answer the question.

I want to know the context in which the prediction was made. Because if we continued through October and November and into December without putting extra restrictions in place our death rates would have been similar to those of the Czech Republic.

As always here though, the method is to take the most extreme interpretation of a single comment and apply it as representative of the overall view on restrictions. And your unwillingness to actually back up your assertion to provide context so people can form their own view speaks volumes to the tactics of the false dichotomy

growleaves

Turtwig wrote: »

How would you predict the number of deaths?

On another thread in March when predictions of mass death were first being publicised, I was criticising The Guardian and Financial Times for promoting Imperial College London's predictions and dismissing the predictions and research by Oxford University's Infectious Diseases Lab.

They basically told their readers to listen to this group of scientists and ignore this group. Its not even a matter of one being more mainstream than the other since Oxford Uni is the very definition of establishment. The media put immense pressure on national governments to adopt Black Plague scenario-containment methods of some kind.

Since then we've had posters claim that there's a 'scientific consensus' around lockdown which is wrong for two reasons: 1) No there isn't but, more importantly, 2) scientific truth isn't discovered by consensus. If all scientists find some piece of experimental science compelling and adopt its assumptions that doesn't mean that its now proven science.

People - including laymen - have a right to ask for empirical verification, repeated testing, falsifiability or some other standard.

This elides the fact that being confined, dis-employed and subject to all kinds of surveillance and police-action is not simply a scientific matter.

Epidemiology may be a neutral, objective matter but clubbing someone over the head with a rubber truncheon or banning them from working because you have a theory about mitigation measures is not a neutral matter. It is a political matter - a controverted case.

Arghus

Turtwig wrote: »

I love this idea too but how do we practically implement it.

HSE figures btw put 30% of the population at risk of serious illness but let's assume it is just. 0.5%, how do we protect these people?

Keep in mind that if they're vulnerable they'll likely need access to health care for other reasons. If every non vulnerable gets covid many will still need access to health services - the same health services that the vulnerable are probably more frequently using.

We haven't even gotten into the nightmare of degrees of separation between vulnerable and non vulnerable in society general yet either.

And of course, let's not forget that even now is it 1 in 3? - correct me if I'm wrong - of people in ICU are under 65.

So if you're just going to let the virus absolutely rinse through the population your ICU's will still fill up anyway, even if every single vulnerable person in the country is Fort Knoxed away from the disease.

froog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

2018 in Ireland had a higher death rate than 2020.

Obviously there was a deadly pandemic in 2018

interesting. was there a "harshest lockdown in europe for most of the year" in 2018?

Turtwig

growleaves wrote: »

On another thread in March when predictions of mass death were first being publicised, I was criticising The Guardian and Financial Times for promoting Imperial College London's predictions and dismissing the predictions and research by Oxford University's Infectious Diseases Lab.

They basically told their readers to listen to this group of scientists and ignore this group. Its not even a matter of one being more mainstream than the other since Oxford Uni is the very definition of establishment. The media put immense pressure on national governments to adopt Black Plague scenario-containment methods of some kind.

Since then we've had posters claim that there's a 'scientific consensus' around lockdown which is wrong for two reasons: 1) No there isn't but, more importantly, 2) scientific truth isn't discovered by consensus. If all scientists find some piece of experimental science compelling and adopt its assumptions that doesn't mean that its now proven science.

People - including laymen - have a right to ask for empirical verification, repeated testing, falsifiability or some other standard.

This elides the fact that are being confined, dis-employed and subject to all kinds of surveillance and police-action is not simply a scientific matter.

Epidemiology may be a neutral, objective matter but clubbing someone over
the head with a rubber truncheon or banning them from working because you have a theory about mitigation measures is not a neutral matter. It is a political matter - a controverted case.

So...

What was wrong with McConkeys prediction?

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

On another thread in March when predictions of mass death were first being publicised, I was criticising The Guardian and Financial Times for promoting Imperial College London's predictions and dismissing the predictions and research by Oxford University's Infectious Diseases Lab.

They basically told their readers to listen to this group of scientists and ignore this group. Its not even a matter of one being more mainstream than the other since Oxford Uni is the very definition of establishment. The media put immense pressure on national governments to adopt Black Plague scenario-containment methods of some kind.

Since then we've had posters claim that there's a 'scientific consensus' around lockdown which is wrong for two reasons: 1) No there isn't but, more importantly, 2) scientific truth isn't discovered by consensus. If all scientists find some piece of experimental science compelling and adopt its assumptions that doesn't mean that its now proven science.

People - including laymen - have a right to ask for empirical verification, repeated testing, falsifiability or some other standard.

This elides the fact that are being confined, dis-employed and subject to all kinds of surveillance and police-action is not simply a scientific matter.

Epidemiology may be a neutral, objective matter but clubbing someone over
the head with a rubber truncheon or banning them from working because you have a theory about mitigation measures is not a neutral matter. It is a political matter - a controverted case.

There was debate. The Oxford lab have been proven wrong given they were suggesting the uk was approaching herd immunity in March.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

If one thing comes out of this crisis of management, it’s that obesity must be tackled with the upmost urgency.

Old age and obesity are the main underlying conditions for severe Covid, it’s time to get serious.

Old age is an underlying condition?! Hahaha!

People have sadly just accepted that long and hard lockdown is the only solution.

Apparently there is absolutely zero we can do to stop Covid spreading in hospitals and nursing homes once it’s in the community. ZERO.

There is nothing more we can do to shield the elderly.

Nothing more we can do to highlight the need for good health and the highlight the risk of those obese.

I see people say we were wrong to open at Christmas. I see those same people say we can’t come out of lockdown until cases are under control.

Well that could easily be 9 or more months of lockdown..: And yet you also say you don’t want us to just stay in lockdown for months.

It’s bizarre trying to understand what you guys actually want? Even the vaccines won’t stop cases and deaths.

growleaves

Turtwig wrote: »

So...

What was wrong with McConkeys prediction?

He predicted up to 120,000 deaths without mitigation measures, which Simon Harris claimed to be taking very seriously.

A more recent Irish government prediction was 12,000 deaths without these measures. (Which isn't believeable either imo.)

froog

Penfailed wrote: »

Old age is an underlying condition?! Hahaha!

get serious on Old Age. this terrible disease is rumored to affect all of us at some point in our life.

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

People have sadly just accepted that long and hard lockdown is the only solution.

Apparently there is absolutely zero we can do to stop Covid spreading in hospitals and nursing homes once it’s in the community. ZERO.

There is nothing more we can do to shield the elderly.

Nothing more we can do to highlight the need for good health and the highlight the risk of those obese.

I see people say we were wrong to open at Christmas. I see those same people say we can’t come out of lockdown until cases are under control.

Well that could easily be 9 or more months of lockdown..: And yet you also say you don’t want us to just stay in lockdown for months.

It’s bizarre trying to understand what you guys actually want? Even the vaccines won’t stop cases and deaths.

The CSO better stop publishing death stats in future

If the don’t there is no way out of this

Some will get a massive shock when they realise more than 3000 people die each year in Ireland

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

get serious on Old Age. this terrible disease is rumored to affect all of us at some point in our life.

50million suffer from it

:pac:

Polar101

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s bizarre trying to understand what you guys actually want? Even the vaccines won’t stop cases and deaths.

Is there anyone out there who doesn't want this to be over ASAP, and get back to normal?

PTH2009

Deleted User wrote: »

People have sadly just accepted that long and hard lockdown is the only solution.

Apparently there is absolutely zero we can do to stop Covid spreading in hospitals and nursing homes once it’s in the community. ZERO.

There is nothing more we can do to shield the elderly.

Nothing more we can do to highlight the need for good health and the highlight the risk of those obese.

I see people say we were wrong to open at Christmas. I see those same people say we can’t come out of lockdown until cases are under control.

Well that could easily be 9 or more months of lockdown..: And yet you also say you don’t want us to just stay in lockdown for months.

It’s bizarre trying to understand what you guys actually want? Even the vaccines won’t stop cases and deaths.

Our highly paid leaders are more than happy to stay in lockdown and dont have the balls to take the risk of 'living with the virus'

froog

froog wrote: »

interesting. was there a "harshest lockdown in europe for most of the year" in 2018?

??

Arghus

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s bizarre trying to understand what you guys actually want? Even the vaccines won’t stop cases and deaths.

Optimistically I'd want cases to come down to at the very least 100 a day, while you're still trying to vaccinate as many people as you can and then hopefully you'd have the double buffer of relatively low case numbers and the warmer sunnier time of the year to give you a bit of breathing space as you vaccinate first those most at risk of death or hospitalisation - once that cohort is vaccinated the need for level five type restrictions diminishes.

Ideally if we get cases down in the immediate, keep vaccinating all the while and picking up the pace as more availability comes on stream, then we might have a lucky Summer where we don't have to go heavily on the restrictions and by the time Autumn and Winter comes along we'll have enough people jabbed across the population to get on with life.

We're in a shtty time of it at the moment, probably the pits to be honest: crap weather, high cases, high numbers in hospitals, high deaths, massive restrictions, question marks about what's happening with the vaccine - but I think that things will become a lot clearer from March onwards.

That’s my optimistic prediction. I have a middling and a negative one too, but, fck it - it's a Saturday night.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Nightclubs will likely be 2-3 years away, similar to fans in stadiums.

I just hope schools reopen in September

We need educated people to pay this bill

They'll be open waaaay before that. That pessimism must wear you down.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Optimistically I'd want cases to come down to at the very least 100 a day, while you're still trying to vaccinate as many people as you can and then hopefully you'd have the double buffer of relatively low case numbers and the warmer sunnier time of the year to give you a bit of breathing space as you vaccinate first those most at risk of death or hospitalisation - once that cohort is vaccinated the need for level five type restrictions diminishes.

Ideally if we get cases down in the immediate, keep vaccinating all the while and picking up the pace as more availability comes on stream, then we might have a lucky Summer where we don't have to go heavily on the restrictions and by the time Autumn and Winter comes along we'll have enough people jabbed across the population to get on with life.

We're in a shtty time of it at the moment, probably the pits to be honest: crap weather, high cases, high numbers in hospitals, high deaths, massive restrictions, question marks about what's happening with the vaccine - but I think that things will become a lot clearer from March onwards.

Why have you picked a figure of 100 cases a day?

How does vaccination of most at risk of death remove need for level 5 restrictions?

Will those most at risk of hospitalisation be vaccinated before Summer?

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

People have sadly just accepted that long and hard lockdown is the only solution.

Apparently there is absolutely zero we can do to stop Covid spreading in hospitals and nursing homes once it’s in the community. ZERO.

There is nothing more we can do to shield the elderly.

Nothing more we can do to highlight the need for good health and the highlight the risk of those obese.

I see people say we were wrong to open at Christmas. I see those same people say we can’t come out of lockdown until cases are under control.

Well that could easily be 9 or more months of lockdown..: And yet you also say you don’t want us to just stay in lockdown for months.

It’s bizarre trying to understand what you guys actually want? Even the vaccines won’t stop cases and deaths.

It's all that people are seeing on their media outlets...they've been battered into thinking that....

They can't explain Sweden
They can't accept that this could very well be seasonal
They can't accept that the virus behaves very much like a flu virus
They can't accept that the case fatality stats are actually telling us exactly how lethal this thing is and to whom.

They won't accept that our so called experts are frequently way off in their predictions, and now this week some of them are pushing for a zero covid strategy, what was it one of them said, treat each case like a murder!!!!

Even someone with as little knowledge in viruses can see how crazy that is....you don't even need to be an expert to spot the madness anymore so hyperbolic it has been!!

It is mass hysteria which to be fair I can understand, as we have never seen anything like this before.

Miccoli

I’ve no idea how the same 3 or 4 posters here have the patience to deal with the ones who have just accepted lockdown as the only solution to this problem. Hopefully boards.ie isn’t an accurate representation of the people of Ireland or I’d fear we could be in and out of lockdown every time a few cases emerge in 2025.

FintanMcluskey

Penfailed wrote: »

They'll be open waaaay before that. .

You must base your limited opinion on something?

I have based my opinion on the metrics indicated for schools to return