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

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Herd immunity, whether through vaccination or through infection, is the only way through this pandemic.

The Imperial study, from June 2020—a mere few months into the current pandemic—found that "Large-scale lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in Europe have been successful in reducing the transmission levels of SARS-CoV-2".

The study noted that: The use of pooled data and the short time separation between subsequent non-pharmaceutical interventions makes it difficult to determine the effect of individual sanctions on the suppression of the COVID-19 epidemic.

In January 2021, with an additional 6 months of data and the realisation that countries that used voluntary NPIs that fell short of lockdowns did not fare worse (to the tune of millions of deaths, as the Imperial study, if correct, would predict), other conclusions are being drawn and the efficacy of lockdowns, in particular, is being questioned.

In other words, as time goes on and more data becomes available, the balance of evidence shifts, and conclusions are subject to change. I'm not sure what you find so personally offensive about that.

The study you have posted multiple times now was based on the lockdown of Spring 2020.

If you are not even going to read the bloody thing, debating it isn't much use is it?

growleaves

Boggles wrote: »

Of course there is, the authors chose not to do a more comparable study because that would not fit their false narrative.

As they freely admit the glaring limited of their study is.



So may don't try and compare Sweden with Iran or South Korea with the USA.

Why not compare Sweden with you know the most comparable, their neighbors.

They are within the average of EU and US.

Let's face it, people are committed to years of indefinite mass incarceration and the obliteration of community and culture. They shout down any alternatives, including any kind of compromise restrictions. They get angry if a scientist comes up with proposals to exit lockdown.

Will you still feel the same way in 5 years if the lockdowns are continued based on fears of vaccine-evading mutant strains or long covid or whatever?

Personally I can get by in this regime, just as millions of people in the Eastern bloc found ways to survive. But wow what a complete waste. What a great personal legacy the proud advocates of numberless futile lockdowns are creating for themselves.

Boggles

growleaves wrote: »

They are within the average of EU and US.

The authors pointed out their own limitations, their was an alternative method to narrow the gap.

They could have gone that route, I imagine that published study wouldn't be posted so frequently on here though.

growleaves wrote: »

Let's face it, people are committed to years of indefinite mass incarceration and the obliteration of community and culture.

I do enjoy the hilarious hyperbole, I admit it. :pac:

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Of course there is, the authors chose not to do a more comparable study because that would not fit their false narrative.

As they freely admit the glaring limitation of their study is.

We are in the middle of a global pandemic. Every study available has glaring limitations. If you're expecting to be presented with a perfect study that has the answer all wrapped up in a bow, you'll be disappointed, just the same way you'll be disappointed if you attempt to find such a study to support lockdowns as an effective measure. The final judgment on the various measures won't be made for years, possibly decades. In the meantime, we can only work with the shifting body of evidence we have.

You have obviously picked a "team" here, and you're very committed to making sure that team "wins". The more scathing internet barbs you can throw at your "opponents", the better. And that's all well and good. You do you. But don't kid yourself that it is in any sense of the word useful.

As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't have any reason to want lockdowns to end imminently. I'm comfortable, better off financially than before, and not all that put-out by it. If lockdowns are indeed the most effective way to combat Covid-19 and expedite an end to it, so be it. But the immiseration and the physical and mental damage that is being done to people who are affected by it must, on balance, be worth it. And we must at least be willing to entertain the fact that that is not the case, and consider the evidence, else we are operating on freshly-instated dogma rather than on (albeit shifting) best practice.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Every study available has glaring limitations.

Indeed, but the one you have chosen to promote which you clearly haven't read, chose to self impose those glaring limitations.

Again, I ask. Why do think that?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Indeed, but the one you have chosen to promote which you clearly haven't read, chose to self impose those glaring limitations.

Again, I ask. Why do think that?

I think it's because, during the period of study, those countries had the highest cumulative number of cases and therefore provided the largest dataset.

Why do you think it was?

Windmill100000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We are in the middle of a global pandemic. Every study available has glaring limitations. If you're expecting to be presented with a perfect study that has the answer all wrapped up in a bow, you'll be disappointed, just the same way you'll be disappointed if you attempt to find such a study to support lockdowns as an effective measure. The final judgment on the various measures won't be made for years, possibly decades. In the meantime, we can only work with the shifting body of evidence we have.

You have obviously picked a "team" here, and you're very committed to making sure that team "wins". The more scathing internet barbs you can throw at your "opponents", the better. And that's all well and good. You do you. But don't kid yourself that it is in any sense of the word useful.

As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't have any reason to want lockdowns to end imminently. I'm comfortable, better off financially than before, and not all that put-out by it. If lockdowns are indeed the most effective way to combat Covid-19 and expedite an end to it, so be it. But the immiseration and the physical and mental damage that is being done to people who are affected by it must, on balance, be worth it. And we must at least be willing to entertain the fact that that is not the case, and consider the evidence, else we are operating on freshly-instated dogma rather than on (albeit shifting) best practice.

I think to be far, the war is waged on both sides.

The frustration is understandable for those that want to ease restrictions because going by the news in recent days, it is not happening any time soon

Windmill100000

Windmill100000 wrote: »

I think to be far, the war is waged on both sides.

No doubt. But it's a shame, since lockdowns are either effective enough that they're worth the resultant damage to lives and the economy, or they're not. It shouldn't be a quasi-religious war with faith-like devotion on both sides, and questioning (in either direction) should not be seen as some sort of moral failing. It's quite ridiculous.

SusieBlue

pjohnson wrote: »

At least they stopped with the parties anyway.

Still no need to needlessly punish themselves.

I have never, at any point of this pandemic, thrown any parties. Enough of the passive aggressive sly digs, what purpose do they serve?

Multipass

Deleted User wrote: »

No doubt. But it's a shame, since lockdowns are either effective enough that they're worth the resultant damage to lives and the economy, or they're not. It shouldn't be a quasi-religious war with faith-like devotion on both sides, and questioning (in either direction) should not be seen as some sort of moral failing. It's quite ridiculous.

Catching Covid has been turned into a moral failing in this dystopian world we live in now.

jd1983

Boggles wrote: »

So maybe don't try and compare Sweden with Iran or South Korea with the USA.

Why not compare Sweden with you know the most comparable, their neighbors.

Why do you think they didn't do that?

Denmark, Norway and Finland had less restrictions than most European countries.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's because, during the period of study, those countries had the highest cumulative number of cases and therefore provided the largest dataset.

Why do you think it was?

If they are cherry picking countries with the highest infection rate they have all ready sabotaged their own study?

Windmill100000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No doubt. But it's a shame, since lockdowns are either effective enough that they're worth the resultant damage to lives and the economy, or they're not. It shouldn't be a quasi-religious war with faith-like devotion on both sides, and questioning (in either direction) should not be seen as some sort of moral failing. It's quite ridiculous.

I hear you. I know people very anti lockdown because lockdown has impacted greatly on their life. I know others that are in high risk groups that think lockdowns are essential.

I dont think for these groups there is a compromise.

Kunta Kinte

Lundstram wrote: »

More hyperbole from you.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/want-to-know-what-a-hard-border-looks-like-the-2001-foot-and-mouth-crisis-holds-the-key-37824268.html

Quote from that article:



20 years later, the national interest is not as important. Too afraid to upset the Brits.

Already answered by other posters. BTW considering your posting history the fact that you have accused me of hyperbole displays a complete lack of self awareness by you. Not too surprised about that TBH.

Windmill100000

Windmill100000 wrote: »

I hear you. I know people very anti lockdown because lockdown has impacted greatly on their life. I know others that are in high-risk groups that think lockdowns are essential.

I don't think for these groups there is a compromise.

Agreed, but I don't think that how people feel about lockdowns should be a deciding factor in anything really.

Much more important is whether lockdowns actually contain the spread in the way we hope they do and, if so, how much do they contain it. Because as awful as it is (and everything about it is awful), there are calculations to be made. If lockdowns are causing three additional deaths from suicide and untreated heart conditions and so on for every life saved, what then? Or if the pandemic without lockdowns costs on average four life years per death but the pandemic with lockdowns cost on average thirty life years with an equal number of additional deaths, what then?

Absolutely nobody should envy the people who are making the decisions about these things, because it's an awful thing to have to consider and there are no answers that are harmless. But because there are no answers that are harmless I think it increases the importance of making sure we're on the track that causes the least harm overall.

SusieBlue

Windmill100000 wrote: »

I hear you. I know people very anti lockdown because lockdown has impacted greatly on their life. I know others that are in high risk groups that think lockdowns are essential.

I dont think for these groups there is a compromise.

For the most part, the needs of the latter group have been looked after and prioritised at the expense of the former group for almost a year now.
That’s why some people are angry and frustrated, and some are hyper defensive and dismissive.

There has been no compromise, MM proudly stated himself that we have had the longest, strictest and most suppressive lockdown in the EU.

I know some will say restrictions were lifted for Christmas for the benefit of the anti lockdowners, but that was literally only for 3 weeks and was more to do with saving political careers after promising we’d be in a safe position to open after lockdown #2, than any actual desire to give people a break.
As with everything there was an ulterior motive behind it, and that motive was to save their own skins.
Cancelling Christmas after putting people through a 6 week lockdown to ‘save’ it would have been political suicide, and they knew that.

GazzaL

SusieBlue wrote: »

For the most part, the needs of the latter group have been looked after and prioritised at the expense of the former group for almost a year now.
That’s why some people are angry and frustrated, and some are hyper defensive and dismissive.

There has been no compromise, MM proudly stated himself that we have had the longest, strictest and most suppressive lockdown in the EU.

I know some will say restrictions were lifted for Christmas for the benefit of the anti lockdowners, but that was literally only for 3 weeks and was more to do with saving political careers after promising we’d be in a safe position to open after lockdown #2, than any actual desire to give people a break.
As with everything there was an ulterior motive behind it, and that motive was to save their own skins.
Cancelling Christmas after putting people through a 6 week lockdown to ‘save’ it would have been political suicide, and they knew that.

Considering I couldn't see most of my family at Christmas, I wouldn't say they saved Christmas either tbh.

acequion

SusieBlue wrote: »

For the most part, the needs of the latter group have been looked after and prioritised at the expense of the former group for almost a year now.
That’s why some people are angry and frustrated, and some are hyper defensive and dismissive.

There has been no compromise, MM proudly stated himself that we have had the longest, strictest and most suppressive lockdown in the EU.

I know some will say restrictions were lifted for Christmas for the benefit of the anti lockdowners, but that was literally only for 3 weeks and was more to do with saving political careers after promising we’d be in a safe position to open after lockdown #2, than any actual desire to give people a break.
As with everything there was an ulterior motive behind it, and that motive was to save their own skins.
Cancelling Christmas after putting people through a 6 week lockdown to ‘save’ it would have been political suicide, and they knew that.

Very much agree. Look it's always easy to tell others how they should be doing their job. So I'm not claiming that I'd do a marvellous job if I were in the Govt. I wouldn't do their job if they quadrupled the pay and that's saying something. However, this whole thing of prioritising the needs of one group to the absolute detriment of others is something I'd be very uncomfortable with. And it's the core modos operandi of this administration. Prioritising opening schools over sectors of private enterprise for example. Now trying to prioritise SEN and LC over other aspects in education. Now before the moral police jump at me let me point out that whatever way you look at it, it's unbalanced. Children certainly need their education but business people need their livelihoods. The elderly and vulnerable need to be protected but all the other various needs in society need to be considered as well. Trying to achieve balance is vital in crisis management though admittedly very difficult.

My huge issue with the current administration is the lack of any attempt at any real balance.

Windmill100000

SusieBlue wrote: »

For the most part, the needs of the latter group have been looked after and prioritised at the expense of the former group for almost a year now.
That’s why some people are angry and frustrated, and some are hyper defensive and dismissive.

There has been no compromise, MM proudly stated himself that we have had the longest, strictest and most suppressive lockdown in the EU.

I know some will say restrictions were lifted for Christmas for the benefit of the anti lockdowners, but that was literally only for 3 weeks and was more to do with saving political careers after promising we’d be in a safe position to open after lockdown #2, than any actual desire to give people a break.
As with everything there was an ulterior motive behind it, and that motive was to save their own skins.
Cancelling Christmas after putting people through a 6 week lockdown to ‘save’ it would have been political suicide, and they knew that.

I think that death is a factor for a greater majority the latter group has a lot more to do with it as well.

I'm all for people venting frustration. I think it's important. But people should be honest about what they are saying. If they arent, expect to be called out on it.

Jim Gazebo

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3531296736967602&id=676247719139199

Now fining one person going for a walk on their own. Ffs.

SusieBlue

Windmill100000 wrote: »

I think that death is a factor for a greater majority the latter group has a lot more to do with it as well.

I'm all for people venting frustration. I think it's important. But people should be honest about what they are saying. If they arent, expect to be called out on it.

There are death concerns for the other group as well, but but because they aren’t covid related and are due to other areas of concern they don’t seem to be given any consideration.

The suffering and sacrifice of one group is needed to protect the other.
That was a fair and reasonable ask last March and well into the first lockdown, but as more time passes and with no end in sight, that group is going to become weary and angry at what is being asked of them with little else but a bit of lip service about how ‘we’re all in this together’ as thanks and the €350 a week they’re supposed to be on their hands and knees with gratitude for.
And that’s what’s happening now, and the longer this goes on, the more the frustration and dissent will grow.

It doesn’t make them bad or selfish people, they are just looking out for themselves and their loved ones EXACTLY as the other group are. But no one wants to acknowledge that.
Calling them granny killers and sneering at their concerns and dismissing them as more inconveniences seems to be the go-to response, time and time again.

jester77

Jim Gazebo wrote: »

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3531296736967602&id=676247719139199

Now fining one person going for a walk on their own. Ffs.

Maybe read the article. He was going up a snow covered mountain without the proper attire. Too right he was fined, better this than having the mountain rescue team having to come out to rescue him.

Kermit.de.frog

Some people would be happier if they accepted reality rather than unrealistic expectations.

Most understand the problem and just get on with their lives.

This was always going to be a much longer crisis than many thought back in February because we have not had a pandemic on this scale in 100 years.

Events like this have long lasting, society changing consequences.

That's just a fact.

Accept it, do your part and move on.

jester77

jester77 wrote: »

Maybe read the article. He was going up a snow covered mountain without the proper attire. Too right he was fined, better this than having the mountain rescue team having to come out to rescue him.

Is going up a mountain without the proper attire a criminal offense? :eek:

Jim Gazebo

jester77 wrote: »

Maybe read the article. He was going up a snow covered mountain without the proper attire. Too right he was fined, better this than having the mountain rescue team having to come out to rescue him.

So did they fine him for being outside his 5km or because he wasn't dressed for the occasion? It's none of their business really that he was going up the mountain. Ffs he could do that walk every day for all you or they know. I can't believe people have lost sight of the purpose that they are actually congratulating the Gardai here.

iamwhoiam

Deleted User wrote: »

Is going up a mountain without the proper attire a criminal offense? :eek:

It should be

Kunta Kinte

Jim Gazebo wrote: »

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3531296736967602&id=676247719139199

Now fining one person going for a walk on their own. Ffs.

From reading that linked article if the Gardai hadn`t shown up he might have had far more than just a fine to worry about. Well done to them.

acequion

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Some people would be happier if they accepted reality rather than unrealistic expectations.

Most understand the problem and just get on with their lives.

This was always going to be a much longer crisis than many thought back in February because we have not had a pandemic on this scale in 100 years.

Events like this have long lasting, society changing consequences.

That's just a fact.

Accept it, do your part and move on.

How on earth can people get on with their lives when for many the fundamental structures of their lives have collapsed. Their livelihoods, leisure, social lives and fundamental routines. Yes we can all go pacing up and down our 5km in the fresh air, yes we can all meditate and watch netflix and go on the Internet etc etc but human beings need more.

So maybe you are blessed with a resilience many don't have but I think your claim that "most" are "just getting on with their lives" is wildly optimistic.

Jim Gazebo

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

From reading that linked article if the Gardai hadn`t shown up he might have had far more than just a fine to worry about.

Key word in your sentence there is might.

iamwhoiam

iamwhoiam wrote: »

It should be

Can't have them poors... walking up hills. Amirite? :rolleyes: