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

Kermit.de.frog

Boggles wrote: »

Restrictions = Instance rate goes down

Less Restrictions = Instance rate goes up.

November is colder again isn't it?

The "we only went to level 3" argument is facile in the face of where we have ended up now.

When we relax restrictions to the extent we go from one of the lowest incidence rates of the virus in the northern hemisphere to the highest in the world in the space of 14 days not only does it demonstrate for all to see the nature and seriousness of the risks we face but it's pretty resounding evidence a policy error was made.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Restrictions = Instance rate goes down

Less Restrictions = Instance rate goes up.

November is colder again isn't it?

How many examples in this country do you need before you realize that?

Or January is a dead month anyways and we haven’t bothered as much with testing and tracing.

Those things also make numbers decrease.

Windmill100000

Deleted User wrote: »

Despite being sceptical of the effectiveness of lockdowns, I think it would be a supremely bad idea to just lift all restrictions at once. It'd cause a Christmas-type spate of gatherings and visits, which is not ideal at all with more transmissible variants now in the country. Stepping down levels gradually is the way to go I think.

Absolutely agree and there is no way they will go from 5 to nothing anyway. It will be a gradual reduction that is closely monitored.

RiseToMe

University advised us this morning that they've been advised the lockdown is to stay in effect until Easter

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Or January is a dead month anyways and we haven’t bothered as much with testing and tracing.

Those things also make numbers decrease.

I assume you mean dead month for the pubs / restaurants?

Because everyone else goes back to school or work.

But this thread is definitely just not about the pubs and restrictions don't work to bring the instance rate down, 'Dead January' would have done that on it's own.

:rolleyes:

Tenzor07

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The "we only went to level 3" argument is facile in the face of where we have ended up now.
When we relax restrictions to the extent we go from one of the lowest incidence rates of the virus in the northern hemisphere to the highest in the world in the space of 14 days not only does it demonstrate for all to see the nature and seriousness of the risks we face but it's pretty resounding evidence a policy error was made.

Respiratory Viruses change/mutate/evolve constantly, you just have to look at the example of the flu to know that..

So It's rather simplistic to say "a policy error" was made when you take into account the fact that the Virus is constantly changing, becoming more transmissible, also that it was Christmas therefore families were going to meet up anyways no matter which "policy" was in place or not...however a sizeable number stayed within their own "family bubble"..

It happened, so get over it, vaccines are rolling out slowly and Spring is on the way..

froog

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Or January is a dead month anyways and we haven’t bothered as much with testing and tracing.

Those things also make numbers decrease.

Ah ffs, you don't actually believe that do you? That numbers dramatically falling this month has nothing to do with restrictions?

Lads wake up, if you sound foolish on the simple concepts you'll be laughed out of any more complicated debate.

corcaigh07

Boggles wrote: »

Restrictions = Instance rate goes down

Less Restrictions = Instance rate goes up.

November is colder again isn't it?

How many examples in this country do you need before you realize that?

I'm waiting on examples for the summer when you previously said we mostly opened up and cases didn't go up significantly until our October lockdown.

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I will try to understand what you are saying. I admit right now I dont. I see where you are heading with it, but I cant 100% say I am following. Fair enough, food for thought. Maybe you could help me?

One of the biggest factors in designing a study is the study "Power". This is essentially a measure of the studies ability to detect a change when when there is one. This relies a lot on the team designing a study to determine the appropriate power of the study. Get this wrong and you may erroneously conclude that differences which are a result of inherent variation are real differences or you may fail to detect a real difference.

In the Danish study a number of assumptions where made in determining sample size. Most importantly - the prevalence which was assumed to be 2% for the duration of the study. This allows a statistical calculation to determine appropriate sample size to determine if an effect is real. What the team infact did was go back and check the power of their experiment after the study was executed. This is generally seen as bad practice, however the stats behind it is sound. What they found was for the sample size used they had adequate power to detect a 50% reduction in prevalence when one existed. Eg. If masks reduced prevalence by more than 50%, the study would find that. It didn't, so you can conclude based on the study that wearing masks does not reduce infection rates by more than 50%.
To determine if the effect was lower you would need a larger sample size (or run the study for a much longer period).
This can be seen on the Confidence Interval for the study, -45% to +23%, the interval overlaps zero, therefore you cannot conclude there is a real difference

BredonWimsey

RiseToMe wrote: »

University advised us this morning that they've been advised the lockdown is to stay in effect until Easter

i saw this briefly in the paper but did they saw who advised them?

Boggles

corcaigh07 wrote: »

I'm waiting on examples for the summer when you previously said we mostly opened up and cases didn't go up significantly until our October lockdown.

I'm sorry I don't understand you.

You are waiting for examples of what exactly?

SafeSurfer

Russman wrote: »

As opposed to those other selfish ba$tards trying to stay healthy and keep their parents safe ?

Ultimately everyone's selfish. John doesn't give a f--k if Joe loses his job and it keeps his mother safe, and Joe doesn't give a f--k if John's mother dies once he keeps his job.

That is totally simplistic. No self employed person wants anyone’s mother to die. It is not an either or situation.

RiseToMe

BredonWimsey wrote: »

i saw this briefly in the paper but did they saw who advised them?

They just said advice received this morning in advance of meeting later today

Windmill100000

SafeSurfer wrote: »

That is totally simplistic. No self employed person wants anyone’s mother to die. It is not an either or situation.

Likewise, the assumption some make that people that support lockdown are benefitting from it? If circa 75% supported the latest lockdown (from one online survey) how are they all benefitting? By benefitting do people mean they kept their job?

SafeSurfer

froog wrote: »

And those selfish b@stards who dont want loved ones to die.

See what i did there?

Nobody wants loved ones to die. We all want to protect our loved ones. Should my children be made homeless to protect your parents?
These are choices that do not have to be made.

froog

froog wrote: »

And those selfish b@stards who dont want loved ones to die.

See what i did there?

I'm sceptical of lockdowns but I didn't go to see my vulnerable loved ones even during the time when restrictions were lifted, and wouldn't if they were lifted again.

There are myriad shades of grey in this situation.

SafeSurfer

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Likewise, the assumption some make that people that support lockdown are benefitting from it? If circa 75% supported the latest lockdown (from one online survey) how are they all benefitting? By benefitting do people mean they kept their job?

Nobody is “benefiting” from lockdown. However if you are still on full salary, working from home without a commute or still on full pension or social welfare, your financial situation is unchanged or has actually improved.
This cohorts view of continued lockdown May be very different from someone who’s business is closed with no prospect of opening and who faces of losing their business and home.

Squiggle

PTH2009 wrote: »

Should be called 'Remembrance day' in honour of all the people who died from Covid

SafeSurfer wrote: »

How many people would that be?

107 from Covid.

2245 with Covid and underlying conditions.

Median age at death 83.

( Data valid up to Week 2 2021 )

Squiggle

Squiggle wrote: »

107 from Covid.

2245 with Covid and underlying conditions.

Median age at death 83.

( Data valid up to Week 2 2021 )

Talk about wilful misrepresentation

facehugger99

froog wrote: »

And those selfish b@stards who dont want loved ones to die.

See what i did there?

Given most of the people dying are in their late-80's. I don't think restrictions will make all that much difference.

Turns out people will die regardless.

FintanMcluskey

Squiggle wrote: »

107 from Covid.

2245 with Covid and underlying conditions.

Median age at death 83.

( Data valid up to Week 2 2021 )

facehugger99 wrote: »

Given most of the people dying are in their late-80's. I don't think restrictions will make all that much difference.

Turns out people will die regardless.

Yep, an adult discussion needs to take place very soon

Windmill100000

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Nobody is “benefiting” from lockdown. However if you are still on full salary, working from home without a commute or still on full pension or social welfare, your financial situation is unchanged or has actually improved.
This cohorts view of continued lockdown May be very different from someone who’s business is closed with no prospect of opening and who faces of losing their business and home.

I agree with you, of course people will view this situation through the eyes of their personal circumstances. I said as much weeks ago on here. Saying that, there are people out of work currently who support lockdowns because they see them as essential to getting out the other side of this nightmare.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

Given most of the people dying are in their late-80's. I don't think restrictions will make all that much difference.

Turns out people will die regardless.

Given the median age is 83, that's not true

Russman

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sceptical of lockdowns but I didn't go to see my vulnerable loved ones even during the time when restrictions were lifted, and wouldn't if they were lifted again.

There are myriad shades of grey in this situation.

100% agree with this.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Nobody is “benefiting” from lockdown. However if you are still on full salary, working from home without a commute or still on full pension or social welfare, your financial situation is unchanged or has actually improved.
This cohorts view of continued lockdown May be very different from someone who’s business is closed with no prospect of opening and who faces of losing their business and home.

One of this things I do disagree with what the government have done is that far more supports like mortgage holidays and payment breaks for loans etc should have been implemented and forced onto the banks. I think they were in the first lockdown but its been left to the individual this time round.

I think everyone's view is slightly biased and some are very biased, but some pensioner who hasn't lost financially might be going on 12 months without seeing their grandchild, they're impacted, but in a different way.

Elmer Blooker

froog wrote: »

Most people support restrictions.

Probably because the so called 'left' who you could always depend on to organise a demo and defend civil liberties have turned into obnoxious and insufferable Stalinists. I know lots who used to be of sound mind who now probably look under their beds at night to see if theres any Gemma/Trump supporters hiding there, complete loons.
The Labour Party even called for an iron curtain between north and south yesterday.

Windmill100000

Interesting article on lockdowns across Europe

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/explainers-53640249

BredonWimsey

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Interesting article on lockdowns across Europe since Christmas

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/explainers-53640249

that is useful thanks i was looking for something like that



ie. where can i move too thats less strict

froog

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Probably because the so called 'left' who you could always depend on to organise a demo and defend civil liberties have turned into obnoxious and insufferable Stalinists. I know lots who used to be of sound mind who now probably look under their beds at night to see if theres any Gemma/Trump supporters hiding there, complete loons.
The Labour Party even called for an iron curtain between north and south yesterday.

What on earth are you on about? This isnt America where covid has been politicised.

Whatsisname

Usually you see NZ/Australia etc used as shining examples of how successful lockdowns can be.

Yet nobody ever really talks about whats happened in South America. Peru and Argentina to be exact.

Both countries had some of the earliest and strictest lockdowns.

On March 16, when there were only 28 confirmed cases, Peru closed its borders and imposed an eye-watering curfew. Men and women were allowed to leave home on alternate days, and only for essential purposes. The restrictions were enforced by the army and, by and large, they were obeyed.

https://archive.vn/KGJM2#selection-171.0-175.284

In October, Peru had the worst fatality rate in the world. Currently, they've reported 1.1M cases, and 39K deaths. Which has them 15th in the world for the most reported deaths from COVID.

Then Argentina, had reportedly one of the worlds longest lockdowns.

In October, a Washington Post article states

When President Alberto Fernández announced a national lockdown in March, there were still fewer than a dozen cases in Argentina. It was an earlier and more decisive action than was taken by just about any other world leader. The borders closed, shops shuttered and a country of 45 million people came to a halt. As neighboring Brazil was devastated by a disease it did little to stop, Argentines supported Fernández’s aggressive approach almost unanimously.

Currently they've reported 1.8M cases. 46K deaths. Which has them 13th in the world for the most reported deaths from COVID.

The article goes onto mention some things posters in here have talked about happening in Ireland at Christmas.

When the measures were eased ever so slightly, they say, Argentines leaped at the chance for social interaction.

And on the mental effects of such a drastic lockdown.

The extraordinary length of the lockdown — coupled now with its frustrating futility — has grown into what scientists here are treating as a mass sociological experiment on the limits of social isolation. Researchers with the University of Buenos Aires interviewed more than 3,600 people in September and found many were struggling.

A separate survey found many of the effects were more pronounced among children. Seven in 10 reported symptoms of depression and loneliness.

“I have a son who’s 3½ ,” Bonicalzi said. “Almost his entire conscious life has been spent in quarantine, isolated. When we took him back out, he got very, very nervous, clinging to us, beginning to scream when he came into contact with other people, especially with small children.”

They took him to a psychologist, who said the boy had developed a social phobia. He has improved, but Bonicalzi still worries.

“There’s no precedent for how isolation this significant will impact the psychology of children his age,” he said. “The truth is we didn’t know when this was going to end.”

I'll inevitably be labelled as someone who just wants to "let it rip" for posting this. But thats not what I advocated, nor have I ever. A more balanced measured approach would have been preferable. But thats long gone.

Whether you disagree or not, thats fine. But those articles are quite interesting reads to see how South American countries have dealt, I rarely see any South American country other than Brazil get talked about.

To end, the first article linked sums up my feelings perfectly.

Sadly, though, the desire to attribute human agency, to find someone to blame, is embedded deep in our DNA. We would rather demand crackdowns than accept that we are dealing with something outside our control. And, alas, we keep getting our wish.

BredonWimsey

froog wrote: »

What on earth are you on about? This isnt America where covid has been politicised.

very true. i'm not sure why some people in ireland with no US connections are so obsessed with US politics and then applying it to Ireland. its wierd