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

gozunda

paddyisreal wrote: »

usually when someone mentions going forward it means the future but obviously in your case it is from a defined date in January anyway just to clarify if we have 1000 of cases a day every day with small icu admissions and hospital admission what level of restrictions should we have?

So basically in the last 365 days we have gotten to within 10 percent of icu capacity for a period of 10 days at the most. So our hospitals were never at full icu capicity and no where near being over ran for about 98 percent of time in the last year. Great justification to stop outdoor sports, golf, buying a pair of socks as that would of caused icu being overran 😂😂

Your initial statement was 2.9 million mass killer shock horror and 130 million cases shock horror. And yes I did see you point out that death rate isn't the biggest factor that however was after another poster highlighted how 2.9 million out of the billions in earth ain't a big deal.

Again, if we have 1000 cases a day for a month with no icu admissions or deaths. What will your position on restrictions be because I get the distinct impression you just defend whatever this government have done and are going to do. So for future reference could you clarify what your position would be on restrictions in this scenario?

Well to be fair paddy you jumped in midway on an ongoing discussion . So I can't help if you decide you now want to discuss how vaccinations will impact case numbers from here on in. etc. Yes they clearly are having an impact. But at the current rate of vaccinations we will continue to see for some time at least any rise in cases and corresponding rises in hospital numbers if or where that happens. This is already the situation in Germany for example.

The figures for the month of January just for you were more than 1,000 deaths and 100,000 cases recorded. But have a good think why hospitals were not overran - (and btw I made no claims that there were). But do you not think that the redeployment of 1000s of healthcare staff to covid treatment, the training of new dedicated ICU staff, the creation of dedicated covid wards, the purchase and commission of new ventilators and oxygen treatments didn't go some way to help help our healthcare systems to be able to continue to cope with up to 2000 patients in hospital with covid 19?

Btw if you check It was I who referred to the 2.97 million deaths as not the single biggest issue in the first instance.

Absolutely delighted that you find the idea of keeping the infection rate down whilst allowing our health services to continue with the cases they do have - plus starting to bring back online other forms of treatment as funny / not worth it or justified. And that you believe playing golf is more important. Well each yo their own I suppose.

Whats with the whole personal interrogation thing btw? I really don't care what your personal opinion of me and what I think of de government btw. Its all a bit odd and fairly irrelevant in the big scheme of things. And just as easy for me to make similar daft asides by return. But anyway as to the question regarding restrictions.

What do I think will happen? Any rollback on current restrictions imho is dependent on getting as many people vaccinated as is possible as quickly as is possible to ensure we can keep case numbers low. Why you ask? For the simple reason outlined above that there's a need to keep the infection rate down whilst allowing our health services continue to treat current covid cases all whilst rolling out one of the biggest vaccinations programmes in the history of the state.

So yes imo restrictions rollback will be gradual and based on a hell of a lot more complex analysis than some back of the fag packet covid sceptical maths.

Yeah and imho golf certainly isn't up there in terms of priority. Reckon golf clubs would be best served ploughed to grow spuds or similar. Feck it people could even grow their own. . :pac:

Penfailed

facehugger99 wrote: »

The primary reason we're in this situation is because of subservient and hysterical fools who've been so willing to trade away our freedoms on the promise of safety.

What have you done about it?

Penfailed

PTH2009 wrote: »

Would you go on a staycation with no pubs open only the one in the hotel but under heavy restrictions ?

Yes. A holiday doesn't revolve around alcohol.

francogarbanzo

PintOfView wrote: »

For another comparison, see the graph of weekly deaths in the US from all causes for the last 4 years
Half way down this page -> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

It's very clear to see they had significant excess deaths every week since April 2020 (400,000 for 2020).
Why didn't we have the same experience?
Can the people who say our lockdown was unnecessary say this wouldn't have happened to us?

Tell me again how this is about saving the healthcare system?

francogarbanzo

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

Until we reach critical mass with vaccines, which we hope will "put out the fire", the only way you can put out the fire is by lockdown, combined with aggressive suppression measures such as mandatory hotel quarantine and scaled up public health capacity to keep it down.

We had 4 (four) cases last July 1st. We had a chance of putting the fire out then, and keeping it out, but chose not to attempt this.

Why? Because "we want our pints and our foreign holidays".

Big mistake.

We didn’t have four cases, we had four known cases. Regardless, how could we have “put out the fire and kept it out?”

gozunda

JRant wrote: »

We know outdoor activity doesn't spread the disease, full stop. Throwing a few ancedotes in amd the word of Colm Henry doesn't change that fact.

Outdoor activities are safe. Follow the science.

Well JRant. That's the thing I do follow the science and was referring to the recent study reported by the Irish Times which found a very low rate of infection related to outdoor activity. But no I'm not aware of what "Colm Henry" said on the matter btw.

Problem was the study recorded infection rates outdoors during lockdown and previous periods of restrictions on outdoor activities. Ie when restrictions were in place and when it would be unlikely to see any significant rates of infection outdoors at all.

But perhaps more importantly - where it's generally agreed it's not so much 'outdoor' activities per se which are the issue.

Rather what happens around / in conjunction with such activities.

Speaking on the findings of the report. Ed Lavelle, a professor of biochemistry at Trinity College Dublin, said that the big issue was not the outdoor activity, but what happened either side of it.

So yeah sticking with the science there ...

robbiezero

Nothing scientific about imaginary changing rooms

JRant

gozunda wrote: »

Well JRant. That's the thing I do follow the science and was referring to the recent study reported by the Irish Times which found a very low rate of infection related to outdoor activity. But no I'm not aware of what "Colm Henry" said on the matter btw.

Problem was the study recorded infection rates outdoors during lockdown and previous periods of restrictions on outdoor activities. Ie when restrictions were in place and when it would be unlikely to see any significant rates of infection outdoors at all.

But perhaps more importantly - where it's generally agreed it's not so much 'outdoor' activities per se which are the issue.

Rather what happens around / in conjunction with such activities.

Speaking on the findings of the report. Ed Lavelle, a professor of biochemistry at Trinity College Dublin, said that the big issue was not the outdoor activity, but what happened either side of it.

So yeah sticking with the science there ...

So outdoor activities are perfectly fine then. When they mentioned activities either side of it, like changing rooms etc, they are clearly indoor and only serves to muddy the waters.

So, we have a study showing outdoor is safe but some have an opinion that it's not really because of "reasons" with nothing to back it up. Sounds more like a belief system than science.

the kelt

JRant wrote: »

So outdoor activities are perfectly fine then. When they mentioned activities either side of it, like changing rooms etc, they are clearly indoor and only serves to muddy the waters.

So, we have a study showing outdoor is safe but some have an opinion that it's not really because of "reasons" with nothing to back it up. Sounds more like a belief system than science.

In other words following the science to reach a conclusion based on some other random outside thing that may or may not be associated to the matter at hand and may or may not happen.

That pretty much sums it up. And people stay up till all hours here defending this stuff. Something wrong there!

rolling boh

Unfortunately anytime something looks positive we have experts on to dampen things so we will be encouraged to remain at level 5 for as long as possible.

JRant

the kelt wrote: »

In other words following the science to reach a conclusion based on some other random outside thing that may or may not be associated to the matter at hand and may or may not happen.

That pretty much sums it up. And people stay up till all hours here defending this stuff. Something wrong there!

As Malcolm Tucker would say "if you're expert doesn't agree with you, you're talking to the wrong expert".

TomSweeney

I see the media are loving the situation in Brazil, half of all serious cases are young people under 40 apparently ?

hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Seweryn

charlie14 wrote: »

TBH, I would have more faith in your calculations if you had not claimed the same for Sweden on another thread.

So that makes the numbers unfaithful then. Fair enough, I understand. The numbers are our national official numbers, I only added them together and compared...

I see these numbers in a positive way. There is no drama killer to worry about and never was. Or nowhere near they have been painting it...

ypres5

francogarbanzo wrote: »

We didn’t have four cases, we had four known cases. Regardless, how could we have “put out the fire and kept it out?”

By destituting ourselves by blockading ourselves off from the world and becoming Cuba with **** weather, which is essentially what zero covid would do to us. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves

Sharpyshoot

TomSweeney wrote: »

I see the media are loving the situation in Brazil, half of all serious cases are young people under 40 apparently ?

hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Nphet will be fattening on it. Scaring the country with it.

Chivito550

This whole thing about indoor things associated with outdoor activities is such a load of bollocks.

I ran the National Senior and National Masters track and field championships in Morton Stadium last September. All changing rooms were closed. The call room for athletes was outside under one of the stands. The indoor warm up track was closed. The clubhouse bar was closed. The only indoor thing open was the bloody jacks (the non changing room jacks) and they had portaloos too.

If athletics can manage that then I'm sure every other sport can.

JRant

Chivito550 wrote: »

This whole thing about indoor things associated with outdoor activities is such a load of bollocks.

I ran the National Senior and National Masters track and field championships in Morton Stadium last September. All changing rooms were closed. The call room for athletes was outside under one of the stands. The indoor warm up track was closed. The clubhouse bar was closed. The only indoor thing open was the bloody jacks.

If athletics can manage that then I'm sure every other sport can.

Of course they can and did do already. It's such an easy win for the government that I can't for the life of me understand the reluctance to do it. Instead, we are supposed to be greatful that a handful of intercounty players from each county can now resume training. It beggars belief and shows a complete lack of care from the government.

PintOfView

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Tell me again how this is about saving the healthcare system?

If you looked at the graph on that page you would be able to see one possibility for what would have happened in Ireland,
if we hadn't locked down,
or did a half hearted lockdown like in the US.

Can you not see that?

PintOfView

Seweryn wrote: »

So that makes the numbers unfaithful then. Fair enough, I understand. The numbers are our national official numbers, I only added them together and compared...

I see these numbers in a positive way. There is no drama killer to worry about and never was. Or nowhere near they have been painting it...

Aren't you ignoring one major factor here?
We have had restrictions of various levels for the past 12 months.
You are acting like, "there, that proves it was all nothing!!!"

Can you explain what you think would have happened if we hadn't locked down?
You have shown you can do a good job adding numbers up.
Now demonstrate you can draw sensible conclusions from those numbers, and their context!

Sobit1964

PintOfView wrote: »

Aren't you ignoring one major factor here?
We have had restrictions of various levels for the past 12 months.
You are acting like, "there, that proves it was all nothing!!!"

Can you explain what you think would have happened if we hadn't locked down?
You have shown you can do a good job adding numbers up.
Now demonstrate you can draw sensible conclusions from those numbers, and their context!

But I thought people were misbehaving and not taking the lockdown seriously leading to lots of death. Are you now starting to agree that the Irish have been very good at obeying lockdown rules?

PintOfView

Sobit1964 wrote: »

But I thought people were misbehaving and not taking the lockdown seriously leading to lots of death. Are you now starting to agree that the Irish have been very good at obeying lockdown rules?

I think it's pretty clear the vast majority have been observing the restrictions to a large degree.

the kelt

ypres5 wrote: »

By destituting ourselves by blockading ourselves off from the world and becoming Cuba with **** weather, which is essentially what zero covid would do to us. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves

Dont forget mandatory quarantine for EVERY country and the border with the north shut completely with exceptions for those working, sweet jesus!!! That was the approach to take according to this thread apparently when it came to zero Covid (im just laughing thinking of my own sis in law who lives down a boreen in Fermanagh where she is literally 50 yards inside the border of the North but kids go to school in the south, works in the south, etc etc)

Over 200 official border crossings, 11 of which run down the middle of the road, i mean we have section of the M1 where the traffic travelling one direction is in the north and the traffic travelling the other is in the south.

Meanwhile in the real world!

Sobit1964

PintOfView wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear the vast majority have been observing the restrictions to a large degree.

So we should expect contrarian posters to stop suggesting we all partied we went wild at Christmas?

Snooker Loopy

paddyisreal wrote: »

Go way with your righteous bull****. Move to China ffs and see how living under a totalitarian regime works out for you. No flouters over there.

You refuse to understand that your own position - that people should flout restrictions - is based on supposed "righteousness".

But also extreme selfishness.

Snooker Loopy

francogarbanzo wrote: »

We didn’t have four cases, we had four known cases. Regardless, how could we have “put out the fire and kept it out?”

What is clear is that we were at a situation where Covid spread had been reduced to a very level, a level where it could have been eliminated.

How? The same way other countries have done. This is not some abstract concept. There is lots of real world evidence that with the right decisions, suppression or elimination of Covid is possible.

questionmark?

Penfailed wrote: »

Yes. A holiday doesn't revolve around alcohol.

When you holiday in Ireland it helps!

Snooker Loopy

ypres5 wrote: »

By destituting ourselves by blockading ourselves off from the world and becoming Cuba with **** weather, which is essentially what zero covid would do to us. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves

Yeah, like South Korea and Taiwan and New Zealand have "destituted" themselves, oh wait...

Which of those countries has Ireland handled the pandemic better than?

Ireland, remember, having done the exact thing that youse lot wanted and opened up pubs etc. last summer.

Tenzor07

questionmark? wrote: »

When you holiday in Ireland it helps!

There's literally no point at all in a "holiday" in Ireland unless Pubs and restaurants are fully open, No Guinness = No Holiday... It's like going to Rome on a pilgrimage and not praying....

OwenM

ypres5 wrote: »

Don't let snooker see the parody of mcconkey, he's a real straight shooter according to him, his death toll estimate was only off by a few hundred thousand. And he's still humoured by the press to this day. What a laugh

Ah yes, the same guy who predicted 1000 deaths from swine flu and described it like four aircraft crashing into Dublin airport. 17 died. It seems even if you are not an epidemiologist your predictions can be out by several orders of magnitude and still be listened to.

Captain_Crash

PintOfView wrote: »

What do you make of the numbers?

I’ll give my interpretation of the numbers posted in that graph! Firstly I’ll preface that if we done nothing, I do believe that the numbers would be higher but not by that much!

What I see is a new virus hitting a naive* population just after a relatively quiet flu season! We had the initial impact which I think any new virus will have regardless of the time of year it hits. We also had less deaths in 2019 than the previous 4 years, so in essence, many of the people who may have normally died during a flu season didn’t and we’re the first ones taken out in April. It’s no surprise the demographic impacted the worst was the elderly, the very people who are at risk every year!

For want of a better word, it was a Swiss cheese model of several things lining up at once and creating a storm!

*medically naive, as in no previous immunity!