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

francogarbanzo

PintOfView wrote: »

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?

My point is, every time the relative non-lethality of Covid to the general population is brought up, someone says "Ahem, excuuuse me. You're missing the point. This is preventing the healthcare system from collapsing!"

But then when you point to the US as a place which had very little restrictions compared to ours (except for a few places [coincidentally, places which fared the worst in terms of outcomes so far]) and the healthcare system didn't collapse (ever, anywhere) - then it goes back to being about deaths from Covid.

Slippery stuff.

Snooker Loopy

OwenM wrote: »

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.

Another football pundit/tabloid journalism "gotcha", lowest common denominator post.

It's like somebody drink driving home from the pub, without a seat belt, getting home successfully, and then trying to vilify the person who warned them they shouldn't go drink driving without a seat belt.

"Sure I got home, it was grand, it's safe, everybody should do it!"

francogarbanzo

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

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.

No, really. How? How do you think we could we have eliminated the spread of Covid specifically in this country in July, or any other point last year?

MrMischief

https://www.thejournal.ie/cancer-risk-tests-waiting-times-ireland-report-5408625-Apr2021/

As pointed out many many times on this forum. When are the HSE/NPHET/Govt going to start providing daily updates on non-Covid deaths.

As a good pal of mine (she is on one of those dreaded waiting lists) wonders : if she is admitted to hospital for Covid could she be then assessed/treated for her cancer screening as she could be placed in the vulnerable bracket. I can't imagine (although I try) the feeling of fear/dread she has every single second of every day that passes with her and others like her are being ignored.

TomSweeney

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

Another football pundit/tabloid journalism "gotcha", lowest common denominator post.

It's like somebody drink driving home from the pub, without a seat belt, getting home successfully, and then trying to vilify the person who warned them they shouldn't go drink driving without a seat belt.

"Sure I got home, it was grand, it's safe, everybody should do it!"

Talk about pointing out straw-manning ... and then using an even worse example of straw-manning .... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

JeffKenna

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

Another football pundit/tabloid journalism "gotcha", lowest common denominator post.

It's like somebody drink driving home from the pub, without a seat belt, getting home successfully, and then trying to vilify the person who warned them they shouldn't go drink driving without a seat belt.

"Sure I got home, it was grand, it's safe, everybody should do it!"

What are you on about!

Snooker Loopy

francogarbanzo wrote: »

No, really. How? How do you think we could we have eliminated the spread of Covid specifically in this country in July, or any other point last year?

How you think lots of others successfully did it?

It seems your ideology and the ideology of most posters on this thread is that we should look at works elsewhere, and reject it out of hand.

Because pints.

JRant

Sobit1964 wrote: »

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

COVID loves a bunga bunga party.

Snooker Loopy

TomSweeney wrote: »

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

hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Well given that you claim that media are "loving" the situation in Brazil, I presume you'll have no problem in others claiming that you and others here loved the tragic situation we had in January.

I don't actually believe that, I'm just making a comparison based on the logic of your trash post.

francogarbanzo

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

How you think lots of others successfully did it?

It seems your ideology and the ideology of most posters on this thread is that we should look at works elsewhere, and reject it out of hand.

Because pints.

Aha, the "pints" dig. Haven't heard that one in a while.

OK, so you're saying we should do Zero Covid and we should do it "like other countries did" and nothing more specific than that.

That's not a very compelling argument.

Snooker Loopy

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I reckon he might be McConkey himself. Even the most ardent defenders of restrictions seem happy enough to accept that McConkey is full of shíte.

Far from it.

If you want to find somebody who is full of ****e look no further than Martin Feely.

So consistently wrong and harmful in his rhetoric and disinformation that he should never have a platform again.

Snooker Loopy

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Aha, the "pints" dig. Haven't heard that one in a while.

OK, so you're saying we should do Zero Covid and we should do it "like other countries did" and nothing more specific than that.

That's not a very compelling argument.

Did you want the pubs open last summer?

I bet you did, didn't you?

It's not a compelling argument at all to say that "other countries have successfully suppressed Covid, but we should NOT do that, we should let it run rampant".

And that appears to be your argument.

What are the pros of that argument?

TomSweeney

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

Well given that you claim that media are "loving" the situation in Brazil, I presume you'll have no problem in others claiming that you and others here loved the tragic situation we had in January.

I don't actually believe that, I'm just making a comparison based on the logic of your trash post.

My point is the media will use this to push fear, just because half of ICU cases in Brazil are people <40, does not mean that half of ALL people <40 that get covid will get a severe case.


Very important point there, which the media will leave out of course as they want to push the most fear and another reason to justify out of proportion restrictions.

Multipass

MrMischief wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/cancer-risk-tests-waiting-times-ireland-report-5408625-Apr2021/

As pointed out many many times on this forum. When are the HSE/NPHET/Govt going to start providing daily updates on non-Covid deaths.

As a good pal of mine (she is on one of those dreaded waiting lists) wonders : if she is admitted to hospital for Covid could she be then assessed/treated for her cancer screening as she could be placed in the vulnerable bracket. I can't imagine (although I try) the feeling of fear/dread she has every single second of every day that passes with her and others like her are being ignored.

It’s dreadful, and the truth is that the worried well who are fuelling this covid hysteria don’t give a damn, and never will. They’ve saved enough in lockdown to put themselves on the top vhi plans - they’ll be happy to skip the screening queues without one care for those on the public lists. Sure they’re ‘entitled’ to skip those queues.

Snooker Loopy

TomSweeney wrote: »

My point is the media will use this to push fear, just because half of ICU cases in Brazil are people <40, does not mean that half of ALL people <40 that get covid will get a severe case.


Very important point there, which the media will leave out of course as they want to push the most fear and another reason to justify out of proportion restrictions.

They're reporting what is happening.

But that's not good enough for you.

You've decided to believe it is a conspiracy.

And you want censorship.

OwenM

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

How you think lots of others successfully did it?

It seems your ideology and the ideology of most posters on this thread is that we should look at works elsewhere, and reject it out of hand.

Because pints.

You mean they are still trying to do it, they still have close borders, they still don't know if anything will be open during any given weekend, entire cities locked down with 24hrs notice. Elimination of an endemic contagious viral disease like this will take decades and it's only been done once in recorded history and that virus had very different properties then this one. Zerocovid won't happen before 2030 of at all.

I especially love ISAG's hashtag on their twitter account #wecanbezero - presumably taken from the David Bowie song 'We can be hero's" - anyone know the next line of the song? it's - "Just for one day....."

francogarbanzo

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

Did you want the pubs open last summer?

I bet you did, didn't you?

It's not a compelling argument at all to say that "other countries have successfully suppressed Covid, but we should NOT do that, we should let it run rampant".

And that appears to be your argument.

What are the pros of that argument?

So in summary. You wanted Zero Covid. You won't explain how we could have reached it here and instead you're throwing out all the dusty old strawmen like "pint guy" and "let it run rampant".

If your idea holds up to scrutiny, let it be scrutinised. How specifically could we have achieved (and maintained) Zero Covid in Ireland in July last year?

Snooker Loopy

OwenM wrote: »

You mean they are still trying to do it, they still have close borders, they still don't know if anything will be open during any given weekend, entire cities locked down with 24hrs notice. Elimination of an endemic contagious viral disease like this will take decades and it's only been done once in recorded history and that virus had very different properties then this one. Zerocovid won't happen before 2030 of at all.

I especially love ISAG's hashtag on their twitter account #wecanbezero - presumably taken from the David Bowie song 'We can be hero's" - anyone know the next line of the song? it's - "Just for one day....."

Are you seriously trying to claim you'd prefer Ireland's situation to the situations of South Korea, Taiwan or New Zealand?

Seriously?

Zero Covid is actually happening in lots of countries, in the real world.

But you claim otherwise.

Snooker Loopy

francogarbanzo wrote: »

So in summary. You wanted Zero Covid. You won't explain how we could have reached it here and instead you're throwing out all the dusty old strawmen like "pint guy" and "let it run rampant".

If your idea holds up to scrutiny, let it be scrutinised. How specifically could we have achieved (and maintained) Zero Covid in Ireland in July last year?

You achieve it by shutting borders, mandatory hotel quarantine and massively ramping up public health teams.

Lots of countries have actually done this but you claim they haven't.

In terms of scrutiny, normal life is all the scrutiny you need, and those countries are living it, SAFELY.

We aren't.

I asked you did want the pubs open last summer?

You haven't answered.

Why not?

These are not strawmen. The ideology of the majority of posters on this thread clearly is "I want me pints" and "let it run rampant". It's no deeper or more thoughtful than that. Own it.

TomSweeney

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

They're reporting what is happening.

But that's not good enough for you.

You've decided to believe it is a conspiracy.

And you want censorship.

What conspiracy ? , I don't want censorship, just honest reporting on the facts and not lying by omission

francogarbanzo

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

You achieve it by shutting borders, mandatory hotel quarantine and massively ramping up public health teams.

Lots of countries have actually done this but you claim they haven't.

In terms of scrutiny, normal life is all the scrutiny you need, and those countries are living it, SAFELY.

We aren't.

I asked you did want the pubs open last summer?

You haven't answered.

Why not?

These are not strawmen. The ideology of the majority of posters on this thread clearly is "I want me pints" and "let it run rampant". It's no deeper or more thoughtful than that. Own it.

Yes I want pubs open. I wanted them open last summer, I want them open now. You don't know anything about my "ideology". I also want, say, fishing shops open. Am I mad for fishing? Is my ideology just no deeper than "give me fishing!"

Thanks for at least answering the question about "how to Zero Covid," but to get more specific, can you talk about how we'd handle the border to the North?

JRant

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

You achieve it by shutting borders, mandatory hotel quarantine and massively ramping up public health teams.

Lots of countries have actually done this but you claim they haven't.

In terms of scrutiny, normal life is all the scrutiny you need, and those countries are living it, SAFELY.

We aren't.

I asked you did want the pubs open last summer?

You haven't answered.

Why not?

These are not strawmen. The ideology of the majority of posters on this thread clearly is "I want me pints" and "let it run rampant". It's no deeper or more thoughtful than that. Own it.

Straight out of the Thomas Ryan school of wishful thinking.

Can you give a couple of high level example to how we do any of this?

How is Ro-Ro freight managed?
How is the border with NI managed?

There are the 2 main items that need to be addressed so I assume you have some ideas as to how we implement it.

gozunda

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.

Well if someone really think that it's only "changing rooms" that are the problems you better get in to the lads in that study and tell them you have it all sorted

Btw do all outdoor activities have "changing rooms"? Never knew that. Thanks for the heads up there... :rolleyes:

And on that I believe what was said was Ed Lavelle a professor at Trinity College Dublin (who commented on the study) who said the "the big issue was not the outdoor activity, but what happened either side of it". You better let him know that in your qualified opinion that "only serves to muddy the waters."

That said as far as the study itself goes - we have a study that isn't worth its salt because it was undertaken when there was fek all "outdoor activities" taking place. So a bit difficult to determine if there was any transmission at that time. Bit like trying to do a tree survey survey whilst diving.

And before you start asking for an exhaustive list of activities happening in conjunction with outdoor activities for you to pick over. We're talking about a scenario where some or all restrictions are lifted. With that in mind - I'm sure you can think of at least a couple of activities which people engage in "either side" of whatever outdoor activity you can think of without prompting. Hint its not just "changing rooms"

arccosh

TomSweeney wrote: »

My point is the media will use this to push fear, just because half of ICU cases in Brazil are people <40, does not mean that half of ALL people <40 that get covid will get a severe case.


Very important point there, which the media will leave out of course as they want to push the most fear and another reason to justify out of proportion restrictions.

actual numbers give more context...

Brazil ICU beds = circa 36,000
40% = 14,400

Population = 200 mil

so, national average of 0.0072 % (or 7.2 in every 100,000 people) are under 40's are getting COVID and needing ICU.

doesn't seem so bad? Hold up for some more context..

Except for 20-30 age bracket Brazil and Ireland have similar age distributions (Ireland have more 30-40 yo's, Brazil have more 20-30 yo)

If you had similar ICU numbers in Ireland with the 0.0072%, that would be (taking population as 4.9 mil) 352 people....

Bearing in mind, the ICU bed count in Ireland hit it's (over?) 10 year high at 354 beds last year.....

that's a pretty grim figure for under 40 yo's...

That was a sledge hammer approach, with a bit more detail I'd say the number would be more realistically around the 200 mark, but still pretty grim.

That's not scaremongering, that's mathematics & statistics.

_Kaiser_

Snooker Loopy wrote: »

These are not strawmen. The ideology of the majority of posters on this thread clearly is "I want me pints" and "let it run rampant". It's no deeper or more thoughtful than that. Own it.

It's like the discussion level on this thread has rolled back 6 months!

Well I'll answer your question.. Pre-Covid I rarely went to the pub anymore. Aside from the fact that most of my mates are spread over half the country, it just doesn't do it for me these days unless maybe for a bit to eat as well.

But that doesn't make any difference to those whose livelihoods depend on that pub, or for whom who it represents an essential social outlet (particularly in rural areas).

As for the "let it run rampant" suggestion - not at all. Those who are ACTUALLY at risk should of course continue to be careful, take precautions, and be supported in doing so. But that, for the reasons I've outlined to you previously, can no longer be at the expense of the wellbeing of the vast majority, the national economy, or the country as a whole.

We can't continue put everything else on hold because some people MIGHT get sick or unfortunately die in a (taken in perspective) very small number of cases.

JRant

gozunda wrote: »

Well if someone really think that it's only "changing rooms" that are the problems you better get in to the lads in that study and tell them you have it all sorted

Btw do all outdoor activities have "changing rooms"? Never knew that. Thanks for the heads up there... :rolleyes:

And on that I believe what was said was Ed Lavelle a professor at Trinity College Dublin (who commented on the study) who said the "the big issue was not the outdoor activity, but what happened either side of it". You better let him know that in your qualified opinion that "only serves to muddy the waters."

That said as far as the study itself goes - we have a study that isn't worth its salt because it was undertaken when there was fek all "outdoor activities" taking place. So a bit difficult to determine if there was any transmission at that time. Bit like trying to do a tree survey survey whilst diving.

I have no issue with the limitations of the study being highlighted. The fact there may have been little outdoor activity during the study period is a valid observation if true. Let's not forget the virus was rampant at this time.
Lads like Colm Henry poo-pooing the study because stuff may happen either side of it is a problem though.

I don't need to be a professor in virology to know that indoor activity has a higher risk factor associated with it. I also don't need an army of professors to tell me how to live my life as if I'm a data point in one of their models. The risks are well highlighted now. What gives them the right to say someone can't go for a game of golf or play a match when it's been well established that outdoor risk is a fraction of indoor.

gozunda

rolling boh wrote: »

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.

A bit bizarre some seem ok with the opinions of some experts when they agree with them - but dislike those who they don't agree with - because they just want to "dampen things" and "to remain at level 5 for as long as possible"

Tsk those pesky experts eh :pac:

JRant

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's like the discussion level on this thread has rolled back 6 months!

Well I'll answer your question.. Pre-Covid I rarely went to the pub anymore. Aside from the fact that most of my mates are spread over half the country, it just doesn't do it for me these days unless maybe for a bit to eat as well.

But that doesn't make any difference to those whose livelihoods depend on that pub, or for whom who it represents an essential social outlet (particularly in rural areas).

As for the "let it run rampant" suggestion - not at all. Those who are ACTUALLY at risk should of course continue to be careful, take precautions, and be supported in doing so. But that, for the reasons I've outlined to you previously, can no longer be at the expense of the wellbeing of the vast majority, the national economy, or the country as a whole.

We can't continue put everything else on hold because some people MIGHT get sick or unfortunately die in a (taken in perspective) very small number of cases.

Isn't that part of the problem. We have a government that want to micromanage every aspect of our lives. The idea that consenting adults need government approval to meet a friend, return to the office, go on a holiday, leave your county, is quite frankly bizarre in the extreme.

There are risks associated in everything we do yet somehow the government know best and will manage that risk for us.

Snooker Loopy

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

As for the "let it run rampant" suggestion - not at all. Those who are ACTUALLY at risk should of course continue to be careful, take precautions, and be supported in doing so. But that, for the reasons I've outlined to you previously, can no longer be at the expense of the wellbeing of the vast majority, the national economy, or the country as a whole.

We can't continue put everything else on hold because some people MIGHT get sick or unfortunately die in a (taken in perspective) very small number of cases.

That's just rhetoric. It's not a plan. In practice what you say here is let it run rampant.

JRant

gozunda wrote: »

A bit bizarre some seem ok with the opinions of some experts when they agree with them - but dislike those who they don't agree with - because they just want to "dampen things" and "to remain at level 5 for as long as possible"

Tsk those pesky experts eh :pac:

Let's be clear, they are experts in a very narrow field of study. Being an expert is analysing a virus in a lab environment is brilliant but has very little to do with pandemic response at the population level.

The biggest mistake made in this entire thing was Leo bringing NPHET in the lead the effort. It should have been left to the strategic emergency planning task force. They are experts in planning inter-departmental responses and would have called in the relevant experts to assist in the response. They also have frameworks in place to make planning between different departments a lot easier. What we were given was a cohort of HSE management, professors, and career civil servants with a very narrow remit.