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

Boggles

timmyntc wrote: »

Too small a sample

I'll size it by 200%

charlie14

Bridge93 wrote: »

Well at this stage the alternative to more bins and toilets isn't crowds won't meet or gather. It's a repeat of what happened at the weekend. Cutting your nose to spite your face is not going to be helpful to anyone.
It's just more proof of how detached from reality those in charge are. Are they totally incapable of accepting the realities of the situation? Yes its not ideal but its happening whether they like it or not and will continue.
All the tut tutting and scolding won't make people change their behaviour. The horse has bolted and people are done with this. Accepting the realities and approaching them with pretty obvious solutions suits all best rather than blindly thinking people give a fcuk what they say anymore or will listen.

Some might see it as rewarding misbehaviour but sure I thought the ultimate aim was keeping everyone safe? If its going to happen either way surely the safest thing is give the basic facilities the city should have had even before Covid-19

So basically you believe that the authorities are being irresponsible by not providing toilets and bins to facilitate people who blatantly refused to act in the responsible manner they asked off them in the first place.
Restrictions or no restrictions the manner in which some acted on Saturday night is not acceptable.
That should be the message, rather than some of the BS here that facilities should be provided because some behave to irresponsibly to even gather up their own rubbish.
Should we just cover the cities and countryside with toilets and bins on that basis ?

timmyntc

Boggles wrote: »

I'll size it by 200%

:pac:
100% actually, boyo on the left is wearing a mask and his interesting poster has no mention of a failure to engage with test & trace. Only that old biddy on the right.

Anyways its kind of redundant - using a few cherry picked stills to try and ascribe a set of views to a whole group - isn't that the definition of stereotyping?

Boggles

timmyntc wrote: »

Anyways its kind of redundant - using a few cherry picked stills to try and ascribe a set of views to a whole group - isn't that the definition of stereotyping?

It was an antivax rally, not a Duran Duran concert.

_Kaiser_

Graham wrote: »

I know, look at the UK. No threat of another wave at all.

Oh wait.

And in an environment where those who are actually at potential significant risk have been vaccinated, I say so what.

Likewise here we have the elderly and high risk almost fully vaccinated and are working through the 40-somethings at the moment. The vaccines are effective against "de variants" too!

Ever heard the phrase - a difference that makes no difference, IS no difference? Because it would definitely seem to apply here.

Graham

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And in an environment where those who are actually at potential significant risk have been vaccinated, I say so what.

Likewise here we have the elderly and high risk almost fully vaccinated and are working through the 40-somethings at the moment.

Ever heard the phrase - a difference that makes no difference, IS no difference? Because it would definitely seem to apply here.

Recent surge in Limerick sees most hospital admission in their 40s.

That sounds pretty 'different' to me.

VinLieger

Graham wrote: »

Recent surge in Limerick sees most hospital admission in their 40s.

That sounds pretty 'different' to me.

So the oldest age group that hasn't been vaccinated are the ones ending up in hospital, colour me shocked.....

_Kaiser_

Graham wrote: »

Recent surge in Limerick sees most hospital admission in their 40s.

That sounds pretty 'different' to me.

Ah we're back to cases and admissions as a core metric are we?

How many of those are in ICU or actually seriously ill? What's the outcome of those instances?

As I've said from the start, THOSE are your important metrics that tell how we're actually doing.

Graham

VinLieger wrote: »

So the oldest age group that hasn't been vaccinated are the ones ending up in hospital, colour me shocked.....

Obviously is a shock to some of the regulars here who have convinced themselves that it's only 90 year olds that face any risk.

Tchaikovsky

So the clown from Dublin City Council is saying that providing more bins and toilets will lead to more people going in to the city, so they won't provide them. Dafuq???

Graham

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Ah we're back to cases and admissions as a core metric are we?

Who said that? Did you imagine it?

Suddenly a fairly new cohort are being hospitalised but you think we should pretend it can safely be ignored?

Ballynally

Graham wrote: »

I know, look at the UK. No threat of another wave at all.

Oh wait.

Well, if you look closely what you see is high numbers of unvaccinated people in a certain areas and sections of society with a higher concentration of people indoors in the same premise.They are the ones ending up in hospitals. Even though the Indian variant IS spreading and is likely to take over you can hardly call it a wave if the numbers stay low, vaccinations continuing and only slight rizes in hospital admissions. It is a concern but people are beginning to be more positive about the more data comes in. The authorities, healthboards are monotoring it but are optimistic the longer this slow spread continues.They still warn people but it is less in your face in the UK compared to Ireland.
Ireland's India variant numbers have also not continue to spike the way they feared. The vaccines do help a great deal.
Younger, unvaccinated people are a prime target for the variant. So far it is not looking too badly..

Graham

Ballynally wrote: »

Well, if you look closely what you see is high numbers of unvaccinated people in a certain areas and sections of society with a higher concentration of people indoors in the same premise.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to that research.

Or are you suggesting we should hold off on indoor dining/drinking/hospitality?

_Kaiser_

Graham wrote: »

Who said that? Did you imagine it?

Suddenly a fairly new cohort are being hospitalised but you think we should pretend it can safely be ignored?

Again.. hospitalisations do not necessarily track into significant illness.

A GP will often send someone to hospital as a precaution or because they're not equipped to deal with it. This was/is the case before Covid too.

How many of those admissions are seriously sick?
How many are in ICU?
How many recover just fine vs those who don't?
What does that trend look like?

Those are the ways we'll be able to tell if there's anything to be concerned about.

timmyntc

Boggles wrote: »

It was an antivax rally, not a Duran Duran concert.

Anti lockdown no?

And even if it was anti-vaccines, that doesnt mean that all the participants "don't believe in covid" or would refuse to engage with test & trace. As I've said before, using a few images of a handful of people to try and attribute views to the majority is just baseless stereotyping.

timmyntc

Graham wrote: »

Who said that? Did you imagine it?

Suddenly a fairly new cohort are being hospitalised but you think we should pretend it can safely be ignored?

That same cohort are being hospitalised at the same predicted rate as before - the difference is that the vaccines have reduced hospitalisation for the older age groups.

The proportions have changed, the absolute numbers not so much.

VinLieger

Graham wrote: »

Who said that? Did you imagine it?

Suddenly a fairly new cohort are being hospitalised but you think we should pretend it can safely be ignored?

Its not a fairly new cohort, just a higher percentage of the very low number of hospitalisations are from that cohort because again they are the eldest age group that have yet to be vaccinated.

Graham

VinLieger wrote: »

Its not a fairly new cohort, just a higher percentage of the very low number of hospitalisations are from that cohort because again they are the eldest age group that have yet to be vaccinated.

So reopening in stages to assess the impact would probably be sensible.

Boggles

timmyntc wrote: »

Anti lockdown no?

And even if it was anti-vaccines, that doesnt mean that all the participants "don't believe in covid" or would refuse to engage with test & trace. As I've said before, using a few images of a handful of people to try and attribute views to the majority is just baseless stereotyping.

I couldn't find any banners stating they would definitely engage with public health.

But if you want to die on the hill defending antivaxers, that's up to you.

More suited to the vaccine thread I'd suggest.

gozunda

Stormyteacup wrote: »

If there is no spike in cases following this weekend (I guess you would expect to see by the end of next week, which would be too early to assign to outdoor dining recommencing), then what would the reason be for not seeing a spike?

It might be a line of thought that if you’re that reckless with health of others you may not get tested, but surely there would be onwards spread to friends and family.

Maybe there will be a spike but if not - will that be evidence enough that mass outdoor gatherings do not cause a surge in cases?

Ok

Other relative factors are

How many were involved in the mass street party?

As you detail - will people get tested and if they give it to someone else - will they even know?

How many infections if any can be attributed to said street party rather than the current and ongoing relaxation of restrictions?

The fact is we are unlikely to ever find out unless we have a managed track and trace on all those who attended. And thats not going to happen.

What we do know is that those type of unorganised events with no controls or management are exactly the kind of thing that go against public health advisories at this point in time.

Outdoor pub service is open in less than a week yet we have those jumping up and down and screaming that those there are absolutely right to do what they like. Thing is that's not going to change regardless.

TomSweeney

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I was feeling upbeat prior to the weekend but that ****ing Indian variant in the UK and the far less confidence that government seem to have about their reopening isn’t helping me stay as upbeat as I was. The first headline on the news on the radio yesterday at 1pm was “dark clouds in UK reopening” and I turned the radio off.

Also, yes are there enough bins and the like in Dublin City, or in any city in Ireland ? Probably not but I don’t understand how people seem to be absolving people of making a mess by just dumping their rubbish on the street. That wasn’t okay pre Covid and it’s not okay now. What happened to personal responsibility ?

Don't let the variants bother you, there will always be variants, the cases will rise every few months or so as this is endemic, the vaccines work against the variants so case numbers at this stage are essentially meaningless.


criminal sociopaths want this to go on and on so they are clinging on to the "cases" approach, media are loving the click bait so it's in their interest too to keep it going.


Reality is we are on our way out of this.

timmyntc

gozunda wrote: »

Ok

Other relative factors are

How many were involved in the mass street party?

As you detail - will people get tested and if they give it to someone else - will they even know?

How many infections if any can be attributed to said street party rather than the current and ongoing relaxation of restrictions?

The fact is we are unlikely to ever find out unless we have a managed track and trace on all those who attended. And thats not going to happen.

What we do know is that those type of unorganised events with no controls or management are exactly the kind of thing that go against public health advisories at this point in time.

Outdoor pub service is open in less than a week yet we have those jumping up and down and screaming that those there are absolutely right to do what they like. Thing is that's not going to change regardless.

None of that matters - the poster just mentioned a surge in cases.
Test & trace dont have to figure out where it came from, just if theres a surge.

If there isnt a surge in the next week or two, its safe to say the gathering had a negligible impact on cases.

VinLieger

Graham wrote: »

So reopening in stages to assess the impact would probably be sensible.

Why? The numbers being hospitalised has gone down and again the only difference is the overall percentage makeup of those hospitalisations is in a range of ages that has not been vaccinated and the more we move through the age groups the less likely serious infections are anyway.

charlie14

Ballynally wrote: »

The trouble is that the model to establish infection rates is an outdated one. After the many protests last year plus illegal outdoor gatherings there has been NO evidence of higher infection rates in those circumstances.
A crowd might be close together but in order to pick up an infection there has to be zero ventilation so the viral load can build up over time. THEN it spreads.
Outdoors there is almost no instance of a closed off area, even in poorly ventilated smoke areas. It just does not build up. And surface spread is also negligable.
Even Luke o Neill is holding on to the old assumptions that can be dismissed now. I think he is aware of it but continues just the same. It is to keep the fear factor alive which they hope will result in more cautious behaviour until we get more people vaccinated.
That is all it is.
It is my assumption that the infection rates will go up with less restrictions but hospital nrs will stay on par or slightly up.ie, the link has been broken.
All easy to manage.Summer is here. Dont get your knickers in a twist, especially outdoors with onlookers..

How many people who attended illegal outdoor gatherings would you reckon who did not need to be hospitalised due to having subsequently contracted the virus would have listed the possibility of an illegal gathering even if they had gone for a test ? Very few I would imagine.
The other thing that has mystified me for some time is if all transmissions are from indoor setting, why have so many confirmed cases been listed as community transmission, especially during lockdown.

I agree that the chances of becoming infected outdoors is much less than indoors, but that is in well ventilated situations without close contact where people coughing, sneezing or shouting in somebodies face can cause transmission. I would not look at those scenes on Saturday night as being that.
Same as I would not look on Trump`s White House Rose Garden event that became a super spreader from all the confirmed cases of those attending as being sheer coincidence.

Safe to say I imagine that the vast majority of those gathered on Saturday night have not received even a first dose vaccination. My assumption would be if they acted in a responsible manner until they do then there would be little or none chances of hospital transmissions going up.

TomSweeney

showpony1 wrote: »

So government are saying that if people Piss, litter etc in the streets and there is no rise in cases they will lock us down cause they don't like it.

As this would be saying that lockdown is a measure they are now allowed utilise in non-covid related circumstances as they see fit.

Exactly as predicted by many of us on here, get ready for lockdowns in years to come just for regular flu seasons - to protect the health service of course.


and just wait till you see the people loving it and accepting it, at home wearing their masks.


"Following the Science" .. and "keeping everyone safe" :rolleyes:

darconio

Our antibodies were wrapped in cotton wool for the past 6 months, no close contact, everything surgically sterilised, hand sanitiser, of course as soon as people gathered their immune system became vulnerable to any type of virus/bacteria. In addition a large majority of the population is now overweight : the way I see it all this was brought by the prolonged lockdown.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

Recent surge in Limerick sees most hospital admission in their 40s.

That sounds pretty 'different' to me.

Read an article recently from an ICU doctor in Sweden.
Sweden are at the same level of vaccinations as we are, but up to a short time ago were registering 7-8K new daily cases with close to 2K hospitalised and over 400 in ICU. This particular doctor said the hospitalised were those in the younger age groups not vaccinated and for the first time many cases had to be admitted directly to ICU.

Graham

VinLieger wrote: »

the more we move through the age groups the less likely serious infections are anyway.

That must be it, less serious hospitalisations.

timmyntc

charlie14 wrote: »

The other thing that has mystified me for some time is if all transmissions are from indoor setting, why have so many confirmed cases been listed as community transmission, especially during lockdown.

Community transmission is what contact tracers label a case when they dont know the source of transmission. They couldnt figure out what close contact gave it to them, so they'll just say it came from the community. Thats how it works.

"Community transmission" could mean you got it from someone asymptomatic. They never tested positive because they never needed a test, and by the time you name them as a close contact and they get a test on referral, they have already cleared the virus from their system.

In addition, contact tracers here only ask for close contacts in the last 48hrs from when you test positive - so you could get the virus from someone a week ago, and by the time you test positive they are no longer a "close contact".

It's very unlikely people are picking it up on a walk outdoors or something.

VinLieger

Graham wrote: »

That must be it, less serious hospitalisations.

Did i say that? No i said less serious infections, stop trying to straw man this.