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

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

Maybe you are correct, he is just wrong...but he is considered a leading expert in epidemiology.

Who has been universally wrong about a once in a generation pandemic and continues to double down.

If he was as "expert" as you claim, surely this period was his time to shine?

Would you not of thought so?

TBF far more decorated individuals than him jumped the fence too.

Silentcorner

Boggles wrote: »

Who has been universally wrong about a once in a generation pandemic and continues to double down.

If he was as "expert" as you claim, surely this period was his time to shine?

Would you not of thought so?

TBF far more decorated individuals than him jumped the fence too.

And yet you never answered the question I have asked on this thread on at least a half a dozen occasions....name one leading expert in this country, who has been given airtime on National Media who has been accurate in their predictions, and NOBODY could name one....you'd have thought it was their time to shine wouldn't you?

Maybe you will now, name one Irish expert who has proven to be accurate in their predictions?

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

And yet you never answered the question I have asked on this thread on at least a half a dozen occasions....name one leading expert in this country, who has been given airtime on National Media who has been accurate in their predictions, and NOBODY could name one....you'd have thought it was their time to shine wouldn't you?

Maybe you will now, name one Irish expert who has proven to be accurate in their predictions?

So who accept he was talking absolute scutter and was in all likelyhood rewarded some way for doing it?

There is no way he fúcked away his reputation and embarrassed himself for nothing, would you agree?

As for Irish "experts" who? Which ones were 'cooking the books' trying to get a lot of people sick and dead?

I thought we universally decided these absolute cretins were to be ignored last year?

Amazing they are still cited.

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

I wasn't really mocking you TBF, it was a joke, but I'm glad you agree it was vague.





The Department of Health publish NPHETs advice which includes a series of modelling for various scenarios.

Cabinet is first to get it (then it's leaked) and they form their decisions based on that.

NPHETs advice is based on a remit given to them by Government.

The main priorities are Health, Education and Child Care.

If Cabinet told NPHET the remit has been changed to "open the pubs" then NPHET would be obliged to formulate advice around that, I imagine the current remit would slip down the list.

Your rationale for opening the pubs, which would include a lot more than pubs in reality is basically, shure it will be grand.

People tasked with making the decisions quite rightly have to work off a higher bar.

I note that you have outlined the governance process, which is all very interesting, but not metrics. Could you please explain to me the evidence that sets out that reopening pubs now would bring about a scenario of mass death and an overwhelmed health service (the risk scenario on which closing them was based)?

If the threshold for risk is lower than that, then please explain to me what extent opening pubs now would upset the process?

Or ...dare I say...is it all a bit arbitrary and, well, vague?

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I note that you have outlined the governance process, which is all very interesting, but not metrics. Could you please explain to me the evidence that sets out that reopening pubs now would bring about a scenario of mass death and an overwhelmed health service (the risk scenario on which closing them was based)?

If the threshold for risk is lower than that, then please explain to me what extent opening pubs now would upset the process?

Or ...dare I say...is it all a bit arbitrary and, well, vague?

Huh?

I know you like to see everything in Black/White, Yes/No.

But I just clearly explained to you the remit given to NPHET by governance.

But you are still banging the only metric is 'mass death.'

At this stage I don't really know how I can explain it further.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Maybe you are correct, he is just wrong...but he is considered a leading expert in epidemiology.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892/en/

It's not easy to understand the language in the study, but he does make a his case.

Trouble is that study is 12 months old, and subsequent data has deemed the data incorrect.

The best characteristic in any expert is t acknowledge when their theory developed in good faith had been demonstrated incorrect.

What a lot of those who downplayed the impact in spring last year, postulating very low death rates and early herd immunity, have subsequently done is go to ground (Levitt) or explain why they were right along through complex mental gymnastics. Ionnidis appears to fall into this second bucket. Doesn't make him a grifter or a bad scientist. Just was wrong. His stock in trade is pointing out where other scientists have been wrong, but seems to think that this means he cannot be wrong which is not an admirable trait. I would say there is not a single scientist of merit who has not at some stage being profoundly incorrect on at least one subject.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Trouble is that study is 12 months old, and subsequent data has deemed the data incorrect.

The best characteristic in any expert is t acknowledge when their theory developed in good faith had been demonstrated incorrect.

What a lot of those who downplayed the impact in spring last year, postulating very low death rates and early herd immunity, have subsequently done is go to ground (Levitt) or explain why they were right along through complex mental gymnastics. Ionnidis appears to fall into this second bucket. Doesn't make him a grifter or a bad scientist. Just was wrong. His stock in trade is pointing out where other scientists have been wrong, but seems to think that this means he cannot be wrong which is not an admirable trait. I would say there is not a single scientist of merit who has not at some stage being profoundly incorrect on at least one subject.

Indeed scientists are wrong all the time, the best ones admit it.

But Ioannidis gets held to a higher standard, he made his name on the back of calling out confirmation bias in published studies.

But he couldn't get on Fox News quick enough with his.

Gloating he got Trump to change tactic, which of course ended up in 4-5 million hospitalized and 600,000 dead.

Of course that is not all down to Ioannidis, but it is hard to believe he didn't know exactly what he was doing considering the Donald based most of his policy on whatever was blurted on Fox & Friends.

It may never come out, but quite a few "academics" whether through political leanings, reward, lunacy, jealousy or a combination of all 4 completely fúcked their reputations in the bin.

gozunda

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I note that you have outlined the governance process, which is all very interesting, but not metrics. Could you please explain to me the evidence that sets out that reopening pubs now would bring about a scenario of mass death and an overwhelmed health service (the risk scenario on which closing them was based)?

If the threshold for risk is lower than that, then please explain to me what extent opening pubs now would upset the process?

Or ...dare I say...is it all a bit arbitrary and, well, vague?

Surely not this nonsense again?

Please link the source document detailing pubs to be closed with regard to "mass death and an overwhelmed health service"

Thanks.

Sham McDonkey on his usual campaign of uninformed terror: "We really don't want vaccinated people travelling to the UK...variants of concern in the community...are real human beings truly safe against Covid"

Desperation creeping into his voice, he's on the verge of a losing a handy sideline on national radio. Been profiting from the misery of others long enough, when his microphone is severed he deserves to be cast to the margins of society. An irresponsible muppet forecasting 120,000 deaths should have ridicule trailing after him for years.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Sham McDonkey on his usual campaign of uninformed terror: "We really don't want vaccinated people travelling to the UK...variants of concern in the community...are real human beings truly safe against Covid"

Desperation creeping into his voice, he's on the verge of a losing a handy sideline on national radio. Been profiting from the misery of others long enough, when his microphone is severed he deserves to be cast to the margins of society. An irresponsible muppet forecasting 120,000 deaths should have ridicule trailing after him for years.

The only time I even hear him referenced is on this thread.

Go figure.

Boggles

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Not that I agree with the idea of not allowing vaccinated people to travel, but he has something of a point regarding the UK which nicely shows up how erratic Ireland’s stance on travel is. We have plenty of talk about creating a travel bubble with the UK, despite the fact they have the Indian variant - a variant of concern. Meanwhile, one of the criteria for adding a country to the MHQ list is the presence of variants of concern.

TBF the UK will have the vast majority of their populous vaccinated by then.

We also share an island with them and are intertwined more than any other country on the planet.

That's before we even consider the fact that around 4 million of our tourists come from their annually.

It's not like we are sending Bord Failte to New Delhi, whatever happens in the UK will invariably (good or bad) happen here regardless.

The main purpose of MHQ is to stop 50,000 "essential workers" piling through our airports weekly, it's worked.

shocksy

How stupid was it of NPHET and the government to open up hotels on June 2nd which have leisure facilities but not allow them to open up their own such facilities. They could have allowed them open those facilities for guests only. I think it's completely stupid. What difference would the extra 5 days make? None whatsoever that's what. However it's safe to reopen them on June 7th? The "Path Ahead" has some serious flaws which are proper head scratchers, not that it surprises me with that shower anyway. Absolutely ridiculous carry on.

MOH

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I note that you have outlined the governance process, which is all very interesting, but not metrics. Could you please explain to me the evidence that sets out that reopening pubs now would bring about a scenario of mass death and an overwhelmed health service (the risk scenario on which closing them was based)?

If the threshold for risk is lower than that, then please explain to me what extent opening pubs now would upset the process?

Or ...dare I say...is it all a bit arbitrary and, well, vague?

It's quite simple. The virus loves alcohol.

That's the real reason Portobello square is closed this weekend, the virus has been drinking loads of alcohol but not tidying up after itself.

If we clamp down on outdoor drinking, and keep all the pubs closed, the virus will have to sneak into the pubs seeking the alcohol it craves. Then we can corner it and burn it to death with flamethrowers, and burn down the pubs just to be safe.

Then we can build a statue of St Tony driving the twin snakes of covid and alcohol out of the country, and make him our new patron saint.

That might not be 100% exact, but I'm fairly sure the logic is something along those lines

TrangiaCoffee

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Every day.

I start about 6am and work until late with emails etc, I’m contactable all weekend by my employer

I’m employed by a Multinational

I’m part of a squeezed middle income that will pay most for this I don’t mind to admit

Heard the south Mayo Sinn Feinner on the radio this morning, newstalk I think

The car was lucky it didn’t get set on fire to cure the noise

Fair play to that Sinn Fein member for being available for radio before 6am. If only government ministers had same initiative.

Silentcorner

Boggles wrote: »

The only time I even hear him referenced is on this thread.

Go figure.

He is a household name.

He didn't get that through repeated references on this thread.

Boggles

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

As will the US, yet they're still on our MHQ list and we have Leo talking about no normal travel there until next year.



We're EU members, they aren't, yet we're going to have less restrictions on the UK than we are on other EU countries. We also managed to have restrictions within the country for months. Degree of interconnection doesn't come into it.



How many of our tourists come from the EU or the US?



Whatever happens anywhere will happen here regardless eventually. We simply aren't in a position to seal off our borders to the extent required to keep variants out.



There are other ways of doing that. For example requiring proof of journey being essential. It wouldn't be perfect, but neither is MHQ.

FWIW I'm not all that opposed to MHQ as long as it fecks off in the summer, it's the possibility of it being extended that concerns me.

From memory I posted before.

Our tourist breakdown is 80% UK and Europe, 15% US and Canada and the rest all over the world.

MHQ is there to deter visitors so we can get a population vaccinated.

Next month will see digital certs rolled out in the EU, UK.

As for the US right now, I don't think you can travel there from Ireland unless you are citizen or have a very limited reason for doing so.

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

He is a household name.

He didn't get that through repeated references on this thread.

Whatever he is, it doesn't negate my point.

The only time I hear about him is on this thread.

Nobody important is listening to him.

Apart from the people on here who claim never to listen to Irish media but are always there to post their outrage when he appears.

Also does he get paid for a radio interview, or is that just another falsehood to get more outraged over?

Boggles

shocksy wrote: »

How stupid was it of NPHET and the government to open up hotels on June 2nd which have leisure facilities but not allow them to open up their own such facilities. They could have allowed them open those facilities for guests only. I think it's completely stupid. What difference would the extra 5 days make? None whatsoever that's what. However it's safe to reopen them on June 7th? The "Path Ahead" has some serious flaws which are proper head scratchers, not that it surprises me with that shower anyway. Absolutely ridiculous carry on.

The government brought hotels, B&Bs and guesthouses forward to June 2nd.

Nothing to do with NPHET.

Boggles

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Fair enough, I didn't realise that many of our tourists came from the UK.

I understand what MHQ is there for. I don't understand the justification behind keeping certain countries on it, particularly when we are talking about opening with no restrictions from the UK.

Because having tough restrictions with a country that we share an invisible border with is impossible, they are also world leaders in vaccination roll out.

I have absolutely no doubt in some parallel universe the North didn't exist we would have fared far better than we did, but now we can use it to your advantage.

Also we are not in Schengen area, we might as well also use it to our advantage.

I can guarantee you if the likes of Germany was an island on the outskirts of Europe, there would not have been many on our off it in the past 14 months.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Trouble is that study is 12 months old, and subsequent data has deemed the data incorrect.

The best characteristic in any expert is t acknowledge when their theory developed in good faith had been demonstrated incorrect.

What a lot of those who downplayed the impact in spring last year, postulating very low death rates and early herd immunity, have subsequently done is go to ground (Levitt) or explain why they were right along through complex mental gymnastics. Ionnidis appears to fall into this second bucket. Doesn't make him a grifter or a bad scientist. Just was wrong. His stock in trade is pointing out where other scientists have been wrong, but seems to think that this means he cannot be wrong which is not an admirable trait. I would say there is not a single scientist of merit who has not at some stage being profoundly incorrect on at least one subject.

I do take your point to be fair, I can understand how an honest broker can be incorrect for a myriad of reasons.

The study was published in Sept of last year, I would content however that the virus hasn't gotten any deadlier since that first wave...unless there is a study out there I haven't seen that suggests otherwise.

normanoffside

Independent reporting that Portugal has extended it's 'lockdown' even though they re not in lockdown and everything including indoor hospitality, cinemas, theatres etc are open.

Why would they do that? To convince us that everywhere in Europe in the same as Ireland?

https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1393098863330971649

charlie14

Silentcorner wrote: »

Just so people know, he is referring to John Ioannidis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

Essentially, your position is that anybody who doesn't advocate hard lock downs is probably a grifter.

Bear in mind there is a world of difference between hard lock downs and a proportionate response imposing as few restrictions on society as is possible.

We were not discussing the varying degrees of lockdown that have ben used during this pandemic. We were discussing naturally acquired herd immunity of which your hero John Ioannidis is a cheerleader for.

I did warn you about being careful with those that had all the easy answers.
Johan Giesecke who I mentioned is as prominent in the field of epidemiology as John Ioannidis, more-so even, but that does not mean he has not shown himself to be, to use your own term, an unethical grifter.
Being an unethical grifter need not simply be to do with financial reward, (but with the Great Barrington Declaration and the American Institute of Economic Research and Ioannidis with Jet Blue there is a bit of a whiff),it can also be a craving for the limelight.

The Ioannidis study findings of April 2020 "Covid-19 Antibody Seroprevalence In Santa Clara County California" show how dangerous this guesswork of natural herd immunity dressed up as science is with the assertion that infections are between 50 - 80 times greater than the official count.
At the lower end of the scale it would leave Ireland with over 250K confirmed infection having 12.5 Million infected, 2.5 times more than our actual population and well past the herd immunity threshold. The same would apply for virtually every country on the planet at this stage.
Manaus though they had achieved it with not a figure of 5000% - 8000% based on their antibody seroprevalence data but just 50% and they were wrong.

You keep calling the theory of natural herd immunity "the science". There is no science to support the theory. "The science" from one of its chief proponents Ioannidis, actually shows it as the dangerous load of bunkum it is.

Silentcorner

charlie14 wrote: »

We were not discussing the varying degrees of lockdown that have ben used during this pandemic. We were discussing naturally acquired herd immunity of which your hero John Ioannidis is a cheerleader for.


You keep calling the theory of natural herd immunity "the science". There is no science to support the theory. "The science" from one of its chief proponents Ioannidis, actually shows it as the dangerous load of bunkum it is.

Ah will you grow up.

You keep misinterpreting me, or misrepresenting me I don't know which...

People who are vocal opponents of hard lock downs are also advocating for proportional restrictions....

normanoffside

normanoffside wrote: »

Independent reporting that Portugal has extended it's 'lockdown' even though they re not in lockdown and everything including indoor hospitality, cinemas, theatres etc are open.

Why would they do that? To convince us that everywhere in Europe in the same as Ireland?

https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1393098863330971649

Anything to portray Ireland's conservative and sluggish re-opening schedule in a positive light, printing outright lies that Portugal is technically in lockdown. Chalk and cheese, Ireland months behind with respect to easing of restrictions in certain sectors. Champions League final going ahead two weeks from now in Porto, thousands of fans allowed entry. Here we "might have a crowd test by July". The Independent has become nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the government.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

Champions League final going ahead two weeks from now in Porto, thousands of fans allowed entry. Here we "might have a crowd test by July".

Yeah, Portugal sounds wide open for the football alright. :rolleyes:

Did you even read the article?

a series of restrictions to British fans would apply.

As well as the limit on ticket sales, fans will have to fly in on charter planes, arriving and leaving “on the same day”, the BBC said.

Ms Vieira da Silva described the plans as “a bubble situation”, with fans passing through a separate zone at the airport and needing a negative coronavirus test before travelling.

M_Murphy57

normanoffside wrote: »

Independent reporting that Portugal has extended it's 'lockdown' even though they re not in lockdown and everything including indoor hospitality, cinemas, theatres etc are open.

Why would they do that? To convince us that everywhere in Europe in the same as Ireland?

https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1393098863330971649

Portugal just announced they are welcoming UK visitors again and it was the only sunny place on the UK greenlist. Maybe it's to frighten Paddy out of thinking about schnakin' off to the sun via the backdoor in Belfast now ROI-Belfast/UK-Portugal is a legal route or about to be legal in coming days

charlie14

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ah will you grow up.

You keep misinterpreting me, or misrepresenting me I don't know which...

People who are vocal opponents of hard lock downs are also advocating for proportional restrictions....

You have been on here pushing the Great Barrington Declaration and John Ioannidis`s theories on natural herd immunity as science, when simple mathematics on Ioannidis`s own study shows it for the complete load of groundless nonsense it is.
Now its honest brokers making mistakes. Have any of these honest brokers held their hands up and admitted they made a mistake for peddling this dangerous unethical rubbish, or you for doing the same ?......and I`m the one that needs to grow up.

Graham

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Portugal just announced they are welcoming UK visitors again and it was the only sunny place on the UK greenlist. Maybe it's to frighten Paddy out of thinking about schnakin' off to the sun via the backdoor in Belfast now ROI-Belfast/UK-Portugal is a legal route or about to be legal in coming days

Surely the more important question would be are Portugal permitting Irish residents to travel for non-essential purposes whatever route they chose to take.

shocksy

Boggles wrote: »

The government brought hotels, B&Bs and guesthouses forward to June 2nd.

Nothing to do with NPHET.

Well regardless of your concern to seek out a technicality in my post, my point remains. They're just as clueless as ever. They really are making clueless decisions and an actual laughing stock.

Silentcorner

charlie14 wrote: »

You have been on here pushing the Great Barrington Declaration and John Ioannidis`s theories on natural herd immunity as science, when simple mathematics on Ioannidis`s own study shows it for the complete load of groundless nonsense it is.
Now its honest brokers making mistakes. Have any of these honest brokers held their hands up and admitted they made a mistake for peddling this dangerous unethical rubbish, or you for doing the same ?......and I`m the one that needs to grow up.

You have proven yourself to be disingenuous time and time again, I blame myself for entertaining you....