Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

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

111141115111611181120

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,424 ✭✭✭ MOH



    In July 2020, Cillian de Gascun, when specifically asked on Newstalk about the prospect of restrictions returning, lied about our testing and tracing infrastructure to imply that nationwide restrictions would not return.

    And you can't argue that the man spoke the absolute truth. Oh....



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,602 ✭✭✭ Goldengirl


    By your own admission you don't agree with vaccines and is it possible that you in fact have gone down that particular rabbit hole so far yourself that you are biased and not going back in case you have to admit you might be wrong ?

    At least I have a wealth of experience , and research to back up my particular choices .

    I am immunocompromised and highrisk but up to recently have still been working in a patient facing role . Hence my vaccinations .

    I think my experience of proper masks at work and vaccinations, not to mention looking after patients with severe illness through the pandemic , especially those who had no vaccinations or were only partially vaccinated has lent weight to my belief that vaccinations are the way to go in the longterm ,yes.

    That would be my opinion , which is educated , and backed up by peer reviewed evidence , interaction and discussion with some very esteemed medical scientists, nursing colleagues and doctors who are also working hands on through Covid , my 40 plus years of nursing experience, and by my very considerable frontline experience of severe Covid

    I don't read research from RTE btw nor have ever posted RTE related links, ffs , that is just you getting bit desperate to find some insult, or other form of low blow ,and does you no credit at all, if indeed you had garnered any respect for your contributions to the forum .

    That research you posted, repeatedly now at this stage , as I said above in my previous post , is not yet peer reviewed , so while I would read it I would not be quoting it nor posting it until then .

    Both from Qatar, interesting , don't you think ? .Not a country known for altruism in medical science , but hey , they have given out a lot of vaccines , however equitably ? we don't know, as they don't say how many people there have been vaccinated in the population ?

    And the one that discusses how vaccination does not protect against Omicron variants is just an expansion on information that has been out there and researched since Omicron started to circulate. Fair enough there will always be more research telling us what we know already but you announce it like its something new and a big " aha " moment .

    Sure that is why new Omicron specific vaccines are being called for , all this year , or did you miss that?

    Post edited by Goldengirl on


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭ growleaves


    ...and if a committee (of peers) review doesn't find any serious flaws in the paper?

    Peer review became a thing in 1944. It isn't essential to science, was unheard of for most of the golden ages of science (from about 1700 to about 1965), and is just a bureaucratic mechanism. A committee of scientists look at a paper to comb it for errors and then either it is vetoed or rubberstamped.

    I see nothing wrong in discussing pre-reviewed papers. It doesn't indicate gullibility unless you think these particular scientists have form for producing work that doesn't stand up to scrutiny or deliberately conning people. Do you think that? Or is just that any paper that doesn't buttress faith in mRNA vaccines is automatically suspect?

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,602 ✭✭✭ Goldengirl


    I think I said what I think was the issue . If you want to read the post again ?

    Your lack of faith in the vaccines or any thing else is starting to interfere with your ability to discern a good study from one with great big holes in it .

    And that bias is giving credit to a poster who frequently quotes parts of research out of context and out of line with the findings in order to bolster his or her particular view , but yet you accuse me when I have called that out .

    Why? because the post , however poor in execution , reflects your own views ?


    And as for peer review ...

    Back in the olden days/ Golden Age of Science (indeed !) , pioneer scientists were paid a commission to come to a certain conclusion to suit their patrons and only the very lucky few had patrons with a real altruistic interest . This is why academics set up their own reviews through the various scientific societies, but still commerce had more than its share of influence .

    Those same conflict of interests exist today . Hence why peer reviewed articles, while not fool proof are considered as more reliable having been vetted for any abuses or mistakes .

    It's called progress, growleaves.

    And I think you know all of the above so I question your reason for posting such bs in the first place .

    Are posters who disagree with the general narrative not allowed to post in this thread, no matter if they are making a sensible argument , without their honesty being impugned ?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭ Gant21


    A booster once a year isn’t asking much. For everyone.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭ Gant21




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭ growleaves


    @Goldengirl "Back in the olden days/ Golden Age of Science (indeed !) , pioneer scientists were paid a commission to come to a certain conclusion to suit their patrons and only the very lucky few had patrons with a real altruistic interest . This is why academics set up their own reviews through the various scientific societies, but still commerce had more than its share of influence .

    Those same conflict of interests exist today . Hence why peer reviewed articles, while not fool proof are considered as more reliable having been vetted for any abuses or mistakes .

    It's called progress, growleaves.

    And I think you know all of the above so I question your reason for posting such bs in the first place ."

    Most of the scientific discoveries of the 20th century were the culmination of centuries of progress.

    No one disputes that were many great scientists of the past and centuries-worth of progress. My point is a bureaucratic mechanism for trying to limit corruption can't be definitive.

    If anything today's milieu is far more corrupt. Read David Healy's Let Them East Prozac for an insider-whistleblower expose of the pharma industry's corruption. Peer review cannot guarantee integrity.

    "Are posters who disagree with the general narrative not allowed to post in this thread, no matter if they are making a sensible argument , without their honesty being impugned ?"

    I didn't say you were dishonest, I just think you may have strong biases and now you've reversed this same "accusation" back onto me and I'm not taking offence.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭ growleaves


    Btw I don't think there is any pile-on in this thread against minority-viewpoint (pro-restrictions) posters. There have been at times but Beasty always stepped in and warned or banned people.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.



  • Registered Users Posts: 855 ✭✭✭ FlubberJones


    I'm happy to do this, I was doing it with the fly jab and would be happy to relate the two and get both... Having recently had COVID I'd 100% be up for something that would reduce the impact... it was a pisser!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭ Gant21


    Wow getting banned for being pro restrictions?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭ growleaves


    No I mean posters who were very abusive against pro-restrictions posters got banned. Look at the 'banned' list on the first page.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,156 ✭✭✭ Penfailed


    Gigs '21 - Stendhal Festival (July), Stendhal Festival (August), [s]Liam Gallagher & Idles[/s], King Kong Company, Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs, The Undertones, And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '22 - And So I Watch You From Afar, Teenage Fanclub, Mogwai, Stendhal Festival, The Fratellis, Clutch, Kurt Vile & The Violators, Electric Picnic, Vantastival, The Cure



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,602 ✭✭✭ Goldengirl




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,602 ✭✭✭ Goldengirl


    In fairness I replied to you politely but I can quote many posts where you got personal and labelled me and others unjustly .

    Believe it or not I don't disagree with some of things you say but it is the way you selectively cherry pick research or studies and misrepresent what is contained within them . If you choose to do this be prepared to be called out on that misreprentation and misquoting , and yes , doing that repeatedly is trolling , so I stand by all I have said about your posts. These are not insults, by the way , they are fair comment ,. But as your RTE one to me , was patently not true or fair comment , just a nasty jibe.

    And you don't get to say you are " sceptical " as if anybody on the other side of the argument is not !

    There are many people here on all sides of the argument who can read a research paper, analyse it and critique it , without changing the end result or findings to suit their narrative , and would be just as capable of being critical without claiming that theirs is the only correct opinion.

    I know mine is not the only opinion but I take care when backing mine up that I don't misquote or take anything out of context . Disappointing that you feel the need to do that .

    I don't really think its worth the grief getting into it further here with you at this stage so I will let you off with whatever you want to say and let others judge for themselves .

    Best of luck to you .



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,602 ✭✭✭ Goldengirl


    Am glad you're FINALLY ( after 2 weeks !) admitting that you only quoted individual statements to back up your own opinion. Because that is what it is . The study that you quoted says the opposite of what you were stating and you of course made no distinction between your misguided opinion and what was in fact written in that study .

    I pointed out , as my above quoted post , that this was misinformation or maybe you didn't understand the research you were quoting .

    I am now certain that it is the former after all your posts digging down on that opinion .

    In your reply to my post you were inflammatory from the start , so it is laughable that you accuse me of labelling and ranting, when you were doing just that !

    I did not "attempt to discredit" the other 2 papers . On the contrary I pointed out that they are not peer reviewed and that there are some problems with them as regards how they translate to other more open cultures and economies .

    I am sure the Qatari health service is excellent ..they have loads of money pumped into it and some excellent doctors privately trained in the best hospitals all over the world , good for them.

    If you weren't so invested in whatever message you are seeking to drive home here you would know that all research is critiqued like this, on other threads anyway , and most can accept some criticism and prove their point.

    You however , cannot , because it is just your " opinion " , which you are entitled to , but noone has to take it as gospel when you can't back it up .

    I can produce about 40 other pieces of research from elsewhere that have been accredited and peer reviewed and directly opposes your POV.

    But as I said before I am tired of your posts and replying to misinformation ..and a poster disingenuously quoting lines from research studies out of context to support whatever agenda he wants to promote .

    If this audience wants to read that type of BS well let them have it .

    Me , I have no interest in replying anymore after 2 pages / two weeks , it is neither enjoyable nor edifying , just annoying garbage .

    Finally , ignore .



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,300 ✭✭✭ Red Silurian


    Since February-ish you can only get a PCR test if you're vulnerable, over 70 or in hospital but realistically they were only PCR testing on admission to hospitals... I think most or all of the testing centers are now closed

    Open to correction, but I think these cohorts will no longer be tested when this change happens



  • Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭ darconio


    You can still easily book a PCR test, nobody will question you at the door: Covid-19 Services (healthservice.ie)

    Too much interest in keeping the covid propaganda going and these center still open; soon (if not already) thousands shots will go out of date : conveniently they'll prolong their shelf life or change the label claiming that this round will be the right one

    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,300 ✭✭✭ Red Silurian


    You can but why would you want to? Antigens do the job better than PCRs ever could, getting tested now to find you caught it last month is a bit pointless. There's surely some other country that needs the vaccines more than we do here in Ireland. They'll get used don't you worry



  • Registered Users Posts: 37 live4tkd


    Article link https://www.thejournal.ie/covid-deaths-pneumonia-conditions-5841803-Aug2022/

    "DATA RELEASED BY the Central Statistics Office (CSO) shows that from the beginning of the pandemic until February 2022, Covid-19 was identified as the Underlying Cause of Death (UCOD) in 5,384 cases.

    Four in five deaths from Covid-19 had at least three medical conditions mentioned on the death record with 4.2 conditions being the average per person according to data released today.

    The largest number of accompanying conditions of Covid-19 deaths were diseases of the respiratory system, which were reported in 5,279 (or 98%) of Covid-19 deaths.

    Pneumonia was certified as a condition in 3,023 (or 56%) of Covid-19 deaths.

    Dementia was reported on the death certificate of 1,041 people who died of Covid-19 (or 19%)

    Chronic lower respiratory diseases were stated on 948 (or 18%) death certificates, of which 714 (or 13%) had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    From February until Wednesday 10 August there have been another 2,359 deaths from Covid-19 according to the Government’s Covid-19 Data Hub, although this figure is provisional and includes probable deaths.

    91% of Covid-19 deaths occurred in persons aged 65 and over; 75% in persons aged 75 and over; and 42% in persons aged 85 and over.

    Commenting on the release, Gerard Doolan, statistician in the CSO’s vital statistics division, said:

    “The figures of deaths by condition do not represent the actual number of deaths from Covid-19.”

    “Also, a death due to Covid-19 differs from a death with Covid-19, in that Covid-19 is identified as the main UCOD in those who died due to Covid-19, while it is one of a number of conditions listed in deaths certified as a death with Covid-19. The total number of Covid-19 deaths included in this analysis is 5,384 deaths.”

    “Looking at the data, we can see that a total of 183 deaths (or 3.4%) reported Covid-19 as the single cause of death, whereas, 5,201 (or almost 97%) Covid-19 deaths were certified as having had Covid-19 and at least one other medical condition on the death certificate.”

    In deaths between March 2020 and February 2022, Covid-19 was reported as a medical condition in 6,255 cases but identified as the UCOD in just 5,384 cases.

    Hypertension, Chronic ischaemic heart disease, Malignant neoplasms, Diabetes mellitus, Atrial fibrillation and flutter and Heart failure were also common conditions suffered by people who died with Covid-19 as the UCOD."



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,156 ✭✭✭ Penfailed


    We've just been informed that our kids have to wear masks when they return to school. FFS!

    ...and I think I've got Covid for the second time. Feeling rough.

    Gigs '21 - Stendhal Festival (July), Stendhal Festival (August), [s]Liam Gallagher & Idles[/s], King Kong Company, Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs, The Undertones, And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '22 - And So I Watch You From Afar, Teenage Fanclub, Mogwai, Stendhal Festival, The Fratellis, Clutch, Kurt Vile & The Violators, Electric Picnic, Vantastival, The Cure



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,296 ✭✭✭✭ _Kaiser_


    Get well soon. Hopefully better by the weekend

    On what basis have they mandated that? Weren't masks only ever really "advisory" in schools though? I'd be pushing back on it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,156 ✭✭✭ Penfailed


    I'd be pushing back too but the kids aren't rebels. If their mates are going to wear them, they will too.

    Gigs '21 - Stendhal Festival (July), Stendhal Festival (August), [s]Liam Gallagher & Idles[/s], King Kong Company, Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs, The Undertones, And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '22 - And So I Watch You From Afar, Teenage Fanclub, Mogwai, Stendhal Festival, The Fratellis, Clutch, Kurt Vile & The Violators, Electric Picnic, Vantastival, The Cure



  • Advertisement
Advertisement