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

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I'm sure the Finnish Health Ministry will monitor it. I imagine the outbreak will not just be contained to the 300 supporters that come home with like you suggested.

Obviously that data will depend on several key variables.

Personally I think Finland have managed the pandemic rather well.

Current (since 24 June actually) restrictions on restaurants in Finland are set out here:
https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/information-on-coronavirus/current-restrictions/restaurants

Reduced capacity (50% for pub/bar type outlet, 75% for restaurant), all customers to be seated at a table etc. If you like, you can check that website and prepare to be amazed at when they re-opened indoor hospitality I'll let you surprise yourself with that.

Some information from worldometer:

On 30 June 2021 Finland reported 355 new cases (7 day average 129). 48,000 active cases.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/finland/

Population of Finland is 5.5 million or so for comparison purposes.

Ireland reported 342 new cases on 30 June (7 day average 305) and 10,300 active cases.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/ireland/

Perhaps it will be pointed out (as I have pointed out) that Ireland's 7 day average is higher than Finlands (although in doing so it would only be reasonable and proportionate to point out that we have less than 25% of their total active cases).

Lets see what the the Finnish government are saying about the current situation anyway (they do seem a sensible bunch):

"The COVID-19 epidemic has continued to subside throughout Finland within the last two weeks. However, there is still regional variation in the development of the epidemic, as the incidence of COVID-19 cases is higher in some areas of southern Finland than in the rest of the country. Overall, the COVID-19 situation is calm, with most areas recording only a small number of new cases."

Boggles wrote: »

But if you like you should fire them off an email, I'm not sure they would entertain your myopic wholly unqualified musings, but sure you never know.

Let us know how you get on.

Myopic wholly unqualified musings indeed Boggles.

Sobit1964

charlie14 wrote: »

Except of course people have been building up their innate immunity to colds each winter since Adam was a young lad and it has not been worth a damn when it came to immunity from Covid-19.


What would your estimate for the lenght of time it would take to build up innate immunity to Covid-19 and the corresponding yearly deaths ?

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

Not so novel coronavirus?
At least six studies have reported T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus.5678910

In a study of donor blood specimens obtained in the US between 2015 and 2018, 50% displayed various forms of T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2.511 A similar study that used specimens from the Netherlands reported T cell reactivity in two of 10 people who had not been exposed to the virus.7

This isnt March 2020 - more is known now.

growleaves

Also your argument of it only affecting the elderly is a weak one as it affects everybody and a variant could affect younger people worse

I said it mainly causes deaths of old age and that is just what happens.

Yes it affects everyone in one proportion or another but not in the same proportion.

Imagined scenarios that haven't happened but you think might happen don't weaken the argument at all.

John.Icy

Boggles wrote: »

But if you like you should fire them off an email, I'm not sure they would entertain your myopic wholly unqualified musings, but sure you never know.

Let us know how you get on.

It's entertaining to watch on various platforms this week that the emerging argument from, let's say 'the other side', is to just call people unqualified, uneducated or something similar. Discussion or opinions is not limited to experts.

From someone only last night complaining that someone went straight to insults :rolleyes:.

Snooker Loopy

FileNotFound wrote: »

Is it not a case that being more transmissable makes it more deadly by the fact it gets to more people.

For those under 40 in the UK the serious effects seem to be low - from the random bits i have seen online (not exactly solid fact now).


Would be nice for some real stats in relation to:

- Actually how much more transmissable (I hear a range of claims)
- Actual % chance of spread by asymptomatic (something that has never been clarified for any variant) v symptomatic
- Is the delta more dangerous (mortality/long term illness) on a case by case basis
- A breakdown of the risk by age (every 10 years not every 50)
- How protected against delta is someone who had a previous variant (Is the protection equivalent to a vaccine - say AZ)


So much hyperbole - I am at a loss for real factual data.

Also given the crazy models we were presented with - if they are accurate and cases are on the up should we not reenter real lockdown altogether. Based on what i have seen in person there is now far more mixing and less control with people on streets etc. than there was last year inside the pubs..

This is from the time when the Alpha variant was emerging at the very end of 2020. It's as good an explanation as I've seen about why increased transmissibility is so serious for the public health situation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/12/virus-mutation-catastrophe/617531/

To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.

MOH

the kelt wrote: »

Theres another things which needs to be remembered here.

Everything was going along just fine, all the mood music was good, Vaccines are going well, bits about the link between cases and hospitilisations was being weakened and broken, Delta a bit of a dark cloud but looking at UK etc still looking good. All pretty much positive with a bit of "lets still be careful here " thrown in, kinda what ye would expect.

Then bang Monday, doomsday!

These experts in modelling etc didnt see this until when? Monday? Just on Monday it was like "oh, lets look at this"

Surely these doomsday scenarios would be something that you would be noticing, looking at, making government aware off but no boom come Monday morning we went from a dark cloud to killer tornado the likes never see in this country before.

Does that not ring a few alarm bells even for those who trust NPHET and their modelling without question?

If you look through Holohan's last couple of letters it's ridiculous.

May 26: 89 total confirmed cases of Delta (B.1.617.2).

June 17: 180 total confirmed cases of Delta. So known Delta cases have doubled, yet "In summary, the current epidemiological situation in Ireland continues to give rise to a broadly positive outlook."

June 28: 220 total confirmed cases of Delta. Similar rate of increase to previous (in absolute terms - low in percentage terms). And suddenly this is the worst hurricane to ever hit Ireland.
The positive update from the previous letter about vaccine progress has been dropped.
We also have a new note that "Taqpath S-gene PCR target results by specimen week show that the prevalence of S-gene positivity (proxy for Delta) has increased from 28% in week 24 to 55.5% in week 25."
No idea what that means, I'm guessing it's the percentage of positive cases that have been classed as the Delta variant? Or at least some measure of how prevalent it is. Yet despite this doubling, the 7-day average has increased by just 4%. It's also worth noting that at some point the previous week the 7-day average hit the lowest since mid-December.
Plus hospitalisations and ICU cases haven't increased.

But everyone to panic stations.

Also worth noting that there were a total of 7 outbreaks associated with pubs/cafes/restaurants, compared to 14 associated with schools, which have been repeatedly declared not a major contributor to Covid spread.

thebaz wrote: »

amongst all the scaremongering and over-exaggeration in the past week , surely this tops it from our Minister of Health Stephen Donnellly speaking to his own parliamentary part :

“the biggest hurricane that has ever hit Ireland is coming”.

Really , bigger than March 2020 when we did not know what we were dealing with , had no vaccine, no hope of vaccine , never mind the vulnerable and over half our population being vaccinated . Why does no one call out such hysterics and rubbish, tell us the truth why restrictions are needed not made up fear inducing drivel to continually shock the nation .

It's all been hyperbole all along. Everything has to be the best or the worst or the most extreme in some other way.
The CMO and the Taoiseach for some reason thought it was a great idea to tell everyone just before we opened up at Christmas that we had the best situation in Europe, which even at the time struck me as a ludicrous thing to tell people if you wanted to maintain caution.
Two weeks later we had the worst declining situation in Europe.

Now it's more exaggerated rubbish. If he really believes it's the worst thing to ever hit Ireland either Donnelly's never heard of the Famine or I'm getting on the first plane out of here.

charlie14

growleaves wrote: »

Lots of people have had innate immunity to covid 19. That was seen on the Diamond Princess, which was like a floating petri dish yet many escaped infection. It was seen when people who shared a bed with a sick person didn't even get an asymptomatic infection.

Then there were all the people who were asymptomatic that suffered no ill effects.

Would you like to see nobody ever get a cold again and are you claiming that this will lead to a general improvement in health?

Not really what I asked you. My question was how many years will it take to develope innate immunity to Covid-19 to any significant level (naturally acquired herd immunity) and what would be the yearly death toll in the interim.


We have already seen how this has failed in practice on both time scale and from antibody results, with some attempting it and others believing they had achieved it, but you still seem to view it as a viable alternative. So what is your estimate for years and deaths until it is achieved.

titan18

newuser99999 wrote: »

Would put Galway West TDs to shame. I got generic responses from PAs that my messages would be passed on to the TD. What are we paying these people for.

Ya, in Cork South Central, I got an automated reply from Martin just to acknowledge they got an email (so didn't even get a PA), got a PA response from McGrath, a PA response from Coveney that made it seem like they actually read it but considering others got the exact same message, clear it's either automated, or copy/paste job, and I got a decent response from O Laoghaire but not sure if it's generic copy/paste or not.

Boggles

John.Icy wrote: »

It's entertaining to watch on various platforms this week that the emerging argument from, let's say 'the other side', is to just call people unqualified, uneducated or something similar. Discussion or opinions is not limited to experts.

What in the name of Jesus are you talking about? The Finnish Health Ministry who by all metrics are the gold standard pandemic management are concerned about a seeding event stemming from the Euros.

The response from 'the other side' was to screech out repeatedly "HoW MaNy ArE DeAd?"

But here you are lecturing about opinions and experts.

Who would you give weight to yourself?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

The Finnish Health Ministry who by all metrics are the gold standard pandemic management are concerned about a seeding event stemming from the Euros.

They are indeed a very sensible bunch.

MOH

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Current (since 24 June actually) restrictions on restaurants in Finland are set out here:
https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/information-on-coronavirus/current-restrictions/restaurants

Finland intrigues me

Alcohol may be served between 9.00 and 24.00. Alcohol may be served starting at 7.00 in connection with hotel breakfasts with permission from the Regional State Administrative Agency
.....
The above-mentioned customer seating restrictions and dance ban do not apply to outdoor terraces.

lawred2

https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/information-on-coronavirus/current-restrictions/restaurants

How's the old indoor dining in Finland?

edit... oops link already posted

MOH

MOH wrote: »

Finland intrigues me

Yes. I think we've found the way to unite the thread. Boggles commends the Finnish approach and I for one support that fully.

By the way, you're a decent person for posting my original link.

For ease of reference, the daily new cases/7 day average and total active cases for Finland and Ireland are also provided in that link.

John.Icy

Boggles wrote: »

What in the name of Jesus are you talking about? The Finnish Health Ministry who by all metrics are the gold standard pandemic management are concerned about a seeding event stemming from the Euros.

The response from 'the other side' was to screech out repeatedly "HoW MaNy ArE DeAd?"

But here you are lecturing about opinions and experts.

Who would you give weight to yourself?

My point is you can get opinions across without bringing in the 'unqualified' stuff. I'm not even agreeing with the other poster or weighing in the topic - so I am unsure about this -> ''But here you are lecturing about opinions and experts''? Relax.

I just don't see the necessity in whipping out the qualifications stuff. It's happening a lot recently where people are being told to leave it to the experts because they are the ones who have the degrees (and assuming people on discussion forums don't have relevant degrees!). People are entitled to whatever opinion or stance they want without people calling them unqualified. If we limited these threads to biologists, virologists etc. it would probably be a small thread.

charlie14

Sobit1964 wrote: »

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563



This isnt March 2020 - more is known now.

Indeed a lot more is now know. Especially on the attempts and belief of some countries on naturally acquired herd immunity. Either chasing it or believing they had achieved it, and the media wannabee stars that were pushing the nonsense.

growleaves

charlie14 wrote: »

Not really what I asked you. My question was how many years will it take to develope innate immunity to Covid-19 to any significant level (naturally acquired herd immunity) and what would be the yearly death toll in the interim.


We have already seen how this has failed in practice on both time scale and from antibody results, with some attempting it and others believing they had achieved it, but you still seem to view it as a viable alternative. So what is your estimate for years and deaths until it is achieved.

You're talking past me that's why. I didn't start a discussion about herd immunity or say anything about it. Go back and read the post I was replying to. A poster wanted to stop the transmission of all illnesses including the common cold, which I said would lead to people getting sick from weakened immune systems. People build up their immunity in general (including to coronaviruses) through exposure to infections that aren't serious.

So I ask you again, do you want people to avoid all illnesses even after the pandemic is over? (That's what's under discussion)

gozunda

namloc1980 wrote: »

Do you think that's good enough? Did anyone not think to themselves....."jaysus lads, we have imminent updated info available that's likely to impact our modelling. Let's hold off for a couple of days and see what that changes".

Honestly, if I presented a paper for decision to my senior managers at work with outdated information and I knew I had more updated information to hand that would likely impact the decision being made, I would be taken to one side and given a serious talking to.

Ah so the goal posts have not only been moved - they have been seized and were last seen heading over the horizon?

The issue being ranted about was why NIAC decision to recommend additional vaccines wasn’t included in the model and report in the first place.

And we now know that the briefing on the model was already completed on day NIACs recommendation was announced.

So OK now thats moved to why didn't they delay?

Simply because a decision on indoor dining, needed to be made ASAP. The information presented was what what was relevant to a short delay in the opening of indoor dining and not several months down the line as more vaccines were being made available. Imo they made the correct decision at that point in time with existing data. There was no omissions because the parameters for the extra vaccines had yet to be worked out.

Once they have the new parameters- it shouldn't be a problem producing a new model.

Honestly, if someone presented a paper for decision to senior managers at work for an immediate issue but declared instead "ah listen lads there's some additional stuff coming down the line that I'll add in - so I didnt bother producing that paper which is needed now" - I would hope the individual would be taken to one side and given a serious talking to.
.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Ah so the goal posts have not only been moved - they have been seized and were last scene heading over the horizon?

The issue being ranted about was why NIAC decision to recommend additional vaccines wasn’t included in the model and report in the first place.

And we now know that the briefing on the model was already completed on day NIACs recommendation was announced.

So OK now thats moved to why didn't they delay?

Simply because a decision on indoor dining, needed to be made ASAP. The information presented was what what was relevant to a short delay in the opening of indoor dining and not several months down the line as more vaccines were being made available. Imo they made the correct decision at that point in time with existing data. There was no omissions because the parameters for the extra vaccines had yet to be worked out.

Once they have the new parameters- it shouldn't be a problem producing a new model.

Honestly, if someone presented a paper for decision to senior managers at work for an immediate issue but declared instead "ah listen lads there's some additional stuff coming down the line that I'll add in - so I didnt bother producing that paper which is needed now" - I would hope the individual would be taken to one side and given a serious talking to.
.

I don't suppose I can interest you in a Finnish model?

brickster69

EU modelling based on various outcomes

https://twitter.com/GerardBrady100/status/1410554244101455872

Indestructable

MOH wrote: »

Finland intrigues me

Can't beat a mimosa or bloody Mary for breakfast. Good stuff from the Finnish.

the kelt

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Current (since 24 June actually) restrictions on restaurants in Finland are set out here:
https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/information-on-coronavirus/current-restrictions/restaurants

Reduced capacity (50% for pub/bar type outlet, 75% for restaurant), all customers to be seated at a table etc. If you like, you can check that website and prepare to be amazed at when they re-opened indoor hospitality I'll let you surprise yourself with that.

Some information from worldometer:

On 30 June 2021 Finland reported 355 new cases (7 day average 129). 48,000 active cases.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/finland/

Population of Finland is 5.5 million or so for comparison purposes.

Ireland reported 342 new cases on 30 June (7 day average 305) and 10,300 active cases.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/ireland/

Perhaps it will be pointed out (as I have pointed out) that Ireland's 7 day average is higher than Finlands (although in doing so it would only be reasonable and proportionate to point out that we have less than 25% of their total active cases).

Lets see what the the Finnish government are saying about the current situation anyway (they do seem a sensible bunch):

"The COVID-19 epidemic has continued to subside throughout Finland within the last two weeks. However, there is still regional variation in the development of the epidemic, as the incidence of COVID-19 cases is higher in some areas of southern Finland than in the rest of the country. Overall, the COVID-19 situation is calm, with most areas recording only a small number of new cases."



Myopic wholly unqualified musings indeed Boggles.

Cue the next response along the lines of "well why are we obsessing about what other countries are doing all the time"

Like a well rehearsed script.

Look at that country over there and their concerns, yes but they also have this, this and this open for months and use these methods etc that Tony doesnt want over here.

Well whats your qualifications so what would you do? why are we looking at other countries, should just concentrate on ourselves, followed by some ramblings a referncing doom mongers and conspiracy theorist, anti vax rubbish followed by an insult which never gets moderated.

Rinse and repeat

namloc1980

Boggles wrote: »

I'm sure the Finnish Health Ministry will monitor it. I imagine the outbreak will not just be contained to the 300 supporters that come home with like you suggested.

Obviously that data will depend on several key variables.

Personally I think Finland have managed the pandemic rather well.

But if you like you should fire them off an email, I'm not sure they would entertain your myopic wholly unqualified musings, but sure you never know.

Let us know how you get on.

LOL. You're the one who brought this up in the first place like it was the end of the world. So you have no data or evidence any of these are in hospital or ICU or have severe illness? That's grand and thanks for confirming that. You should have just said that at the beginning.

zebastein

MOH wrote: »

We also have a new note that "Taqpath S-gene PCR target results by specimen week show that the prevalence of S-gene positivity (proxy for Delta) has increased from 28% in week 24 to 55.5% in week 25."
No idea what that means, I'm guessing it's the percentage of positive cases that have been classed as the Delta variant? Or at least some measure of how prevalent it is. Yet despite this doubling, the 7-day average has increased by just 4%. It's also worth noting that at some point the previous week the 7-day average hit the lowest since mid-December.
Plus hospitalisations and ICU cases haven't increased.

That is the key element for me. If we were at 5/10% variant and that the "surge is coming soon", then you can maybe understand extra precautions.

But what has being told this week is that the Delta variant has reached 50% and that we have not seen any major impact, just a very slight increase in case numbers. We will see in 2weeks the variant reaching 90% of the cases, and if case numbers are still in the 500/600s, we will be asking ourselves: now what ?

gozunda

ecoli3136 wrote: »

I don't suppose I can interest you in a Finnish model?

I presume she's good looking:

ACitizenErased

Finally using some intelligence. The EU cert allows you to get it if tested or previously had covid too.
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1410559065575542792?s=21

namloc1980

gozunda wrote: »

Ah so the goal posts have not only been moved - they have been seized and were last scene heading over the horizon?

The issue being ranted about was why NIAC decision to recommend additional vaccines wasn’t included in the model and report in the first place.

And we now know that the briefing on the model was already completed on day NIACs recommendation was announced.

So OK now thats moved to why didn't they delay?

Simply because a decision on indoor dining, needed to be made ASAP. The information presented was what what was relevant to a short delay in the opening of indoor dining and not several months down the line as more vaccines were being made available. Imo they made the correct decision at that point in time with existing data. There was no omissions because the parameters for the extra vaccines had yet to be worked out.

Once they have the new parameters- it shouldn't be a problem producing a new model.

Honestly, if someone presented a paper for decision to senior managers at work for an immediate issue but declared instead "ah listen lads there's some additional stuff coming down the line that I'll add in - so I didnt bother producing that paper which is needed now" - I would hope the individual would be taken to one side and given a serious talking to.
.

Not sure what this rant is trying to achieve but it's quite amusing, fair play.
You think it's acceptable to present outdated and incomplete data to decision makers? They presented data unrelated to reality and with a 10 fold difference between the best and worst case scenario. Absolutely farcical nonsense. But you seem happy with it so no wonder they can present this stuff and certain people with cheer and clap.

namloc1980

newuser99999 wrote: »

Would put Galway West TDs to shame. I got generic responses from PAs that my messages would be passed on to the TD. What are we paying these people for.

Got nothing from my TDs except 1 auto generated response. I'll be sure to remind them of that when they come knocking looking for votes at the next election.

growleaves

namloc1980 wrote: »

Got nothing from my TDs except 1 auto generated response. I'll be sure to remind them of that when they come knocking looking for votes at the next election.

They won't knock on doors, they'll campaign digitally is my prediction.

the kelt

the kelt wrote: »

Rinse and repeat

Yes - and if absolutely cornered on inconvenient facts, ignore them completely.

lawred2

gozunda wrote: »

Ah so the goal posts have not only been moved - they have been seized and were last scene heading over the horizon?

The issue being ranted about was why NIAC decision to recommend additional vaccines wasn’t included in the model and report in the first place.

And we now know that the briefing on the model was already completed on day NIACs recommendation was announced.

So OK now thats moved to why didn't they delay?

Simply because a decision on indoor dining, needed to be made ASAP. The information presented was what what was relevant to a short delay in the opening of indoor dining and not several months down the line as more vaccines were being made available. Imo they made the correct decision at that point in time with existing data. There was no omissions because the parameters for the extra vaccines had yet to be worked out.

Once they have the new parameters- it shouldn't be a problem producing a new model.

Honestly, if someone presented a paper for decision to senior managers at work for an immediate issue but declared instead "ah listen lads there's some additional stuff coming down the line that I'll add in - so I didnt bother producing that paper which is needed now" - I would hope the individual would be taken to one side and given a serious talking to.
.

ASAP? Not even a few days to reassess? Was needed immediately! That very second!?

That's a bit weak to be honest when something is of this import.