Relaxation of restrictions

GazzaL · 13-04-2020 10:28PM

ixoy wrote: »

They're absolute figures there, not percentages...

The 13% vs 23% is actually the important percentage figure here.

Both the percentages and the absolute figures are important to be fair.

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2020 10:30PM

GazzaL wrote: »

In terms of actual numbers of people. 23% of 60.36m is approx. 20 times more people than 13% of 4.9m.

We need to get the young, fit and healthy people back to work in a safe manner. We also need to protect the elderly and vulnerable, particular in nursing home settings, which as evidenced in Ireland, Italy, Spain, France and Belgium, 42-57% of deaths from the virus appear to have occured in nursing homes. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...om-eu-suggests Whatever PPE needed to work there, even if that means full hazmat suits, and whatever cleaning/hygiene products required also. Similarly, social distancing and extra precautions, and financial support, will be required for elderly and vulnerable people, people with underlying health conditions.

A valid argument. A distinct issue is getting sufficient PPE considering we cannot get enough right now for health care workers. Another issue is your suggestion that social distancing be confined to elderly and vulnerable people. It will need to be maintained by everyone for a long time. Also, is there another country that has implemented your suggestion already? Or intends to?

Jenbach110 · 13-04-2020 10:30PM

ixoy wrote: »

They're absolute figures there, not percentages...

The 13% vs 23% is actually the important percentage figure here.

I was using absolute figues.

The poster suggested Italy was 10% more popultated in the over 65 range.

Its actually 23 times more populated, or 2300% more populated.
Essentially multiples times more vunerable.
So a petty argument started where Ive forgotten my point but it was where a poster suggested we will see similar death stats to Italy. My point was we dont have the number's to see anything like that.

13-04-2020 10:31PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

By 1919 the virus had run its course and had mutated to become less lethal so the restrictions after the war ended didn't really change anything.
This virus will run its course too just like that 'aussie' flu in the winter of 2017-18 did.

I wonder whether I got that Aussie flu myself. I felt groggy and weak for at least three weeks around September 2017. Started as a sniffle. Id have good immunity in general but this was something different

scamalert · 13-04-2020 10:31PM

ixoy wrote: »

They're absolute figures there, not percentages...

The 13% vs 23% is actually the important percentage figure here.

Seriously even mod fails at maths ? thats like comparing jar to gallon pot and saying sure its only 10pc difference, hope you two dont ever mix chemicals or bake :pac::)

niallo27 · 13-04-2020 10:32PM

STB. wrote: »

We already are. They have 919 deaths out of 10,948 cases. That's a huge death rate of 8%. They have another 900 in serious or critical condition at the moment.

They haven't a clue whats out there because they have not been testing. They also haven't a clue what they are doing as their chief epidemiologist is advocating herd immunity of which their is no proof, a program that would require a vacine which is not available.

Half of Stockholm are working from home anyway and social distancing.

The models predict over 10k deaths it's less than 1k, this is why I find it hard to trust the model Harris is using. Its doesn't matter about the postive tests, deaths are the same if you have 100k tests done or 10k done, Germany and korea have proved that. You say sweden hasnt a clue what they are doing, do you think we have an better long term plan here.

alwald · 13-04-2020 10:32PM

growleaves wrote: »

I wasn't making an analogy between a war and a virus.

Another posted mentioned the Blitz and I wanted to talk about it because it was a situation which illustrates, as I said, that "saving lives" is not an over-riding priority in each and every situation.

There is also quality of life and the human spirit and the fact that these things cannot be expressed in statistical terms or don't come under the purview of scientific experts does not mean that they can, or will, be considered totally null for all time.

Again, I'm thinking moreso of the long term. There was an item in a UK newspaper the other day where some expert called for restrictions for the next four years.

It's best when comparing saving lives to stick to an event similar to C-19 like the Spanish flu.

The quality of life will be back, with some necessary changes, once these temporary measures begin to be lifted bit by bit.

Some restrictions will remain for the long term until a vaccine/cure is found IMO such as attending gigs, sporting events and so on.

We have no choice but to adapt by taking a step by step approach all while listening to the advice of experts.

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2020 10:33PM

Jenbach110 wrote: »

I was using absolute figues.

The poster suggested Italy was 10% more popultated in the over 65 range.

Its actually 23 times more populated, or 2300% more populated.
Essentially multiples times more vunerable.
So a petty argument started where Ive forgotten my point but it was where a poster suggested we will see similar death stats to Italy. My point was we dont have the number's to see anything like that.

I would imagine the poster's point was probably to do with mortality rate rather than comparison of absolute numbers.

Jenbach110 · 13-04-2020 10:33PM

STB. wrote: »

Do you understand difference in ICU capacity between countries ?

Our ICU capacity is what Lombardy's was at the start of their cases.

A fantastic ability to randomly change topics in argument

Spencer Brown · 13-04-2020 10:33PM

STB. wrote: »

Refusing to accept the numbers now.

Did you see the recovery figure in there. Its very low isn't it. Why do you think that is ?

Clearly you haven't a breeze whats going on. Don't respond to me again please.

Is there really a need for this tone?

KiKi III · 13-04-2020 10:34PM

Jenbach110 wrote: »

Kiki Im wrong. I dont know what Ive done.

Could you show me how it works?

ixoy has explained it.

When you’re comparing one country with another the only logical way to do it is based on per capita percentages.

Italy has more people than Ireland full stop. They have more people than us in every age category because they have a much bigger population than us.

The point you’re trying to make is that Italy has a bigger *proportion* of people over 65, which is correct.

But the difference is 10%, they don’t have 20x more old people in proportion to us.

Jenbach110 · 13-04-2020 10:34PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would imagine the poster's point was probably to do with mortality rate rather than comparison of absolute numbers.

So 40 ish deaths a day peak so?

easypazz · 13-04-2020 10:34PM

STB. wrote: »

Refusing to accept the numbers now.

Did you see the recovery figure in there. Its very low isn't it. Why do you think that is ?

Clearly you haven't a breeze whats going on. Don't respond to me again please.

You know full well we don't go back to people after 4 weeks to retest them to confirm they are recovered.

Stop being silly.

ixoy · 13-04-2020 10:35PM

Jenbach110 wrote: »

I was using absolute figues.

The poster suggested Italy was 10% more popultated in the over 65 range.

I'm fairly sure they meant on a per capita basis though - that's certainly how I took it and that's one of the more important metrics. Assess what percentage of your population is most vulnerable (higher in Italy in the over-65s for example by about 70%) and your ability to cope with it (hospital beds + ICU) and start from there.

STB. · 13-04-2020 10:37PM

hmmm wrote: »

These restrictions should only exist as long as they are medically required, and need to balance the economic impact. Some people seem to think that the restrictions are inherently good in themselves, and are outdoing each other to pile on more and more restrictions.

I appreciate at the moment the scientists are working to understand more about the virus, and there's a lot we don't know. If it was the case (as perhaps seems likely) that there is minimal chance of viruses being passed on outdoors, then most construction sites should open. If (as seems the case) that it spreads like wildfire indoors in cramped places, Churches, Pubs etc will need to stay closed. Similarly it seems likely that anyone who can work from home should be told to do so, with people strongly discouraged from taking public transport. On the other hand, a manufacturing or food plant with adequate space and ventilation should be able to open. Most retail shops should be able to open if they limit the number of customers inside.

The country and the people involved in these businesses need to know whether they can get back to work. There's nothing nice for most people about lying on the couch not working - people don't have the luxury of nice public-sector guaranteed jobs, they need to get back to work to provide for their families future.

There is nothing nice about lying ventilated in an ICU bed with no immediate family by you, surrounded by people in plastic suits,.

There is nothing nice about having to work on the frontline dealing with Covid outbreaks.

Their will be no measures introduced that undoes the work of those already put in place.

Our public health system comes first.

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2020 10:37PM

Jenbach110 wrote: »

So 40 ish deaths a day peak so?

I don't know as I don't know which poster/post. My own take is that when/if this pandemic washes through, deaths per thousand will be as accurate a comparison as any. So maybe they meant that kind of comparison. Even though you can shoot holes in that with quality/availability of health care, population density, testing rates etc.

KiKi III · 13-04-2020 10:38PM

Basically, our cows are small, and Italy’s cows are far away

https://youtu.be/MMiKyfd6hA0

easypazz · 13-04-2020 10:38PM

STB. wrote: »

There are cases of incubation periods of 28 days.

So you are saying 14 day self isolation is useless, and all the experts are wrong?

13-04-2020 10:39PM

hmmm wrote: »

These restrictions should only exist as long as they are medically required, and need to balance the economic impact. Some people seem to think that the restrictions are inherently good in themselves, and are outdoing each other to pile on more and more restrictions.

I appreciate at the moment the scientists are working to understand more about the virus, and there's a lot we don't know. If it was the case (as perhaps seems likely) that there is minimal chance of viruses being passed on outdoors, then most construction sites should open. If (as seems the case) that it spreads like wildfire indoors in cramped places, Churches, Pubs etc will need to stay closed. Similarly it seems likely that anyone who can work from home should be told to do so, with people strongly discouraged from taking public transport. On the other hand, a manufacturing or food plant with adequate space and ventilation should be able to open. Most retail shops should be able to open if they limit the number of customers inside.

The country and the people involved in these businesses need to know whether they can get back to work. There's nothing nice for most people about lying on the couch not working - people don't have the luxury of nice public-sector guaranteed jobs, they need to get back to work to provide for their families future.

Nice summary. You win boards today (though completion is not great).

niallo27 · 13-04-2020 10:40PM

STB. wrote: »

Refusing to accept the numbers now.

Did you see the recovery figure in there. Its very low isn't it. Why do you think that is ?

Clearly you haven't a breeze whats going on. Don't respond to me again please.

Can you tell me why it's so low because I genuinely don't know, it makes no sense why nobody is recovering.

alwald · 13-04-2020 10:40PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

By 1919 the virus had run its course and had mutated to become less lethal so the restrictions after the war ended didn't really change anything.

Let's be clear, there is no evidence regarding the above, This is a theory only among other theories such as measures were working or doctors were treating the pneumonia better.

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

This virus will run its course too just like that 'aussie' flu in the winter of 2017-18 did.

Any scientific research on C-19 to support your statement?

Jenbach110 · 13-04-2020 10:41PM

KiKi III wrote: »

I’m embarrassed for you. You have this so, so wrong and you’re so confident.

Morto.

Lol

easypazz · 13-04-2020 10:42PM

STB. wrote: »

Their will be no measures introduced that undoes the work of those already put in place.

The minister for health has said we will have to learn to live with the virus.

Restrictions will be relaxed May 5th.

Suck it up.

KiKi III · 13-04-2020 10:43PM

easypazz wrote: »

The minister for health has said we will have to learn to live with the virus.

Restrictions will be relaxed May 5th.

Suck it up.

We’re all going to be happy when restrictions are eased. You seem to be confused on that.

easypazz · 13-04-2020 10:43PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Can you tell me why it's so low because I genuinely don't know, it makes no sense why nobody is recovering.

He said earlier the incubation period is 28 days, hence 14 day isolation period is pointless.

KrustyUCC · 13-04-2020 10:44PM

KiKi III wrote: »

1. We are willing to accept a short-term sacrifice. We’re talking weeks, not decades. If we were six months into lockdown I’d agree with you. It’s been 2.5 weeks.

Why are you discounting the March 12th - 28th restrictions?

It's been over a month not 2.5 weeks

niallo27 · 13-04-2020 10:45PM

alwald wrote: »

Let's be clear, there is no evidence regarding the above, This is a theory only among other theories such as measures were working or doctors were treating the pneumonia better.

Any scientific research on C-19 to support your statement?

You talk a good game in fairness but could you actually back some of it up please.

KiKi III · 13-04-2020 10:47PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Why are you discounting the March 12th - 28th restrictions?

It's been over a month not 2.5 weeks

There were light restrictions four weeks ago, but people were still seeing their families, going to the beach/ park etc, a lot more people were still going to work.

The lockdown as we now know it has only been in place for 2.5 weeks.

VonLuck · 13-04-2020 10:50PM

The tone of this thread has really gone sour.

STB. · 13-04-2020 10:54PM

niallo27 wrote: »

The models predict over 10k deaths it's less than 1k, this is why I find it hard to trust the model Harris is using. Its doesn't matter about the postive tests, deaths are the same if you have 100k tests done or 10k done, Germany and korea have proved that. You say sweden hasnt a clue what they are doing, do you think we have an better long term plan here.

They are not testing. They already have a 8% death rate of those they did test. Over 600 dead and 900 critical.

It does matter about positive tests. The testing regime is carried out in conjunction with isolation and contact tracing, and social distancing measures. Done correctly that in turn leads to less contagion, especially at the one time.

There is much disquiet in Sweden where they are pursuing an unproven herd immunity approach at a time there is no vaccine. The only reason their figures aren't higher is that 50% of people in Stockholm are ignoring the government instructions and working from home and practicing social distancing.

Germany and Korea. Germany were not even reporting the cause of deaths as Covid related.

South Korea employed an extreme testing regime from the start, they monitored people coming in and out of the country with temperature guns. They employed smart technology to monitor those isolated. At the end they had tested over half a million people.

As of a few days ago South Korea are now discovering people who are positive AGAIN after previously been told they were negative. This is very worrying for the whole world.

Relaxation of restrictions

Comments