Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Relaxation of restrictions

1…310311313315316…336

Comments

  • #9362
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,023 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Angela Merkel has a Phd in Quantum Physics, and she seems to well understand the science behind social distancing in keeping the R0 factor down, and how sensitive our actions are to this #. Modeling can be off, predictions can be off, but I don't see how there can be any doubt that the idea behind the lockdown's implemented by most countries are to limit the spread so as to reduce numbers that overwhelm our health services.
    Aren't all kinds of graphs showing the effectiveness of this already, or am I dreaming.

    She understands the theoretical science behind it - but there aren't any studies of previous pandemics comparing countries that locked down to countries that didn't.

    The graphs can only tell us what is happening, not what would have happened in the absence of this policy. Of course people think they know what would have happened without the lockdown and when they see the raw numbers correlating with their assumptions it creates lots of inner 'Aha!' moments.


  • #9363
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    growleaves wrote: »
    She understands the theoretical science behind it - but there aren't any studies of previous pandemics comparing countries that locked down to countries that didn't.

    The graphs can only tell us what is happening, not what would have happened in the absence of this policy. Of course people think they know what would have happened without the lockdown and when they see the raw numbers correlating with their assumptions it creates lots of inner 'Aha!' moments.

    So-Spain got hammered pretty hard, and the UK too, and NY city and... etc etc when there were no social distancing policies in place. Those that reacted early have less spread and more contained. I read people referencing the Spanish flu of 1918 and how they also 'locked down' and the second wave that hit when they let up due to the war effort, I believe. So yeah, there are studies.

    Edit to add:
    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html

    "Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older. The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic. While the 1918 H1N1 virus has been synthesized and evaluated, the properties that made it so devastating are not well understood. With no vaccine to protect against influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as isolation, quarantine, good personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limitations of public gatherings, which were applied unevenly."


  • #9364
    alwald
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭alwald


    growleaves wrote: »
    Sorry but I'm but talking about scientific proof, not a correlation which happens to coincide with a direct cause-and-effect explanation.

    Since I'm sure you understand the difference I won't patronise you by explaining it.

    (Also there is the issue of whether we regard CCP data as trustworthy. But there will be other data to look at.)

    My point was to show you that there is no scientific proof...but I am sure you knew that.


  • #9365
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,687 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    briany wrote: »
    America have less deaths per million than Ireland because most of their deaths are occurring in New York so far. I'm not entirely sure what makes anyone think that people from other parts of the States won't be catching this disease and that the New York situation won't be repeated elsewhere in the US, especially after restrictions are lifted.

    Because most other states are already on the downward curve of new cases, just like New York City has been for weeks now. Also, New York is the most densely populated city in the US. In most other places public transport is virtually non existent and its very easy to socially distance, and most of the country has been doing just that for several weeks now.


  • #9366
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,023 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    So-Spain got hammered pretty hard, and the UK too, and NY city and... etc etc when there were no social distancing policies in place. Those that reacted early have less spread and more contained. I read people referencing the Spanish flu of 1918 and how they also 'locked down' and the second wave that hit when they let up due to the war effort, I believe. So yeah, there are studies.

    I'm talking about actual studies. If you have them please link to the abstracts.

    Look at what you are saying...Spain had no social distancing policies and their death counts were rising, then they introduced social distancing policies and their deaths levelled off. Therefore social distancing policies are responsible for the levelling off of deaths which would otherwise have continued upwards.

    This isn't scientific proof - its a cause-and-effect assumption.

    That assumption is the starting point of a scientific inquiry, not a 'case closed' conclusion.

    The fact that the abstract models (the Fauci and Ferguson ones) which predicted the deaths turned out to be inaccurate is being taken by many posters as 'not a big deal' should give any sensible person pause.

    It is a huge big deal because it mean that the assumptions behind the models were incorrect and that calls into question then everything these models have told us.

    That's enough for tonight.


  • Advertisement
  • #9367
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The same type of people who usually dismiss evidence and experts are now trying to use a lack of very specific and impossible-to-provide evidence as some sort of backup for their arguments.


  • #9368
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,023 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Look if anyone wants to assume that the lockdown is effective then go ahead. No one is going to stop you and many, many people will agree with you.

    Fair comparisons between locked down countries and un-locked-down countries won't be impossible to make, not at all. Yes, science must be specific.

    Lots of evidence and experts were already dismissed - the Oxford University disease specialists labs' report was dismissed, though it may be vindicated in time. Imperial College London's model was accepted and turned out to be inaccurate.

    Whatever about climate science, there is no monolithic consensus in epidemiology, medical science or medical statistics. So anyone who accepts the evidence and testimony of one medical expert must necessarily dismiss the evidence and testimony of a contrary expert.

    The University of Bonn, the Universirty of Mainz and Oxford University aren't outside of the mainstream by any definition.

    Edit: I've edited this post because I'm not sure the poster I quoted was disagreeing with me. I'm too tired to tell.


  • #9369
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    growleaves wrote: »
    CtevenSrowder,

    These are excerpts from blog posts by William M. Briggs, who was Professor of Statistics at the Cornell University Medical School and a Research Scientist at New York Methodist Hospital and has a PhD in Mathematical Sciences.

    I recommend the full posts if time permits.

    Fauci Walkback




    Should We Have Trusted Expert Epidemiological Models?
    Read the full posts. Most thought provoking material I've read on the topic.


  • #9370
    Gael23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,153 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    There are hundreds of empty hospital beds in the system which makes these restrictions harder to take


  • #9371
    Van.Bosch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭Van.Bosch


    Gael23 wrote: »
    There are hundreds of empty hospital beds in the system which makes these restrictions harder to take

    Are you saying you want them to be full?


  • Advertisement
  • #9372
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    growleaves wrote: »
    I'm talking about actual studies. If you have them please link to the abstracts.

    Look at what you are saying...Spain had no social distancing policies and their death counts were rising, then they introduced social distancing policies and their deaths levelled off. Therefore social distancing policies are responsible for the levelling off of deaths which would otherwise have continued upwards.

    This isn't scientific proof - its a cause-and-effect assumption.

    That assumption is the starting point of a scientific inquiry, not a 'case closed' conclusion.

    The fact that the abstract models (the Fauci and Ferguson ones) which predicted the deaths turned out to be inaccurate is being taken by many posters as 'not a big deal' should give any sensible person pause.

    It is a huge big deal because it mean that the assumptions behind the models were incorrect and that calls into question then everything these models have told us.

    That's enough for tonight.

    I really don't understand why you're taking this line. Sometimes cause does equal effect. It's not always a fallacy. Especially when you have enough historical perspective and current situations showing results then you're going to pursue that - because without a vaccine or treatment it's the best course of action. It is a fact that without people helping out with hygiene and distancing the known method for transmission (which they do know) will wreak havoc and continue spread and cases will increase. Deaths will increase. It's just common sense. Models are best estimates and are highly subjective and responsive to what is actually happening. That we didn't hit the worst numbers is thanks to the efforts and sacrifices we have all made.
    I'm going with it's better to err on the side of caution in attempting to reduce death and health care collapse in line with the strongest indicators and research so far, than saying f it, there's no definitive proof and then you have out of control cases, death and health care system collapse - whoopsiedaisy's?

    Enough for me tonight too.


  • #9373
    Gael23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,153 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    Van.Bosch wrote: »
    Are you saying you want them to be full?

    My understanding was that the reason for these measure was to protect hospitals but there turns out to be plenty of capacity


  • #9374
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    Van.Bosch wrote: »
    Are you saying you want them to be full?
    I think "used for something" is more the point.

    Are you saying people with cancer can wait for a bit?


  • #9375
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,630 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    Gael23 wrote: »
    My understanding was that the reason for these measure was to protect hospitals but there turns out to be plenty of capacity

    Have you considered the possibility that the capacity is there precisely because of the measures?


  • #9376
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    "It's so hard to stick to this diet now that I'm losing weight. If it wasn't working, it would be easier."


  • #9377
    Speakerboxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭Speakerboxx


    So we are flattening the curve. What part of today's figures makes us confident we are beating the spread of coronavirus?


  • #9378
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,139 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Deleted User wrote: »
    "It's so hard to stick to this diet now that I'm losing weight. If it wasn't working, it would be easier."

    Yes but now that you have lost the weight, it's time for a balanced diet, if you continue on your original diet it can end up being very unhealthy for you.


  • #9379
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,139 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Speakerboxx wrote: »
    So we are flattening the curve. What part of today's figures makes us confident we are beating the spread of coronavirus?

    The new case numbers and actual deaths in the last 24 hours.


  • #9380
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,092 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Gael23 wrote: »
    There are hundreds of empty hospital beds in the system which makes these restrictions harder to take

    Christ but that's a fcking dark way to phrase you wondering if the lock down was an over reaction. (It wasn't)


  • #9381
    Speakerboxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭Speakerboxx


    niallo27 wrote: »
    The new case numbers and actual deaths in the last 24 hours.

    We had 79 deaths today. Double that of Sunday


  • Advertisement
  • #9382
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,092 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Speakerboxx wrote: »
    We had 79 deaths today. Double that of Sunday

    It was the same last week, Monday versus Sunday.


  • #9383
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,907 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    niallo27 wrote: »
    The new case numbers

    Though I'd imagine Holohan et al would say it needs to come down a lot more before they'd be happy about easing restrictions. 400 still a shedload for a small country...


  • #9384
    FintanMcluskey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,643 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    Speakerboxx wrote: »
    We had 79 deaths today. Double that of Sunday

    No. The death announced today include deaths going back to April 3rd.


  • #9385
    Speakerboxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭Speakerboxx


    Tell me how wrote: »
    It was the same last week, Monday versus Sunday.

    And Tuesday versus Monday


  • #9386
    Speakerboxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭Speakerboxx


    FintanMcluskey wrote: »
    No. The death announced today include deaths going back to April 3rd.

    So we are 17 days behind still? I thought backlog was cleared?


  • #9387
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,630 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    Speakerboxx wrote: »
    We had 79 deaths today. Double that of Sunday

    They weren't deaths that occurred yesterday. They were deaths notified yesterday, they could have occurred any time in the last four weeks (or since deaths started getting notified linked to Covid 19, whatever that period is, I'm not sure exactly).

    They had a guesstimate curve for deaths that actually occurred yesterday (because there's a delay between deaths occurring and being notified) and they are reducing.


  • #9388
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,106 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    There's also guestimates in the figure which I don't think they should be counting, you either sure or you don't include it.
    The lepracauns had a bad day, was there 3 or 4 of them died. I think we're the only country reporting unknown genders.


  • #9389
    Charles Babbage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,529 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Though I'd imagine Holohan et al would say it needs to come down a lot more before they'd be happy about easing restrictions. 400 still a shedload for a small country...


    If the testing has indeed caught up then these people must have got the virus in the last 10 days or so. That is not a "good" situation.


  • #9390
    mandrake04
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭mandrake04


    easypazz wrote: »
    “What we’re working on at the moment is a plan that will be ready by the end of April-early May in advance of the May 5th big day if you like. And what we hope to set out is a step-wise plan which indicates how we would reopen the country in different steps and what are the criteria that would have to be met to move from one stage to the next.”

    Even Leo is ramping May 5th as "the big day"

    You are probably going get some soft-cock token easement to sugar coat the reality, but even today Harris is pandering saying that to ease restrictions too soon could un-do “all the hard work!!”

    Really that sounds like they are buttering up your sphincter so when you are asked to bend over it doesn’t hurt as much.


  • Advertisement
  • #9391
    rosiem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭rosiem


    Speakerboxx wrote: »
    So we are 17 days behind still? I thought backlog was cleared?

    Testing backlog is cleared. The reporting of deaths is not instant and is a separate issue not a backlog.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement