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

Covid19 Part XVII-24,841 in ROI (1,639 deaths) 4,679 in NI (518 deaths)(28/05)Read OP

1…4142444647…324

Comments

  • #1292
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    If Sweden had the same population as the United States of America they would have over 100k deaths.

    Yeah and if your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle.

    The predictions of tens of millions of deaths worldwide assumed that smaller countries would have 50-100,000s of deaths and larger countries like US, Russia, India would be in the low millions.

    Instead US had under 100k and countries like Sweden and Belarus are in the 1000s.


  • #1293
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,501 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    growleaves wrote:
    Also if you are saying that is nothing to compare lockdown to, and no way of determining its effectiveness, then the lockdown should have a big question mark over it.
    If you go out infected then you likely spread the virus. If you don't understand something this simple then maybe you need to be locked up instead of in a lockdown.


  • #1294
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,853 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    growleaves wrote: »

    A scientific investigation could start with one or the another assumption, or no assumption, and (try to) collate objective evidence.

    Unfortunately for the pro-lockdown people, looking at countries that didn't lock down is one of the most obvious things to do.

    Here is some objective evidence.

    Norway - Lockdown - 40 deaths per 1 million population.
    Denmark - Lockdown - 89 deaths per 1 million population.
    Sweden - No Lockdown - 301 deaths per 1 million.


  • #1295
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    If you go out infected then you likely spread the virus. If you don't understand something this simple then maybe you need to be locked up instead of in a lockdown.

    Lol!


  • #1296
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,501 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    growleaves wrote:
    Instead US had under 100k and countries like Sweden and Belarus are in the 1000s.

    There's an important word you need to change in that and it's 'had' to 'has' because this thing isn't over yet. We don't know about the second wave and what it'll bring. We'll get an idea starting in about 9 days time in Spain.


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Here is some objective evidence.

    Norway - Lockdown - 40 deaths per 1 million population.
    Denmark - Lockdown - 89 deaths per 1 million population.
    Sweden - No Lockdown - 301 deaths per 1 million.

    301 deaths per million does not add up to 100,000s of deaths. Sweden is within the EU average.

    Again, Scandanavian countries can only be compared to one another? So are local environmental factors more significant than the fact of instituting a lockdown? Why then have so many posters taken Lombardy, Madrid, NYC as normative for the rest of the world? You better tell them they're mistaken.


  • #1298
    US2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭US2


    The "second wave" was from the flu. It was seasonal. The second season was much worse than the first! Covid 19 doesn't seem to be seasonal so why so many people mentioning second wave when this looks set to be here year round..


  • #1299
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    eagle eye wrote: »
    There's an important word you need to change in that and it's 'had' to 'has' because this thing isn't over yet. We don't know about the second wave and what it'll bring. We'll get an idea starting in about 9 days time in Spain.


    Fair enough.


  • #1300
    Mike3287
    Closed Accounts Posts: 379 ✭✭Mike3287


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Here is some objective evidence.

    Norway - Lockdown - 40 deaths per 1 million population.
    Denmark - Lockdown - 89 deaths per 1 million population.
    Sweden - No Lockdown - 301 deaths per 1 million.

    For now

    Norway and Denmark are going to have to open eventually

    After 18 months figures might not be so different

    40 deaths per 1 mill = 99.96% survival rate
    301 death per 1 mill = 99.70% survival rate


  • #1301
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,501 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    growleaves wrote:
    Again, Scandanavian countries can only be compared to one another? So are local environmental factors more significant than the fact of instituting a lockdown? Why then have so many posters taken Lombardy, Madrid, NYC as normative for the rest of the world? You better tell them they're mistaken.
    How does 40, 89 and 301 sound similar to you?


  • Advertisement
  • #1302
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Mike3287 wrote: »
    For now

    Norway and Denmark are going to have to open eventually

    After 18 months figures might not be so different

    40 deaths per 1 mill = 99.96% survival rate
    301 death per 1 mill = 99.70% survival rate


    Good point. They have deliberately suppressed mortality for the time being, lengthening the epidemic in their countries, while Sweden have their deaths 'up front'.


    Sweden tripled their ICU capacity between January and mid-April.


  • #1303
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,150 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    Ploughing Championship in mid September cancelled.


  • #1304
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Leo came across very well on Pat Kenny this morning I thought. Calm, rational answers for everything

    (sits back....grabs popcorn)


  • #1305
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,853 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    growleaves wrote: »
    301 deaths per million does not add up to 100,000s of deaths. Sweden is within the EU average.

    Again, Scandanavian countries can only be compared to one another? So are local environmental factors more significant than the fact of instituting a lockdown? Why then have so many posters taken Lombardy, Madrid, NYC as normative for the rest of the world? You better tell them they're mistaken.

    I never mentioned 100,000s of deaths. I'm only using the deaths per million of population to point out that it looks like a lockdown helps prevent deaths.

    And all three countries are Scandanavian with Norway and Sweden being similar enough. I haven't brought Lombardy, Madrid etc. into the conversation. I'm just mentioning Scandanavian countries. Does Finland count as Scandanavian. Then 46 deaths per million there so still way less than Sweden.

    Lockdown saves lives. How many, impossible to tell but clearly it does save lives.


  • #1306
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,137 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    eagle eye wrote: »
    There's an important word you need to change in that and it's 'had' to 'has' because this thing isn't over yet. We don't know about the second wave and what it'll bring. We'll get an idea starting in about 9 days time in Spain.

    No lets look at Germany, Czeck republic or Denmark right now, why are you waiting for one of the most infected countries in the world. We were never where Spain were.


  • #1307
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    How does 40, 89 and 301 sound similar to you?

    I didn't write that they 'sound similar'.

    I wrote that if we are make a comparison of one Scandanavian country to another - i.e. comparing 40 dpm to 301 dpm - then we are saying local environmental factors (unique to Scandanavia) are a more significant factor than the lockdown.

    If we don't believe this then why are we narrowing the comparison Scandanavia only? If we cease to narrow the comparison to Scandanavia only, we find that Sweden is within the EU average.


  • #1308
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,501 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    growleaves wrote:
    Good point. They have deliberately suppressed mortality for the time being, lengthening the epidemic in their countries, while Sweden have their deaths 'up front'.
    Wheres your facts and figures to backup this claim?
    growleaves wrote:
    Sweden tripled their ICU capacity between January and mid-April.
    What has that got to do with the number of deaths?


  • #1309
    US2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭US2


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I never mentioned 100,000s of deaths. I'm only using the deaths per million of population to point out that it looks like a lockdown helps prevent deaths.

    And all three countries are Scandanavian with Norway and Sweden being similar enough. I haven't brought Lombardy, Madrid etc. into the conversation. I'm just mentioning Scandanavian countries. Does Finland count as Scandanavian. Then 46 deaths per million there so still way less than Sweden.

    Lockdown saves lives. How many, impossible to tell but clearly it does save lives.

    Does it really save lives or just delay deaths?

    Most of the world locked inside when this will affect. 001% of us


  • #1310
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    I never mentioned 100,000s of deaths.

    That was the context of the conversation, which is I was debating with another commenter, before you dropped your comment.


  • #1311
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,501 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    growleaves wrote:
    If we don't believe this then why are we narrowing the comparison Scandanavia only? If we cease to narrow the comparison to Scandanavia only, we find that Sweden is within the EU average.
    The object of the comparisons was to show the huge difference in neighbouring countries who took different approaches.


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Wheres your facts and figures to backup this claim?

    Er its called 'flattening the curve' maybe you're heard of it? Its a deliberate strategy being followed by several governments.
    What has that got to do with the number of deaths?

    It allowed Sweden to forgo 'flattening the curve' since the overwhelming of ICU capacity was considered to add to death tolls (as happened in Lombardy).


  • #1313
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    The object of the comparisons was to show the huge difference in neighbouring countries who took different approaches.

    Right and if you look at Northern Europe in toto you don't see a huge difference. You see that Sweden is within the EU average.


  • #1314
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,853 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    US2 wrote: »
    Does it really save lives or just delay deaths?

    Most of the world locked inside when this will affect. 001% of us


    "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

    Lockdown does a few things.

    1. It helps slow the spread of the virus. This is undeniable as someone on an island on their own can't catch the feckin thing.

    2. If the infection rate is slowed it gives hospitals time to treat the infected. Hospitals that are swamped can't treat the infected and give them a chance of survival. If everyone gets the virus at the same time, more people die than necessary. This again is not disputed anywhere in the world.

    3. If people can avoid catching the virus until they get a vaccine, then they won't die from it so again, delaying catching the virus is a good thing.

    So, without a doubt in my mind, a lockdown gives you a far greater chance of a. not catching the feckin thing, and b. not dying from the feckin thing.


  • #1315
    Mike3287
    Closed Accounts Posts: 379 ✭✭Mike3287


    growleaves wrote: »
    Good point. They have deliberately suppressed mortality for the time being, lengthening the epidemic in their countries, while Sweden have their deaths 'up front'.


    Sweden tripled their ICU capacity between January and mid-April.

    Exactly

    It's like a loan, sometimes your better take the pain upfront and get on with it

    Sweden took a risk for sure, but with data they had of no vaccine, no treatments, virus spreading silently for months, hard to blame them.

    Both are crap situations


  • #1316
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,853 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    growleaves wrote: »
    Right and if you look at Northern Europe in toto you don't see a huge difference. You see that Sweden is within the EU average.

    Maybe it needn't have been within the EU average and could have done as well as its neighbours if it had implemented a lockdown.


  • #1317
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,501 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    growleaves wrote:
    Er its called 'flattening the curve' maybe you're heard of it? Its a deliberate strategy being followed by several governments.
    I want facts and figures from an official source saying that no lockdown leads to the same amount of deaths as a lockdown which is what you are now claiming. Otherwise gtfo.
    growleaves wrote:
    It allowed Sweden to forgo 'flattening the curve' since the overwhelming of ICU capacity was considered to add to death tolls (as happened in Lombardy).
    Honestly give your brain a rest, you have not digested the information in your head.
    Not having enough time ICU beds is obviously an issue but forgoing a lockdown is allowing people to die.
    And even if your insane claim that everybody will end up at the same death toll percentage comes to pass you still shouldn't be shortening somebody's life.


  • #1318
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

    Lockdown does a few things.

    1. It helps slow the spread of the virus. This is undeniable as someone on an island on their own can't catch the feckin thing.

    2. If the infection rate is slowed it gives hospitals time to treat the infected. Hospitals that are swamped can't treat the infected and give them a chance of survival. If everyone gets the virus at the same time, more people die than necessary. This again is not disputed anywhere in the world.

    3. If people can avoid catching the virus until they get a vaccine, then they won't die from it so again, delaying catching the virus is a good thing.

    So, without a doubt in my mind, a lockdown gives you a far greater chance of a. not catching the feckin thing, and b. not dying from the feckin thing.

    Problem is you have to unlock. A lockdown delays cthe inevitable nothing more. Vaccine unlikely anytime soon. Lockdown till vaccine untenable.


  • #1319
    New Home
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 78,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭New Home


    Mike3287 wrote: »
    Exactly

    It's like a loan, sometimes your better take the pain upfront and get on with it

    Sweden took a risk for sure, but with data they had of no vaccine, no treatments, virus spreading silently for months, hard to blame them.

    Both are crap situations

    But it's one thing to have to repay the loan in one year and another to have to repay it in 40. And I'm not even talking about interest rates.


  • #1320
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    I want facts and figures from an official source saying that no lockdown leads to the same amount of deaths as a lockdown which is what you are now claiming.

    I am not claiming that.

    Go back and read what I initially wrote:
    With the lockdown, people starting by assuming that deaths would be prevented by the lockdown. Then they assumed that deaths had been prevented by the lockdown.

    People assuming the lockdown was ineffective or unnecessary are no more or less presumptuous from an objective POV.

    A scientific investigation could start with one or the another assumption, or no assumption, and (try to) collate objective evidence.

    It has be studied.
    And even if your insane claim that everybody will end up at the same death toll percentage comes to pass

    'Insane claim'. The fact that you're using inflammatory rhetoric tells me you've an emotional investment in the lockdown. Like I said, scientists will study it in time.


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    Jim_Hodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,097 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Problem is you have to unlock. A lockdown delays cthe inevitable nothing more. Vaccine unlikely anytime soon. Lockdown till vaccine untenable.
    It does much more than buy time until a vaccine. It evened out the serious cases to allow the health service cope. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You clearly haven't been working with Covid patients.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement