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, Part IV - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

1…199200202204205…325

Comments

  • #6032
    Ginger n Lemon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,447 ✭✭✭Ginger n Lemon


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Why am I in the wrong thread. Because I made a comparison with modelling figures based on no lockdown that were wildly inaccurate ?


    Do you know how sampling works ?
    The Swedish health agency obviously does and are happy it is accurate as they announced that 6.1% at a press briefing on Thursday

    Okay. You have no response or clue about sample size. Moving on


  • #6033
    Ginger n Lemon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,447 ✭✭✭Ginger n Lemon


    growleaves wrote: »
    I think Ginger n Lemon said he was going to Berlin on his holidays?

    An early opponent of lockdown on this forum did say that one of his friends got bored and rented an apartment in Sweden for a month.

    Going to Barcelona end of Aug.

    Berlin trip still possible but depends on my other half. As is my holiday plans are irrelevant, Ryanair, Aer Lingus offering flights to EU countries 1 July onward. There is a reason for that. Reason being covid not being treated like ebola in modern EU countries, unlike Irish media.

    In fact, France welcome non EU individuals 1 July onward, an advanced EU country.


  • #6034
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,207 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    MickeyLeari wrote: »
    But I guess most are still alive?

    Who made these predictions of millions of deaths..exactly?


  • #6035
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Goldengirl wrote: »
    Who made these predictions of millions of deaths..exactly?

    Have a good look around the Covid forum.
    The HSE consultant made some wild predictions. Plenty of other posters in those early threads.

    Also see the links in the last few pages in relation to the models. The models we used to help us decide to go into lockdown. They all predicted huge deaths.

    Also have a look throughout the media. Gerry Killeen still thinks we’ll all spend some time in ICU or the next few years. That’d be about 1M per year in ICU.

    Plenty thought there would be millions dead worldwide. Still less than 0.5M deaths. Thankfully they were all wrong.


  • #6036
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,207 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Ginger n Lemon wrote: »
    Going to Barcelona end of Aug.

    Berlin trip still possible but depends on my other half. As is my holiday plans are irrelevant, Ryanair, Aer Lingus offering flights to EU countries 1 July onward. There is a reason for that. Reason being covid not being treated like ebola in modern EU countries, unlike Irish media.

    In fact, France welcome non EU individuals 1 July onward, an advanced EU country.

    Is Norway advanced enough for you? . They have an advisory and quarantine against travel to Sweden because of that country's handling of Covid 19.


  • Advertisement
  • #6037
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,207 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Have a good look around the Covid forum.
    The HSE consultant made some wild predictions. Plenty of other posters in those early threads.

    Also see the links in the last few pages in relation to the models. The models we used to help us decide to go into lockdown. They all predicted huge deaths.

    Also have a look throughout the media. Gerry Killeen still thinks we’ll all spend some time in ICU or the next few years. That’d be about 1M per year in ICU.

    Plenty thought there would be millions dead worldwide. Still less than 0.5M deaths. Thankfully they were all wrong.

    Yes, a lot of the earlier models you talk about were based on no restrictions so of course are now obsolete .
    Also Beasty has re-posted some comments made from early posters on the anti restriction side , that were very dismissive of this virus and any qualms people may have had about a possible pandemic.
    So hindsight....


  • #6038
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,030 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Yes, a lot of the earlier models you talk about were based on no restrictions so of course are now obsolete .

    Which ones?

    I ask because as I say upthread the Imperial model, and ones which replicated it (i.e. the independent Swedish researchers' one), include predictions with mitigation measures - such as social distancing and other measures - than run into hundreds of thousands of deaths for individual countries and thus millions worldwide.

    I think many people assume that the modelled predictions are based on no restrictions but if you study these models and read all the caveats that isn't necessarily the case.


  • #6039
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Goldengirl wrote: »
    Yes, a lot of the earlier models you talk about were based on no restrictions so of course are now obsolete .
    Also Beasty has re-posted some comments made from early posters on the anti restriction side , that were very dismissive of this virus and any qualms people may have had about a possible pandemic.
    So hindsight....

    Read over the links that growleaves posted about the models. They included different scenarios and are not obsolete. They just were and are inaccurate. By a long way.


  • #6040
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,203 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    growleaves wrote: »
    Here is where the 120k figure came from (Mar 9):
    Link
    Seems a reasonable estimate at the time based on the knowledge we had.

    Now we have antibody tests, the fatality rate is coming in around 0.5-1% across populations, and much much higher in older age groups. So it's still a very dangerous virus.

    If he had said back in March this would cost 40,000 lives, we'd still have done what we did. Anyone here who thinks we should never have tried to control this virus is living in a dreamworld.


  • #6041
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,207 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Read over the links that growleaves posted about the models. They included different scenarios and are not obsolete. They just were and are inaccurate. By a long way.

    I don't need to read over them but thanks anyway .
    Big difference between social distancing and handwashing , and lockdown , as you know . They are obsolete now as we now know what works and what we should do if cases start to rise exponentially again .
    And what about all the inaccurate predictions made by posters from the earlier threads that have been quoted here ?


  • Advertisement
  • #6042
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Goldengirl wrote: »
    I don't need to read over them but thanks anyway .
    Big difference between social distancing and handwashing , and lockdown , as you know . They are obsolete now as we now know what works and what we should do if cases start to rise exponentially again .
    And what about all the inaccurate predictions made by posters from the earlier threads that have been quoted here ?

    What inaccurate predictions?


  • #6043
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,030 ✭✭✭growleaves


    hmmm wrote: »
    Seems a reasonable estimate at the time based on the knowledge we had.

    Now we have antibody tests, the fatality rate is coming in around 0.5-1% across populations, and much much higher in older age groups. So it's still a very dangerous virus.

    If he had said back in March this would cost 40,000 lives, we'd still have done what we did. Anyone here who thinks we should never have tried to control this virus is living in a dreamworld.

    Some researchers have it as low as 0.2-0.3% based on what they claim are flaws in the antibody testing measurements and I'm not inclined to automatically discount them on the say-so of 'mainstream' voices who have gotten so much wrong quite recently.

    The past can't be changed now but we ought to have better containment measures based on Asian countries (that aren't China) and the usual excuse given 'Oh well they went through a pandemic before and we didnt' - we won't be able to say that the next time!

    Also will we need rhetoric about "microbial enemies" and big signs that say 'Heroes Stay At Home', I dearly hope not.


  • #6044
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,203 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    growleaves wrote: »
    Some researchers have it as low as 0.2-0.3% based on what they claim are flaws in the antibody testing measurements and I'm not inclined to automatically discount them on the say-so of 'mainstream' voices who have gotten so much wrong quite recently.
    The rate will vary widely depending on the age profile of the population.

    In New York city, which is a reasonably representative population (maybe trending to the younger side), they have already hit 0.2% deaths. Antibody tests are suggesting that even in the worst-hit areas, no more than 25% of the population have had it. Now obviously the antibody tests may be faulty, and 100% of the population aren't going to get it, but the lower estimates of mortality don't seem to be borne out by the data in front of us.


  • #6045
    MickeyLeari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 917 ✭✭✭MickeyLeari


    Goldengirl wrote: »
    Yes, a lot of the earlier models you talk about were based on no restrictions so of course are now obsolete .
    Also Beasty has re-posted some comments made from early posters on the anti restriction side , that were very dismissive of this virus and any qualms people may have had about a possible pandemic.
    So hindsight....

    The same beasty who said this on another thread in response to a question on the advisory Irish quarantine. I will probably cop a ban for this but this was an incredible reaction to a question:

    And that means you should be staying indoors for 14 days. You should certainly not cycling outdoors during those 14 days. It's not a matter of whether the rules are enforced - it's your responsibility to observe them. If you do not wish to do so, stay out of Ireland. If you do you will be being incredibly selfish as well as breaching Irish rules

    When did cycling and minding your own business lead to a risk on Covid. Even the doomsdayers and most pessimistic medics are not arguing this. How many livelihoods are dependent on tourism? If someone was looking to have coppers reopened to dance to New York New York at the end of the night while wishing to transmit the virus such a response might be ok but this is nuts.


  • #6046
    CruelSummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,337 ✭✭✭CruelSummer


    hmmm wrote: »
    The rate will vary widely depending on the age profile of the population.

    In New York city, which is a reasonably representative population (maybe trending to the younger side), they have already hit 0.2% deaths. Antibody tests are suggesting that even in the worst-hit areas, no more than 25% of the population have had it. Now obviously the antibody tests may be faulty, and 100% of the population aren't going to get it, but the lower estimates of mortality don't seem to be borne out by the data in front of us.

    There was a link posted on the main Covid forum re antibody tests and how inaccurate they are. Research has been submitted for peer review re testing our T cell response as this is apparently showing up far more Covid infections than the antibody test. Don’t have the link to hand.


  • #6047
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,203 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    CruelSummer wrote: »
    There was a link posted on the main Covid forum re antibody tests and how inaccurate they are. Research has been submitted for peer review re testing our T cell response as this is apparently showing up far more Covid infections than the antibody test. Don’t have the link to hand.
    I saw that. Very small sample and not peer reviewed so we'll wait and see and still too early to say it has been proven, but hopefully good news. None of this was known to scientists and public health people back in March however.


  • #6048
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,207 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What inaccurate predictions?

    Read over the posts supplied by Beasty or read the first thread yourself.


  • #6049
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,207 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    MickeyLeari wrote: »
    The same beasty who said this on another thread in response to a question on the advisory Irish quarantine. I will probably cop a ban for this but this was an incredible reaction to a question:

    And that means you should be staying indoors for 14 days. You should certainly not cycling outdoors during those 14 days. It's not a matter of whether the rules are enforced - it's your responsibility to observe them. If you do not wish to do so, stay out of Ireland. If you do you will be being incredibly selfish as well as breaching Irish rules

    When did cycling and minding your own business lead to a risk on Covid. Even the doomsdayers and most pessimistic medics are not arguing this. How many livelihoods are dependent on tourism? If someone was looking to have coppers reopened to dance to New York New York at the end of the night while wishing to transmit the virus such a response might be ok but this is nuts.

    He wasn't saying that cycling or minding your own business as you say , leads to a risk on Covid . Except when that person is meant to be quarantining and only making essential journeys for shopping . I would imagine , because you haven't said what post he was replying to . It could have been an innocent cyclist or more likely some traveller who didn't approve of our lockdown and felt that Irish rules did not apply to him. I don't know .
    My point in this discussion is that it is pointless and meaningless, saying that this poster said this and that poster said that , at the start of these threads except to make it clear that none of us on EITHER side knew what was coming down the line or what the best course of action would be .


  • #6050
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,207 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Ginger n Lemon wrote: »
    I think that in bold really gives out how you think.

    Relative safety?

    And you dont want me to accuse you of living in fear? come on now.

    I think its obvious what this thread comes down to now, now that all restrictions except on pubs are lifted come Monday. Get busy living or get busy staying safe.

    I know this was earlier but anyway ...
    To quote my good friend, Ginger 😉

    Get busy living OR get busy staying safe ....

    Why does it have to be either /or at this stage ?


  • #6051
    fr336
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭fr336


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Have a good look around the Covid forum.
    The HSE consultant made some wild predictions. Plenty of other posters in those early threads.

    Also see the links in the last few pages in relation to the models. The models we used to help us decide to go into lockdown. They all predicted huge deaths.

    Also have a look throughout the media. Gerry Killeen still thinks we’ll all spend some time in ICU or the next few years. That’d be about 1M per year in ICU.

    Plenty thought there would be millions dead worldwide. Still less than 0.5M deaths. Thankfully they were all wrong.

    I'm lost for words lol...how were they wrong? That was their reason for the lockdown. Where have you been the past few months. They wanted lockdown to AVOID said deaths. So how were they wrong?


  • Advertisement
  • #6052
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Does anybody listen to Eamon Dunphy's podcast? Tomas Ryan was on it tonight. Very much goes against the dominant narrative on here

    [The Stand with Eamon Dunphy] Ep 785: Covid-19 - Low Numbers Can Lie, The Virus Is Around and Dangerous #theStandWithEamonDunphy
    https://podcastaddict.com/episode/108662016 via @PodcastAddict


  • #6053
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    growleaves wrote: »
    From the Twitter thread you link to:



    Great so Imperial didn't make that prediction - an independent group of researchers from European universities replicated the Imperial model in order to apply it Sweden, and came up predictions for Sweden which were commensurate to Imperial's predictions for the UK.

    Would be a bit like met Éireann using a weather model designed to predict the weather in Sweden without taking account of the fact that the model assumed the Baltic was off the east coast and much of the country was in the arctic circle. All predictive models make assumptions. If you want to apply that model to a different set of circumstances you must adjust your assumptions as it is impossible to model for every variable in such a complex system. The modelling for the uk, where it was designed for, had a prediction of 250,000 deaths without the lockdown, and 500,000 with no controls. Given in excess of 50,000 have actually died in the uk, the 250,000 figure does not seem so outrageous


  • #6054
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    growleaves wrote: »
    Some researchers have it as low as 0.2-0.3% based on what they claim are flaws in the antibody testing measurements and I'm not inclined to automatically discount them on the say-so of 'mainstream' voices who have gotten so much wrong quite recently.

    The past can't be changed now but we ought to have better containment measures based on Asian countries (that aren't China) and the usual excuse given 'Oh well they went through a pandemic before and we didnt' - we won't be able to say that the next time!

    Also will we need rhetoric about "microbial enemies" and big signs that say 'Heroes Stay At Home', I dearly hope not.

    Has there been any evidence that 50% plus of New Yorkers have been infected? Because at current total deaths at least that number would have had to have had the virus to have a 0.3% cfr. And here we are already at 3x a bad flu season in deaths after only 3 months and with restrictions, flu has a Cfr of 0.1%


  • #6055
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    CruelSummer wrote: »
    There was a link posted on the main Covid forum re antibody tests and how inaccurate they are. Research has been submitted for peer review re testing our T cell response as this is apparently showing up far more Covid infections than the antibody test. Don’t have the link to hand.

    I read the abstract on that. It was based on 9 index cases and their contacts. It’s seems all of the index cases had antibodies but none of the contacts. Does not hold water for me. Sample size was tiny and the fact that none of the contacts seem to have developed antibodies indicates they may have concluded the study too soon. If anyone read the full paper maybe they can tell me how that was dealt with


  • #6056
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    fr336 wrote: »
    I'm lost for words lol...how were they wrong? That was their reason for the lockdown. Where have you been the past few months. They wanted lockdown to AVOID said deaths. So how were they wrong?

    I'm lost for words... Are you actually reading the posts on this thread and making an effort to keep up?

    The models and the experts were wrong. Countries that didn't lockdown didn't have deaths in the millions or anything like it.

    So its safe to say that the illness isn't as deadly as we originally feared.

    Thats good news right?


  • #6057
    MickeyLeari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 917 ✭✭✭MickeyLeari


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Does anybody listen to Eamon Dunphy's podcast? Tomas Ryan was on it tonight. Very much goes against the dominant narrative on here

    [The Stand with Eamon Dunphy] Ep 785: Covid-19 - Low Numbers Can Lie, The Virus Is Around and Dangerous #theStandWithEamonDunphy
    https://podcastaddict.com/episode/108662016 via @PodcastAddict

    You can read his views here https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/tomás-ryan-is-ireland-s-strategy-to-live-with-or-eliminate-coronavirus-1.4274877

    He is a “crush the curver”. This also means “crush the economy” which is definitely very much against the narrative here.


  • #6058
    MickeyLeari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 917 ✭✭✭MickeyLeari


    Goldengirl wrote: »
    He wasn't saying that cycling or minding your own business as you say , leads to a risk on Covid . Except when that person is meant to be quarantining and only making essential journeys for shopping . I would imagine , because you haven't said what post he was replying to . It could have been an innocent cyclist or more likely some traveller who didn't approve of our lockdown and felt that Irish rules did not apply to him. I don't know .
    My point in this discussion is that it is pointless and meaningless, saying that this poster said this and that poster said that , at the start of these threads except to make it clear that none of us on EITHER side knew what was coming down the line or what the best course of action would be .

    Here is the link https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058087666&page=1

    And to repeat there is no legal basis to the 14 day recommendation to self isolate. The Government actually rejected a recommendation to this effect (with good reason). In contrast there is a law on jaywalking.

    Wash your hands + stay at home when ill + wear a mask in crowded public transport


  • #6059
    20silkcut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I'm lost for words... Are you actually reading the posts on this thread and making an effort to keep up?

    The models and the experts were wrong. Countries that didn't lockdown didn't have deaths in the millions or anything like it.

    So its safe to say that the illness isn't as deadly as we originally feared.

    Thats good news right?


    Whether there was lockdowns or not the vast majority of people changed their behaviour in some way. Even those who were sceptical of the dangers.
    I know lots of people who were outwardly totally dismissive of the virus but still kept 2 metres away from others and weren’t exactly licking door knobs.
    Subconsciously the message got through. Some people just like to take contrarian positions.
    But the human body is inclined towards self preservation regardless of what the mind thinks or says.


  • #6060
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MickeyLeari wrote: »
    You can read his views here https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/tomás-ryan-is-ireland-s-strategy-to-live-with-or-eliminate-coronavirus-1.4274877

    He is a “crush the curver”. This also means “crush the economy” which is definitely very much against the narrative here.

    He covers it a lot more in detail in the podcast, that opening up too soon is even worse for the economy when we inevitably start seeing a rise in cases. I hope he's wrong but i trust an expert more than the folks on here claiming it's over already.


  • Advertisement
  • #6061
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    He covers it a lot more in detail in the podcast, that opening up too soon is even worse for the economy when we inevitably start seeing a rise in cases. I hope he's wrong but i trust an expert more than the folks on here claiming it's over already.

    I haven't seen anyone claiming its over already. There might not be a vaccine for years, if we ever get one at all.

    What we need to do is move forward with the virus.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement