Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IV - Read OP for Mod Warnings

facehugger99 · 20-07-2020 11:44AM

hamburgham wrote: »

Yes,the CSO and HIQA independently of each other both calculated the true figure to be about 1100 (I can't remember exactly) but they both came to the same figure. It's been pretty much ignored.

I can't believe (well I can actually) there was no furore when they stoped giving the mean and median age of those who died at the daily conferences. That was such a blatant attempt to 'shape the narrative' as they say these days.

The vast majority of whom will be end of life patients in the 80's and older with severe underlying medical conditions.

How many healthy people have died in this country as a result of covid?

How many are going to die in the coming years due to the billions of debt we've saddled ourselves with?

s1ippy · 20-07-2020 11:53AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its not the proportion of people who have had the virus that determines who is on the green list, but the proportion who currently have it.

Friends I have living in Paris, London and Amsterdam were infected just going about their days in those crowded places. You can be quite sure that if the capital of a place has been badly hit overall, they'll be leaving it off the green list. Just arriving in the airport or getting on a plane which will potentially have citizens from there will dramatically increase your chances of contracting covid in the course of your travel.

tobefrank321 · 20-07-2020 11:56AM

hamburgham wrote: »

Yes,the CSO and HIQA independently of each other both calculated the true figure to be about 1100 (I can't remember exactly) but they both came to the same figure. It's been pretty much ignored.

I can't believe (well I can actually) there was no furore when they stoped giving the mean and median age of those who died at the daily conferences. That was such a blatant attempt to 'shape the narrative' as they say these days.

I've personally heard of one person who had covid 19 on the death cert, despite no evidence of the person having it and testing negative a number of times before their death.

Only a positive test can definitively tell if you are positive or not. Everything else is guess work and doctors can and do make mistakes all the time.

Surely there is a way of testing a deceased person for covid 19?

20-07-2020 12:07PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I've personally heard of one person who had covid 19 on the death cert, despite no evidence of the person having it and testing negative a number of times before their death.

Only a positive test can definitively tell if you are positive or not. Everything else is guess work and doctors can and do make mistakes all the time.

Surely there is a way of testing a deceased person for covid 19?

The trouble is by the time someone dies it may the effects of the virus that has killed them even though they are no longer infected.

tobefrank321 · 20-07-2020 12:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The trouble is by the time someone dies it may the effects of the virus that has killed them even though they are no longer infected.

Good point. But unless put on a ventilator, an elderly person dies relatively quickly in most circumstance from covid 19 and the virus would be present at time of death.

There's been cases of people testing positive for months for covid as their weakened immune system struggles to fight it off. Initially it was thought they were re-infected, but turns out they never fully cleared it from their body.

Seweryn · 20-07-2020 12:23PM

hamburgham wrote: »

Yes,the CSO and HIQA independently of each other both calculated the true figure to be about 1100 (I can't remember exactly) but they both came to the same figure. It's been pretty much ignored.

I can't believe (well I can actually) there was no furore when they stoped giving the mean and median age of those who died at the daily conferences. That was such blatant 'shaping of the narrative' as they say these days.

Well, I have the death numbers for the first 4 months of the year (when the most of them happened) and after comparing them with the previous 3 year's average it is hard to find half of these deaths to be honest.

20-07-2020 12:33PM

Seweryn wrote: »

Well, I have the death numbers for the first 4 months of the year (when the most of them happened) and after comparing them with the previous 3 year's average it is hard to find half of these deaths to be honest.

Are you going to share?

Seweryn · 20-07-2020 12:35PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

How many are going to die in the coming years due to the billions of debt we've saddled ourselves with?

We can only guess. We may soon start observing unfortunate death increase due to patients not being treated for the last few months, suicides from depression and economical disaster, etc.

rob316 · 20-07-2020 12:43PM

Seweryn wrote: »

We can only guess. We may soon start observing unfortunate death increase due to patients not being treated for the last few months, suicides from depression and economical disaster, etc.

Friend of a friend was telling me he works in a cancer screening centre, they diagnose about 20 people a week. There was no one diagnosed for about 10 weeks :eek:

That's one centre, in one city. Most probably perfectly healthy and young not 80 plus on death's door as is.

Seweryn · 20-07-2020 12:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you going to share?

Not sure, because the discussion on this subject tends to be very hot and usually goes off the rails.

But I can say the death figures for this year (the first 4 months) are a good bit lower than normal average (obviously including the Cov. deaths). And after deducting the Cov. deaths, the numbers don't look right.

20-07-2020 12:46PM

In the future, I'd imagine there will be investigations into our handling of this.

Why were the models so insanely wrong?
Why did we overstate the deaths in the manner that we have done?
Why did we allow fear to be narrative throughout?
Why did we crash the economy for an illness that has killed so few?
Why did we need the longest lockdown in the world?
Why did we have highest percentage of health care workers effected in the world?
Did we really need to stop all hospital screening for months? How many will subsequently die as a result?

108 people under 65 have died. And how many thousands are out of work, were out of work, out of school, out of education etc.
Why did we allow all of this to happen when the risk was so low?

joeguevara · 20-07-2020 12:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In the future, I'd imagine there will be investigations into our handling of this.

Why were the models so insanely wrong?
Why did we overstate the deaths in the manner that we have done?
Why did we allow fear to be narrative throughout?
Why did we crash the economy for an illness that has killed so few?
Why did we need the longest lockdown in the world?
Why did we have highest percentage of health care workers effected in the world?
Did we really need to stop all hospital screening for months? How many will subsequently die as a result?

108 people under 65 have died. And how many thousands are out of work, were out of work, out of school, out of education etc.
Why did we allow all of this to happen when the risk was so low?

Do you think the amount who died would have been the same if we didn't do all of the above. Please look at Sweden before you answer that.

bb1234567 · 20-07-2020 12:49PM

hamburgham wrote: »

Yes,the CSO and HIQA independently of each other both calculated the true figure to be about 1100 (I can't remember exactly) but they both came to the same figure. It's been pretty much ignored.

I can't believe (well I can actually) there was no furore when they stoped giving the mean and median age of those who died at the daily conferences. That was such blatant 'shaping of the narrative' as they say these days.

Jaysus, you've gotten that a bit arseways. Youre talking about the excess death figure. It was lower than the official number of COVID deaths, it just means the the disparity can be explained by the fact that a number of those people would have died during that 3 month period regardless, or other causes of death dropped during that time.It is nothing like the official covid death figure being revised or reduced,it does not mean that they think less than 1750 died of covid in reality, that is a really poor comprehension of the facts that emerged over the last few weeks on your part.

bb1234567 · 20-07-2020 12:54PM

snowcat wrote: »

So the results of the antibody tests are in from Ireland. About 5% of us have had the Covid. 1753 deaths. Mortality rate of .03%.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/coronavirus-ireland-has-no-significant-herd-immunity-study-shows-1.4308216

5% of our population is 245k. 1753 is 0.71% of 245,000.

The article also explicitely states that findings have found antibody presence to be 'less' than 5%, not 5%, so it is also higher than 0.71%.

Not that I expected anyone to call out your likely deliberate distraction and misinterpretation of the data, like why did you mention the mortality rate given the information released in the article, it is irrelvant to the article and has been known for months.The newly released info would only affect what we know about the iFR. So you saying it alongside the article makes it seem as though it has been recently estbalished thay the IFR is 0.03%, and will be confusing to readers who saw your post. But there's only one opinion allowed on this particular thread, even if it does not align with reality.

bb1234567 · 20-07-2020 01:01PM

rob316 wrote: »

Friend of a friend was telling me he works in a cancer screening centre, they diagnose about 20 people a week. There was no one diagnosed for about 10 weeks :eek:

That's one centre, in one city. Most probably perfectly healthy and young not 80 plus on death's door as is.

Yes that is a major issue. My grandad had been diagnosed with very treatable prostate cancer in February. He received one bout of radiotherapy which was well tolerated, obviously this was suspended since then. It resumed today and he reacted extremely badly to the second round and is now staying in A&E overnight, I imagine it is as result of the cancer having advanced considerably in development in the meantime as he now has extreme pain in the baldder dueo to the prostate tumour growing and pressing off surrounding areas. Further testing awaiting but I don't think the news will be good.

Penfailed · 20-07-2020 01:10PM

snowcat wrote: »

Very arrogant telling people what the article means. People can draw their own conclusions from the article.

He quoted the article!

prunudo · 20-07-2020 01:17PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yes that is a major issue. My grandad had been diagnosed with very treatable prostate cancer in February. He received one bout of radiotherapy which was well tolerated, obviously this was suspended since then. It resumed today and he reacted extremely badly to the second round and is now staying in A&E overnight, I imagine it is as result of the cancer having advanced considerably in development in the meantime as he now has extreme pain in the baldder dueo to the prostate tumour growing and pressing off surrounding areas. Further testing awaiting but I don't think the news will be good.

Sorry to hear about your granddad, hope he pulls through. Unfortunately I fear we'll be hearing a lot of similar stories in the coming months.

Penfailed · 20-07-2020 01:18PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Not that I expected anyone to call out your clear and likely deliberate misinterpretation of the data, there's only one opinion allowed on this particular thread, even if it does not align with reality.

To be fair, that's not true.

bucketybuck · 20-07-2020 01:50PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

How many are going to die in the coming years due to the billions of debt we've saddled ourselves with?

Seweryn wrote: »

We can only guess. We may soon start observing unfortunate death increase due to patients not being treated for the last few months, suicides from depression and economical disaster, etc.

It would be interesting to see how many people die from cancer/suicide/poverty related illnesses in the coming years compared to the numbers that died from Covid. Not that we will ever be allowed to see the true figures of course, but I suspect there will be a hell of a lot of deaths that will directly trace their origins to the lockdown and the social restrictions.

The irony being that the government would probably have the bare faced cheek to include those deaths as "Covid related", and in doing so use them as justification for the covid restrictions in the first place. Its circular reasoning but when you are already manipulating the reports what is one step more.

facehugger99 · 20-07-2020 01:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In the future, I'd imagine there will be investigations into our handling of this.

Why were the models so insanely wrong?
Why did we overstate the deaths in the manner that we have done?
Why did we allow fear to be narrative throughout?
Why did we crash the economy for an illness that has killed so few?
Why did we need the longest lockdown in the world?
Why did we have highest percentage of health care workers effected in the world?
Did we really need to stop all hospital screening for months? How many will subsequently die as a result?

108 people under 65 have died. And how many thousands are out of work, were out of work, out of school, out of education etc.
Why did we allow all of this to happen when the risk was so low?

Reports, Investigations and Tribunals presided over by the same bunch of incompetent fcukwits that hid away from making any decision for the last 5 months no doubt - all paid for by the taxpayer.

Great little country.

_Kaiser_ · 20-07-2020 01:58PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

Reports, Investigations and Tribunals presided over by the same bunch of incompetent fcukwits that hid away from making any decision for the last 5 months no doubt - all paid for by the taxpayer.

Great little country.

Yep, the only ones who will win from any such investigations will be the legal "profession" and their massive fees from our taxes.

Even if there's any actual wrong-doing found, a slap on the wrist will be the maximum penalty applied. Certainly no-one responsible will see jail time.

It's amusing that despite all our progress on social agenda issues, very little has been done to address these far more fundamental and far-reaching problems.

growleaves · 20-07-2020 01:58PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how many people die from cancer/suicide/poverty related illnesses in the coming years compared to the numbers that died from Covid. Not that we will ever be allowed to see the true figures of course, but I suspect there will be a hell of a lot of deaths that will directly trace their origins to the lockdown and the social restrictions.

The irony being that the government would probably have the bare faced cheek to include those deaths as "Covid related", and in doing so use them as justification for the covid restrictions in the first place. Its circular reasoning but when you are already manipulating the reports what is one step more.

That's already happened in the UK, where for instance 10,000 deaths related to dementia may have been aggravated by the lockdown (Guardian).

Yet we see constantly on this forum that the UK's excess deaths are lumped in with or implied to be covid deaths by Joe Hand-Soap posters who haven't investigated the data one whit.

tobefrank321 · 20-07-2020 03:05PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Jaysus, you've gotten that a bit arseways. Youre talking about the excess death figure. It was lower than the official number of COVID deaths, it just means the the disparity can be explained by the fact that a number of those people would have died during that 3 month period regardless, or other causes of death dropped during that time.It is nothing like the official covid death figure being revised or reduced,it does not mean that they think less than 1750 died of covid in reality, that is a really poor comprehension of the facts that emerged over the last few weeks on your part.

650 or about 40% would have died regardless. Covid may have hastened their death by no more than a few weeks, or they were terminally ill with something else and also had covid, or they may not have had covid at all and their cause of death was misdiagnosed. The true impact of covid is an excess of about 1100.

No-one doubts covid is a serious illness for some groups, but for a large number of the 1750 official figure, they were already on deaths door and had weeks to live regardless.

The same applies to other countries by the way such as Sweden and the US. A reaononable percentage of those who died of covid 19 would have died this year of something else. One figure I saw was an excess in Sweden of 4,600 vs a Covid figure of 5,600, which means 1000 would have died of something else, and the same cohort of people would also have died in Norway or Finland, except their deaths would not make the news like it does in Sweden or Ireland.

20-07-2020 03:13PM

joeguevara wrote: »

Do you think the amount who died would have been the same if we didn't do all of the above. Please look at Sweden before you answer that.

Ah, the Sweden argument again...

Sweden have a population of 10M and they only have 5619 deaths without ever going into the sort of lockdown that we did. I'm not quite sure how they count their deaths, but if its anything like us the figures are possibly even less again.

Sweden are PROOF that lockdown really didn't achieve much of anything.
Without lockdown, millions didn't die.

With lockdown, their numbers might be slightly better. I'm no expert on Sweden, but I imagine they are still screening for cancer and other serious illness. So they may well come out of this better in the longer term.

The important thing to remember with Covid is that we were told this would be a very serious illness that could kill millions. We still have some way to go before even hitting 1M deaths worldwide.

joeguevara · 20-07-2020 03:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, the Sweden argument again...

Sweden have a population of 10M and they only have 5619 deaths without ever going into the sort of lockdown that we did. I'm not quite sure how they count their deaths, but if its anything like us the figures are possibly even less again.

Sweden are PROOF that lockdown really didn't achieve much of anything.
Without lockdown, millions didn't die.

With lockdown, their numbers might be slightly better. I'm no expert on Sweden, but I imagine they are still screening for cancer and other serious illness. So they may well come out of this better in the longer term.

The important thing to remember with Covid is that we were told this would be a very serious illness that could kill millions. We still have some way to go before even hitting 1M deaths worldwide.

But you are forgetting that even without lockdown their economy tanked.

HeidiHeidi · 20-07-2020 03:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The important thing to remember with Covid is that we were told this would be a very serious illness that could kill millions. We still have some way to go before even hitting 1M deaths worldwide.

And you really can't think of a reason why that is? Really?

facehugger99 · 20-07-2020 03:21PM

joeguevara wrote: »

But you are forgetting that even without lockdown their economy tanked.

Goalpost move ahoy!

tobefrank321 · 20-07-2020 03:25PM

joeguevara wrote: »

But you are forgetting that even without lockdown their economy tanked.

Sweden will have got it right or relatively right if there is a major second wave in the rest of Europe which causes more deaths and more general lockdowns which destroys their economies. Sweden closed down big sports events but they still kept open pubs, gyms, restaurants and hotels and saved many jobs in those sectors.

Its surprising that Sweden has not had more deaths. Some experts said they'd have close to 100,000 if they didn't close down.

As for their economy tanking, much of that is related to the rest of Europe tanking. Open economies like Sweden are only as strong as the countries they export to.

PTH2009 · 20-07-2020 03:34PM

so what has changed today compared to last week ??

20-07-2020 03:34PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And you really can't think of a reason why that is? Really?

If you are suggesting it is because of lockdowns... look at Sweden.

They didn't lockdown and their death toll is very small.

Nowhere even remotely near to the figures that the experts and the models were predicting - the figures used to justify having a lockdown.

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IV - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IV - Read OP for Mod Warnings