Lockdown and restrictions all for nothing?

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I skipped through it about half an hour ago so please forgive me for not remembering the terms, but he was talking about two different kinds of infection curves - one European style sharp curve and another smoother Equatorial style.

Now there might well be good science behind that, and it might well be true of the US. I don't know.

I do know however that because of strict national lockdowns you can't say that all countries in the EU have gone through that Euro-style curve.
Certain regions may have, but not entire countries. Italy has had it worse than most, but Rome and the rest of Southern Italy have not yet been through the ringer.

And frankly even regions that have had huge outbreaks - Madrid for instance - are experiencing very worrying trends in hospitalisation and ICU numbers.

Your point would be correct if that's what he said.

It quotes a well established source showing how coronavirus follow different inflection seasons depending on climates. Some euro climates match with Americas etc. He then overlays our CV-19 virus.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly picking up dead virus months later.

PCR tests are incredible sensitive, and they can pick up the virus weeks after incubation. The NHS has outright recognised and admitted this.
< this is different than false positives, but rather classified as 'weak positives'.

Another theory of Ivor Cummin's that has major holes in it is the idea that Western European countries only suffered high excess deaths due to a preceeding mild winter causing a build up of vulnerable citizens within the population by early 2020 , which caused a concentration of deaths when COVID hit. He demonstates this effect in Sweden and Italy and also in countries like Hungary which conversely had harsh 2019 winters and low COVID death tolls which he believes is for that reason(However cases growing rapidly in countries he used as examples such as Hungary and Czech Rep). Well conveninently he omitted the graph about Romania and of course you guessed it which had a flu season so bad that schools were closed during winter of 2019/early 2020 and yet Romania is now projected to have one of the highest death tolls in Europe based on current growth. So what does Ivor have to say about that? Nothing I guess, he wouldnt like to hear about it.
https://dailynewshungary.com/flu-deaths-exceed-50-in-romania/

Anyway, in a few weeks when deaths become significant from COVID across Europe Ivor will fade into the shadows and never be mentioned again..until he comes out with some more bollox to satisfy his listeners and sing them to sleep with his reassuring youtube videos

normanoffside wrote: »

You’ve just linked an article that says 50 people died of flu in Romania Last winter, is that a high number?

It also says the last 2 people who died of flu there had pre existing conditions, were 83 and had not received the vaccination.

Sorry just the article does not back up your point at all or am I missing something?

It's just the confirmed number..obviously vast majority of flu deaths not tested for .
If you search Irish flu deaths in winter youll see countless articles about bizarrely small number of people dying from flu when in reality of course we know flu kills about 500 or so Irish peopel annually.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/winter-flu-leads-28-deaths-21250227
Obviously a much larger and poorer country like Romania with an older and less healthy population and colder climate will have a much much higher number of deaths than that both in total and proportionally.


But yes Romania had a bad flu season, I posted the article mainly to show that schools were closed in Romania this winter because outbreaks were so large.
The Romanian Health Ministry declare nationwide flu epidemic in January
https://www.romania-insider.com/flu-epidemic-romania-january-2019

OneHedge1 wrote: »

It's awkward how this narrative of the "unknown long-term impacts" is being introduced now that Wave 2 etc. has failed to cull any communities across the world. (If anyone is in doubt about that, and there's no need to rely upon being spoon-fed by auntie RTE or the IT, just pop along to your local hospital to witness the "carnage".) Also, and obviously, if the risk assessment is now factoring unknown outcomes over longer term timelines then that weakens the case for a lockdown.

It says so much about us as a country that so few even notice the absence of any debate in our media. I presume we're all aware that the rest of the world does not share our (fanatical) categorical certainty.

And the 500 deaths in Madrid's resurgence who have died over the last fortnight? And the 3100 people currently in hospital in Madrid alone?
https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-09-16/official-coronavirus-deaths-in-spain-now-exceed-30000-with-total-infections-at-603167.html
This is not significant number at all in your opinion?

douglashyde wrote: »

He was quoted on Saturday in The Irish Times as he co-write a paper with the clinical director of HSE, Dr. Feeney. Very factual and excellent use of data and well put arguments by him & Dr. Feeney.

However the HSE then distanced themselves from the paper & Dr. Feeney but didn't dispute any of what they said.

But let's all write him off with throwaway comments and not present any actual arguments.

In this world I can search for papers, on any subject, that will contradict each other. Two people's "facts" that totally clash.

You say how he published a paper with the Dr. Then say how the HSE distanced themselves from it .... Then why did they do that if they didn't believe in it?

Look he's some dude on YouTube. Let that sink in. The same platform that has videos on how the world is flat. They'll present "facts" too.

air wrote: »

An actual junior hospital doctor.
I can see some obvious flaws in several of his counterpoints straight off the bat.
For example he quotes a study in the Lancet in support of masks, but when you click into it, all the study says is that masks "could" reduce transmission.

At a couple of points he seems to complain about the periods being compared - that excess deaths due to COVID should be measured against the same period in the previous year, which makes no sense, as that doesn't map to the flu season. Of course COVID is causing historically unprecedented excess death rates in March/April - but they're absolutely not historically unprecedented compared to previous bad flu seasons.

He also repeats absolute rubbish about 5-10% of COVID cases requiring intensive care.

Finally, his mask-meta study is based almost exclusively on studies in healthcare settings, not mask wearing in the general population.

air wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion on Levitt but I think any objective person would admit he has significantly more credibility than a newly qualified medical doctor whose expertise is both very limited and well outside the subject area.

You have also ignored Beda Stadler who is a top level expert in the exact field at hand. He is recently retired which means he is at liberty to speak freely.

Furthermore in his interview with Cummins he related that a large number of current epidemiologists have been contacting him saying they agree with his views but are afraid to express their opinions as they risk losing tenure or funding if they do.

Personally I fear that a major breakdown in science and reason has accompanied this epidemic.
It's already obvious that the response is highly likely to kill far more than the disease in the medium to long term.

Found something from him in June about the virus being on its way out. Everyone is wrong according to him, really not an attitude that will encourage any level of engagement. I'd bet that some of those contacting him were German or German speaking. There's a whole sub-genre on YouTube of them giving very frank opinions as only Germans can do.

Levitt is not an epidemiologist and most of what he did was modelling, a lot of which he got wrong - he got our numbers very wrong and then tried to claim it was hard to guess the level of deaths.

air wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion on Levitt but I think any objective person would admit he has significantly more credibility than a newly qualified medical doctor whose expertise is both very limited and well outside the subject area.

You have also ignored Beda Stadler who is a top level expert in the exact field at hand. He is recently retired which means he is at liberty to speak freely.

Furthermore in his interview with Cummins he related that a large number of current epidemiologists have been contacting him saying they agree with his views but are afraid to express their opinions as they risk losing tenure or funding if they do.

Personally I fear that a major breakdown in science and reason has accompanied this epidemic.
It's already obvious that the response is highly likely to kill far more than the disease in the medium to long term.

I completely disagree that most people would objectively say he significantly more credible than a newly qualified medical doctor. Do you know he was awared his nobel laureate for his research iin chemistry? How in the name of **** is that relevant in any way? Would you objectively prefer the opinion of a stunningly intelligent nobel laureate winner who's field is molecular biology or nuclear chemistry on his opinion of law proceedings in some legal battle youre facing instead of a junior lawyer ? I'd imagine your answer is a big fat no.

Also, who would you prefer performed or coordinated a medical operation or intervention on you, this junior doctor or Michael Levitt?

Nobel Laureates are experts in one field, LEvitt has no relevant credentials in this topic, his opinion is in my opinion less valuable than a junior doctor for this reason. The relevant field of study trumps length of experience in another unrelated field, almost without question.

I don't know much about Stadler, havn't looked into it.
Re: Epidemiologists contacing him, all hearsay. Anti-lockdown protests have been very popular in for example many Eastern European countries and the Southern USA so I am very sceptical that epidemiologists in these countries are afraid to voice this kind of opinion.

Tbh I'm surprised you havn't added Dolores Dolan to your list of revered spokespersons!

People just cherry pick whichever doctor or scientist supports their views. You can find some research or paper or sound byte to back up pretty much any point of view but that's sort of meaningless. The consensus is what is important.

Strawman arguments aplenty here now guys, I never suggested Levitt was a capable surgeon.

I stand by my position that I don't hold the opinion of the junior doctor in high regard. He's a medical practitioner, not an epidemiologist or scientist.

Any rebuttal of Beda's position or justification of your attempt to position a junior doctor ahead of him in epidemiology?

air wrote: »

Strawman arguments aplenty here now guys, I never suggested Levitt was a capable surgeon.

I stand by my position that I don't hold the opinion of the junior doctor in high regard. He's a medical practitioner, not an epidemiologist or scientist.

Any rebuttal of Beda's position or justification of your attempt to position a junior doctor ahead of him in epidemiology?

So why do you think hes a capable epidimiologists and not capable in other fields outside his expertise? Or do you just pick and choose what areas you think he is capable in based on completely irrelevant qualifications that suit your point of view?

bb1234567 wrote: »

So why do you think hes a capable epidimiologists and not capable in other fields outside his expertise? Or do you just pick and choose what areas you think he is capable in based on completely irrelevant qualifications that suit your point of view?

I think he's a capable scientist (the Nobel committee agreed) and don't think his expertise in science is too far removed from epidemiology.

Surgery is a primarily practical skill, performed by practitioners, not scientists. Even the hallowed junior doctor quite likely has no skills in the area bar a bit of suturing.

In any case, disregard Levitt completely as it's only a diversion at this point. The views Cummins holds are still very well supported by evidence & plenty of epidemiologists.

bb1234567 wrote: »

Exactly why i said EXCESS deaths, 250,000. This means your inevitable argument about how COVID deaths are recorded is irrelevant . So where does that leave your argument? Lockdowns are relaxed long ago in USA, yet deaths both excess and COVID related continue to grow significantly.I wonder what could possibly be causing these excess deaths when we have COVID causing massive excess death in countries it is spreading within whether they are locked down or not, Brazil, Mexico, USA, Peru, all massively varying in their level of reponse yet all have massive excess deaths. What could possibly be the reason? And yes he said deaths in the USA would peter out at 170,000. Which they have not, he was embarassingly wrong. And you would not hold the opinion of anyone else in such high regard who had made such false claims before.

How many predictions did our own "experts" make for deaths in Ireland throughout this charade that have been proven to have been inaccurate by orders of magnitude, not mere double digit percentages as per your own example?
I know who I have more confidence in at this point.