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

03-11-2020 09:29AM

growleaves wrote: »

There's still no proof that these restrictions do anything.

The fact is that when there is a respiratory virus everyone will get it.

Theoretical containment methods to control the spread of a virus by controlling people's movement *might* slow the process down a little or they might not.

These methods were invented the day before yesterday, they have no provenance.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30785-4/fulltext

This was posted on the schools thread as proof that schools caused the increase recently. It does nothing of the sort, but what it does do is offer compelling evidence of the success of restrictions

JRant · 03-11-2020 10:47AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30785-4/fulltext

This was posted on the schools thread as proof that schools caused the increase recently. It does nothing of the sort, but what it does do is offer compelling evidence of the success of restrictions

That all depends on how you measure success.

If you look purely at case numbers and forget about correlation =/= causation, then it's a success.

Take a step back and look at the human cost of these restrictions and they are a failure by every metric you can think of, mentally, economically, physically, monetary, etc, etc.

snotboogie · 03-11-2020 10:58AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Countries originally locked down thinking there would be dead bodies piling up in the streets.

1.2M is an extremely low death toll. Especially considering most are WITH and not OF Covid.

Countries all over Europe are going back into lockdown for the same reason they did in April, to stop hospitals being overwhelmed, not because "bodies will be piling up on the streets"

I don't know how you can say 1.2 million deaths in 9 months is a "very low total" The worst Flu seasons kill about 650k in 12 months.

03-11-2020 10:59AM

JRant wrote: »

That all depends on how you measure success.

If you look purely at case numbers and forget about correlation =/= causation, then it's a success.

Take a step back and look at the human cost of these restrictions and they are a failure by every metric you can think of, mentally, economically, physically, monetary, etc, etc.

This is the problem when the national media spend months reporting mainly on ONE issue. People become obsessed with that one issue to a point where it’s the only thing that matters.

Nobody seems to care how much we borrow. Nobody cares how many are unemployed or how many livelihoods have been destroyed.
Nobody seems to care about hospital backlogs and screening backlogs.
Nobody mentions the housing crisis anymore.

People have been practically brainwashed into believing that keeping those Covid numbers is low is the only important issue in society

03-11-2020 11:09AM

JRant wrote: »

That all depends on how you measure success.

If you look purely at case numbers and forget about correlation =/= causation, then it's a success.

Take a step back and look at the human cost of these restrictions and they are a failure by every metric you can think of, mentally, economically, physically, monetary, etc, etc.

Show me the measure on 0.65% death rate versus your other metrics

Whatsisname · 03-11-2020 11:12AM

dalyboy wrote: »

Your right.
It was here about 4 months before the telly told us to panic. Italian footage broadcasted in mid March began “operation headless chicken” throughout the world.

I remember back in December 2019 hearing loads of “serious” influenza cases around my small locality (north Dublin)

There was 3 fatalities of (so called) pneumonia in the space of a few weeks. Amazing coincidence maybe but very unusual.

In a 12-24 months this entire cv19 debacle is going to be thrilling to research once all the variables are known.

Yeah unfortunately my grandmother passed away last November, if I remember correctly, there were 8 deaths or so in the carehome she was at within 2 weeks, everyone of them picked up some sorta flu going around the home. Now I'm not saying it was covid as obviously this is the time of year that the flu tends to start killing people, but its certainly had my family questioning whether that was covid or not. Maybe it was just a coincidence as you've alluded to, but I think it'd be naive to think covid wasn't in Ireland last November if it was in France at that time.

3xh · 03-11-2020 11:13AM

Goldengirl wrote: »

Don't know why you are ranting about it ?
Are you anti vaxxer ?
Does it upset you that all children can now be protected , for free, from diseases that can make them very sick and in some cases kill ?
I don't get your point really there is so much anger and frustration in there ...what is it you are trying to say ,3xh ?

1. Well other people do. I know what your response to that is going to be.

2. No, I’m not. Nice catch-all term though.

3. No, it doesn’t upset me that children can now be ‘protected........’ It ‘upsets’ me that these children could’ve been ‘protected’ long before Covid came round but they weren’t because.......money. I’m not going to explain any further about the relevance of money in this nasal flu vaccine because if you don’t see why yourself already, you won’t get it, goldengirl.

4. I think any parent who espouses the greatness of this new, ‘free’ nasal flu vaccine for 2 to 12 year old is the personification of everything wrong with peoples’ engagement with social media/normal media and their severe inability to think critically, etc.

What was stopping you from vaccinating your (or any parent obviously) child against flu previously? The suggestion that children didn’t like needles so you didn’t want to upset them? Like the marketers say is the benefit of this vaccine. Was it the cost of the normal vaccine? So a few euro put you/other parents off getting an intravenous vaccine. So that’s the price of granny’s life? Etc etc.

Just think for yourself, is all I’m asking. Jumping on the ‘free, handy nasal vaccine. What’s not to like?’ bandwagon because of fancy fliers in surgeries, warm and cosy worded articles written about it (for a charge) among other disseminating platforms etc doesn’t cut it for me.

snotboogie · 03-11-2020 11:33AM

dalyboy wrote: »

Why are you asking for Belgium explained?

Their infection numbers have been nearly 10,000 per day for weeks now and deaths are low comparably 70-100 daily.

Nothing extraordinary happening considering it’s respiratory death season as it’s always been historically

Belgiums 7 day average for daily covid deaths is 132. It was 65 on Oct the 27th so it has more than doubled in a week.

woodchuck · 03-11-2020 12:17PM

3xh wrote: »

You’re allowed travel beyond 5km for ANYTHING other than exercise. The 5km limit for exercise only was deliberately conflated with all the other restrictions. The media played their role in it honourably.

Where are you getting that from??

From gov.ie:

Stay at home.

Exercise within 5 kilometres of home.

There will be a penalty for movement outside 5 kilometres of home, with the following exceptions:

- travel to and from work, where work involves providing an essential service
- to attend medical appointments and collect medicines and other health products
- travel to attend disability day services
- travel to attend a court
- for food shopping
- to take school aged children to permitted training as provided for in the Exercise and Sporting section above
- for vital family reasons, such as providing care to children, elderly or vulnerable people, and in particular for those who live alone but excluding social family visits
- for farming purposes, that is food production or care of animals
- to attend a wedding or funeral
- to visit a grave

It's pretty clear cut that you can only travel outside your 5km for the reasons above. However I don't actually think those reasons are all encompassing. For example, we had an appointment with the HSE to (re)register our intent to marry. It's not on the list and they're outside our 5km, but they told us that it's an essential service and to keep the appointment. I felt perfectly justified going to that appointment, but it's not on the list and wouldn't have enjoyed having a conversation with a guard about it if we had been stopped.

There's a piece of large furniture we'd like to collect from a relative, who is outside our 5km. I don't see how we can justify that trip though. It's not like we can even blag a reason at a checkpoint, as the piece of furniture would be very obvious! But if we don't pick it up, we'll probably end up spending hundreds to buy the same thing new :rolleyes:

darconio · 03-11-2020 12:46PM

snotboogie wrote: »

Countries all over Europe are going back into lockdown for the same reason they did in April, to stop hospitals being overwhelmed, not because "bodies will be piling up on the streets"

I don't know how you can say 1.2 million deaths in 9 months is a "very low total" The worst Flu seasons kill about 650k in 12 months.

I would be really curious to know the amount of people that died last year of heart failure/disease, respiratory disease or any other disease and compare them to the death toll from this year: I am prepared to bet that a highest percentage (if not all) from this year were included in the death WITH covid figure.

I am not making this up, this was a directive from WHO: when in doubt count them in as death by Covid, as explained in this official document

ArthurDayne · 03-11-2020 12:53PM

snotboogie wrote: »

Countries all over Europe are going back into lockdown for the same reason they did in April, to stop hospitals being overwhelmed, not because "bodies will be piling up on the streets"

I don't know how you can say 1.2 million deaths in 9 months is a "very low total" The worst Flu seasons kill about 650k in 12 months.

To the part in bold, could you elaborate on what the difference is?

We are told that this virus represents such an existential threat to our society that we must be willing to endure the suppression of civil liberties, the disruption of youth development, the infliction of mental health problems via forcing isolation and suppressing social outlets, the resubmission of our country into long-term indebtedness, the exacerbation of poverty both in Ireland and around the world which will indirectly cause much socioeconomic and healthcare problems for years to come, the suspension of focus on other important moral and health issues, the long-term process for the ordinary citizen as they are forced to adapt to a world which will change immensely as a result of this crisis.

We are being asked to do all this, and more, and to live with the consequences for many many years to come. We are effectively abandoning any semblance of focus on a massive range of issues which are silently snowballing into serious long term problems — hidden from our view by the fixation of our society and its media on this one issue.

So if we are not doing this to stop bodies piling up in the street, then what are we doing it for?

end of the road · 03-11-2020 01:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the problem when the national media spend months reporting mainly on ONE issue. People become obsessed with that one issue to a point where it’s the only thing that matters.

Nobody seems to care how much we borrow. Nobody cares how many are unemployed or how many livelihoods have been destroyed.
Nobody seems to care about hospital backlogs and screening backlogs.
Nobody mentions the housing crisis anymore.

People have been practically brainwashed into believing that keeping those Covid numbers is low is the only important issue in society

you are obviously reading different media, given that the media here in the real world are reporting all sorts of different stories from right across the world, as they have always been doing.
yes, covid is getting good coverage, surprise surprise given it is currently a major issue, but it's not the only subject being reported on.
yes, keeping numbers low so the country can function properly is quite important, that is not one being brainwashed, but rather common sense so we don't end up a complete basket case with an uncontroled virus and an actually collapsed economy and health service.

JRant · 03-11-2020 01:28PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Show me the measure on 0.65% death rate versus your other metrics

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show me how restrictions have an impact on the IFR (which according to the WHO's own figures is far lower than 0.65%). And, remember, correlation does not equal causation, just stating a number is not proof that restrictions have the sort of impact being claimed.

We know the economic and monetary impact, 21 billion deficit this year and over 300,000 on PUP. These are objective facts and will have a huge impact across the country for years to come.

snotboogie · 03-11-2020 01:30PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

To the part in bold, could you elaborate on what the difference is?

So if we are not doing this to stop bodies piling up in the street, then what are we doing it for?

What is the difference between "bodies being piled up on the streets" and a hospital system being overwhelmed? One is a total brake down of society, the other is the breakdown of a health system. I would have thought that was obvious?

Again, the lockdown is to protect our health system.

JRant · 03-11-2020 01:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

you are obviously reading different media, given that the media here in the real world are reporting all sorts of different stories from right across the world, as they have always been doing.
yes, covid is getting good coverage, surprise surprise given it is currently a major issue, but it's not the only subject being reported on.
yes, keeping numbers low so the country can function properly is quite important, that is not one being brainwashed, but rather common sense so we don't end up a complete basket case with an uncontroled virus and an actually collapsed economy and health service.

On that last point, you have it completely backwards. The numbers are not being kept low so the country can function properly. In fact the country has been shutdown in a large number of ways to keep the numbers low.

ArthurDayne · 03-11-2020 01:57PM

snotboogie wrote: »

What is the difference between "bodies being piled up on the streets" and a hospital system being overwhelmed? One is a total brake down of society, the other is the breakdown of a health system. I would have thought that was obvious?

Again, the lockdown is to protect our health system.

So the lockdown is to protect our health system, sure, I get you. But I would have thought the absolute severity of our measures to protect it, and the future damage we are causing in doing so, are indicative of the fact that we are protecting it to prevent the spectre of mass death. Is that not the case?

I keep hearing this term “overwhelmed” without seeing much clarity as to what it actually entails and how long we would be forced to endure it. If it doesn’t mean that people will die in huge numbers, or it means that we will witness highly elevated deaths of people of life expectancy age (bearing in mind the average age of death is around the Irish life expectancy) then isn’t there a question of proportionality here ?

mikekerry · 03-11-2020 03:10PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So the lockdown is to protect our health system, sure, I get you. But I would have thought the absolute severity of our measures to protect it, and the future damage we are causing in doing so, are indicative of the fact that we are protecting it to prevent the spectre of mass death. Is that not the case?

I keep hearing this term “overwhelmed” without seeing much clarity as to what it actually entails and how long we would be forced to endure it. If it doesn’t mean that people will die in huge numbers, or it means that we will witness highly elevated deaths of people of life expectancy age (bearing in mind the average age of death is around the Irish life expectancy) then isn’t there a question of proportionality here ?

There doesn't seem to be any proportionality when it comes to covid.
It's the ONLY game in town.
Buckle up folks.

FintanMcluskey · 03-11-2020 03:14PM

mikekerry wrote: »

Buckle up folks.

A disease killing mostly those near the end of their long natural lives, and being asymptomatic in a lot of cases amongst the healthy, won’t be given a second thought when the economic catastrophe detonates.

Similar to the fact it’s not an issue in the 3rd world.

Real problems

mikekerry · 03-11-2020 03:18PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

A disease killing mostly those near the end of their long natural lives, and being asymptotic in a lot of cases amongst the healthy won’t be given a second thought when the economic catastrophe detonates.

Similar to the fact it’s not an issue in the 3rd world.

Real problems

Wait for the big push with the vaccines when they start coming through with
the trillions at stake.
Chances on these being made mandatory?
Pretty high?
Starting to hear it now about mandatory vaccines of kids.
It's only just getting started.

3xh · 03-11-2020 04:41PM

woodchuck wrote: »

Where are you getting that from??

From gov.ie:

It's pretty clear cut that you can only travel outside your 5km for the reasons above. However I don't actually think those reasons are all encompassing. For example, we had an appointment with the HSE to (re)register our intent to marry. It's not on the list and they're outside our 5km, but they told us that it's an essential service and to keep the appointment. I felt perfectly justified going to that appointment, but it's not on the list and wouldn't have enjoyed having a conversation with a guard about it if we had been stopped.

There's a piece of large furniture we'd like to collect from a relative, who is outside our 5km. I don't see how we can justify that trip though. It's not like we can even blag a reason at a checkpoint, as the piece of furniture would be very obvious! But if we don't pick it up, we'll probably end up spending hundreds to buy the same thing new :rolleyes:

The summary you give isn’t all encompassing, as you say. Here is the official S.I. https://assets.gov.ie/93456/96b8b3b1-5293-42f6-9cfa-080e7bbf3fdd.pdf

Page 6, Part 2 onwards, lists the reasonable excuses as they’re called.

Captain_Crash · 03-11-2020 04:48PM

3xh wrote: »

The summary you give isn’t all encompassing, as you say. Here is the official S.I. https://assets.gov.ie/93456/96b8b3b1-5293-42f6-9cfa-080e7bbf3fdd.pdf

Page 6, Part 2 onwards, lists the reasonable excuses as they’re called.

Its interesting that leaving the state is only a reasonable excuse if your not normally resident here.

(r) where the person is not ordinarily resident in the State, leave the
State,

So legally I can l eave the state, but traveling to the airport is illegal per se?

dalyboy · 03-11-2020 04:52PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Its interesting that leaving the state is only a reasonable excuse if your not normally resident here.

(r) where the person is not ordinarily resident in the State, leave the
State,

So legally I can l eave the state, but traveling to the airport is illegal per se?

Welcome to North Korea (euro style)

3xh · 03-11-2020 05:02PM

Actually, yes^^^

I responded to another poster recently that you can use the reasonable excuse of travelling to an airport to leave the state but in fact, that’s only if you’re non-resident etc.

Alternatively, you can travel from an airport to your residence in the state.

The question is will a Garda checkpoint stop you? I don’t think so as if they wanted to, they’d just put the checkpoint on the departures road of an airport. However, the state have written the S.I. in such a way as to criminalise an ordinarily-resident person leaving the state. Nice.

snotboogie · 03-11-2020 05:20PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So the lockdown is to protect our health system, sure, I get you. But I would have thought the absolute severity of our measures to protect it, and the future damage we are causing in doing so, are indicative of the fact that we are protecting it to prevent the spectre of mass death. Is that not the case?

I keep hearing this term “overwhelmed” without seeing much clarity as to what it actually entails and how long we would be forced to endure it. If it doesn’t mean that people will die in huge numbers, or it means that we will witness highly elevated deaths of people of life expectancy age (bearing in mind the average age of death is around the Irish life expectancy) then isn’t there a question of proportionality here ?

Overwhelmed means that people who need ICU care will not be able to get it, which will vastly increase the CFR. There is a reason why every country in Europe is locking down now.

03-11-2020 05:33PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

..........

I keep hearing this term “overwhelmed” without seeing much clarity as to what it actually entails and how long we would be forced to endure it. If it doesn’t mean that people will die in huge numbers, or it means that we will witness highly elevated deaths of people of life expectancy age (bearing in mind the average age of death is around the Irish life expectancy) then isn’t there a question of proportionality here ?

All ICU beds occupied ........... so if someone is rushed to hospital in need of an ICU bed the folk there will have to decide will they make one available to that person or not. Making one available means removing an existing patient from an ICU bed.

If the system is “overwhelmed” with covid19 then you'll see 10/20/30/40/60/100/200/500 people per day (depending on the Covid19 numbers in the community) requiring ICU beds that do not exist.

Don't Chute! · 03-11-2020 06:04PM

Heard on Newstalk that “Scientist du jour, Luke O’Neill will be on during the week to talk about his favorite film”. Yep these guys are absolutely loving their newfound celebrity status!

03-11-2020 06:10PM

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Heard on Newstalk that “Scientist du jour, Luke O’Neill will be on during the week to talk about his favorite film”. Yep these guys are absolutely loving their newfound celebrity status!

an absolute clown, he's like the teacher that wants to be cool.
He's a huge pusher of vaccines and antidepressants. Does he think his book is a new Principia for the 21st century?

charlie14 · 03-11-2020 06:20PM

rusty cole wrote: »

an absolute clown, he's like the teacher that wants to be cool.
He's a huge pusher of vaccines and antidepressants. Does he think his book is a new Principia for the 21st century?

Doing alright for a clown.

Inflazome which he co founded, sold to Swiss healthcare multinational Roche a few weeks ago for 380 Million.

ArthurDayne · 03-11-2020 06:27PM

Augeo wrote: »

All ICU beds occupied ........... so if someone is rushed to hospital in need of an ICU bed the folk there will have to decide will they make one available to that person or not. Making one available means removing an existing patient from an ICU bed.

If the system is “overwhelmed” with covid19 then you'll see 10/20/30/40/60/100/200/500 people per day (depending on the Covid19 numbers in the community) requiring ICU beds that do not exist.

Ok yes, I understand the “overwhelming” thing insofar as the base issue is concerned — that ICU capacity would be reached requiring some form of triage. But this seems to be where the analysis ends. How long this situation would be extant and how much death it would cause seems to be much harder to get answers on.

Even with the explosion of cases, the percentage requiring ICU treatment is currently 0.89% (a number which has actually been slowly declining in the HPSC’s daily reports). The number is negligible except for within the aged 60-75 approx. bracket where it is still small but still significantly larger than the other brackets. So it is clear that, if any age group is to ‘overwhelm’ our ICU units — this would be the one. It seems to me that we have a weapon in struggling against this virus on a long term basis that we are failing to employ — a clear risk group. Instead, we are using the blunt force of all-out lockdowns, causing massive damage to our country for years to come, instead of adopting a clear targeted strategy.

So when we are talking about our ICUs being overwhelmed — I can get what the base scenario is. What is harder to understand is whether the likelihood and length of such a scenario justifies the terrible long term implications of the strategy we are following now.

03-11-2020 07:25PM

Augeo wrote: »

All ICU beds occupied ........... so if someone is rushed to hospital in need of an ICU bed the folk there will have to decide will they make one available to that person or not. Making one available means removing an existing patient from an ICU bed.

If the system is “overwhelmed” with covid19 then you'll see 10/20/30/40/60/100/200/500 people per day (depending on the Covid19 numbers in the community) requiring ICU beds that do not exist.

Despite the thousands of cases over the last number of weeks, we currently have 48 in ICU.

It climbs very slow. In fact, there has only been about 500 admitted to ICU since this started in March.

Your prediction of 500 a day needing ICU is wrong. Even 10 or 20 would be wrong.

And the hospitals have never been overwhelmed. They are actually calmer than ever before.

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

Comments

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