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

Vital Transformation · 09-11-2020 01:48PM

With Pfizer manufacturing 100 million vaccines before the end of the year, if we got our share of these and prioritised the most vulnerable, would that be a spur to get the country open again, on a more permanent basis?

Johnboy1951 · 09-11-2020 01:55PM

With references to Sweden quite common in this thread I asked a buddy living in Sweden what his experiences were of Covid restrictions.
He lives in a small town called
Olofström Population ~13,500

Here is our brief exchange ...

Q. Are you restricted in your travel (with exceptions such as medical reasons)?

A. no restrictions that I know of

Q. Are face masks mandatory ..... on street or in shops?

A. I use mask and gloves at doctors ..they try to get all to wear a mask in there
and then not all do there either, but the nurses ask you to and offer masks.

Q. Any businesses closed because of Covid?

A. not that I have noticed

Q. Are masks generally worn .... in shops or on street?

A. once in a while you see someone wearing a mask. they do not give a **** here

Q. Thanks, trying to get a sense of how Sweden is dealing with Covid.

A. not at all if I understand it right

Q. Do you know anyone who got Covid?

A. No

This is of course just one guy's view of what is happening in one town in Sweden. He also remarked it might be different in big cities.

He provided these two links for reading

https://www.krisinformation.se/detta-kan-handa/handelser-och-storningar/20192/myndigheterna-om-det-nya-coronaviruset/restriktioner-och-forbud

https://www.regeringen.se/artiklar/2020/03/andring-i-forordning-om-forbud-mot-att-halla-allmanna-sammankomster-och-offentliga-tillstallningar/

It would appear that the people living in this town are not overly cautious or afraid, or ignore recommendations.

I would add that he goes about his business as normal, even though he is definitely in a 'vulnerable category' due to health reasons.

From skimming through those links (using google translate) it seems to me that the Swedish authorities are much more flexible in their approach than our government.

09-11-2020 02:00PM

bush wrote: »

There is a difference but its still very restrictive

JRant wrote: »

To give a couple of examples that reduce footfall for businesses, public transport is still at a greatly reduced capacity and offices are still for essential workers only. Both of these greatly reduce the ability of businesses to attract customers.

that's lovely guys but the point made was "To the point whereby L3/4/5 have very little difference for everyday people and businesses."........ that's bullsh1t

AssetBacked2 · 09-11-2020 02:01PM

I walked past a woman in her 60s yesterday on a narrow-ish path in a park in Dublin. She climbed into the bushes practically in order not to walk past me and said I should move off the path when passing. I actually laughed out loud, which she didn't appreciate, but I really fear for her mental health if that is how she is approaching life. This is ignoring the fact she chose to walk in a narrow path during the busy afternoon weekend walking period. A vaccine cannot come quick enough for the vulnerable and the fearful.

Johnboy1951 · 09-11-2020 02:01PM

vid36 wrote: »

Some good news for a better 2021. An effective vaccine is on the way.

BBC News - Covid vaccine: First vaccine offers 90% protection
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54873105

It is good to see progress, but I would not get overly positive as yet considering this

The data presented is not the final analysis. It is based on the first 94 volunteers to test positive for Covid - the precise effectiveness of the vaccine may change when the full results are analysed.

That is a very small sample to base any conclusions on.

AssetBacked2 · 09-11-2020 02:03PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It is good to see progress, but I would not get overly positive as yet considering this

That is a very small sample to base any conclusions on.

What are you talking about? It is enough for a mass rollout of 50m by year end and over a billion in 2021.

Johnboy1951 · 09-11-2020 02:21PM

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

What are you talking about? It is enough for a mass rollout of 50m by year end and over a billion in 2021.

Are you serious?

Did you not read what I quoted?

The news is based on 94 out of 43,500 ...... a miniscule number and not statistically significant.
0.2% of those who got the vaccine!

gazzer · 09-11-2020 02:21PM

A neighbour of my mums has only gone out twice since March as she was terrified of catching the virus.

Her son died 3 weeks ago from Cancer. Restricted numbers at the funeral. She tested positive for the virus last week ðŸ˜¢

charlie14 · 09-11-2020 02:23PM

JRant wrote: »

Confirmed cases to deaths with COVID is a meaningless statistic though. We don't learn anything from using it. It's another example of making statistics show whatever you want them to. For a start, we have no idea of how many people died from COVID. HIQA have stated that the figure is artificially high and the fact that the majority of people dying with this virus don't even make it to hospital would bear this out.

It`s statistics based on real numbers of deaths and confirmed cases.

Anything else is guesswork based on modelling figures that have consistently been so off the mark to be laughable.

Some countries have over reported some under reported, and while we may have over reported HIQA`s figure is again guesswork.
The fact that they acknowledge that the majority have dies at home without even making it to hospital along with showing just how lethal this virus can be would also suggest, to me at least, that there is a strong possibility that due to not perhaps being confirmed as Covid-19 positive before passing they may not have been registered as Covid-19 deaths.

Nothing on how you propose we safeguard those 1.25M -1.5M of the population to ensure this good outcome of yours ?

the kelt · 09-11-2020 02:37PM

I was listening to a snippet from one of the HSE head men, think it was Paul Reid director general.

Anyway I was listening in the background (I’m gone to the stage where I hear the news in the car, interviews or others and I hear a NPHET or HSE person talking I just say oh eff off and turn it off) but he made a comment which made me think.

He talked about the hardest thing he’s ever had to do (or words to that effect) was tell a family that a person had died because of COVID and it got me thinking, why?

Why is a COVID death more important or heart breaking compared to suicide for example which personally I’ve had to pick up the pieces of the person left behind from suicide in a family.

Why is it’s harder than a death from cancer, car crash or whatever?

Every death is a tragedy but why is this rhetoric being put out there that COVID deaths are that bit worse?

paw patrol · 09-11-2020 02:43PM

the kelt wrote: »

He talked about the hardest thing he’s ever had to do (or words to that effect) was tell a family that a person had died because of COVID and it got me thinking, why?

Why is a COVID death more important or heart breaking compared to suicide for example which personally I’ve had to pick up the pieces of the person left behind from suicide in a family.

it's the right thing to say at the moment adds to the misery porn of RTE and the rest of the media in ireland
He'd be lauded in certain circles for being stunning and brave for opening up like that.:pac:

Gael23 · 09-11-2020 02:47PM

On the subject of restrictions, I think something needs to give on hospital visits. Patients receiving end of life care should be facilitated to have visitors. A distant family member of mine died of cancer last week and only her children were allowed into the hospital.

The family feel they can’t grieve properly, they couldn’t spend her final days with her because she was too ill to be cared for at home and also feel they had no proper funeral

Idbatterim · 09-11-2020 02:58PM

the kelt wrote: »

I was listening to a snippet from one of the HSE head men, think it was Paul Reid director general.

Anyway I was listening in the background (I’m gone to the stage where I hear the news in the car, interviews or others and I hear a NPHET or HSE person talking I just say oh eff off and turn it off) but he made a comment which made me think.

He talked about the hardest thing he’s ever had to do (or words to that effect) was tell a family that a person had died because of COVID and it got me thinking, why?

Why is a COVID death more important or heart breaking compared to suicide for example which personally I’ve had to pick up the pieces of the person left behind from suicide in a family.

Why is it’s harder than a death from cancer, car crash or whatever?

Every death is a tragedy but why is this rhetoric being put out there that COVID deaths are that bit worse?

A covid death from a strain of FLU which thousands of people die from every year, is worse than a suicide etc, and the effects on the family , the potential years of suffering they werent clued in on, sometimes gruesome deaths, closed coffin etc, the emergency services having to deal with it? Laughable, they are on another planet!

JRant · 09-11-2020 03:00PM

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s statistics based on real numbers of deaths and confirmed cases.

Anything else is guesswork based on modelling figures that have consistently been so off the mark to be laughable.

Some countries have over reported some under reported, and while we may have over reported HIQA`s figure is again guesswork.
The fact that they acknowledge that the majority have dies at home without even making it to hospital along with showing just how lethal this virus can be would also suggest, to me at least, that there is a strong possibility that due to not perhaps being confirmed as Covid-19 positive before passing they may not have been registered as Covid-19 deaths.

Nothing on how you propose we safeguard those 1.25M -1.5M of the population to ensure this good outcome of yours ?

So, couple of points then.

First, the 3% is based on assumptions. That's my whole point. We don't know how many died from COVID

Second, the modelling used to justify lockdowns and restrictions has been laughable. You are completely correct there.

Third, the fact that so many died at home or in care homes does not show how lethal this virus is. It shows how poorly these people were to begin with. Many may have been receiving palliative care for all we know before they got COVID. We just don't know. HIQA should do a detailed report and let us all know.

Fourth, depends on how you define vulnerable. The statistics show that it is over 65 with multiple comorbities. I seriously doubt that number is 1.5 million but if you have the numbers please share.

topper75 · 09-11-2020 03:01PM

I miss the olden days when Chinese would try and inspire fear with talk of tigers and dragons and stuff.

Enter the Mink or Enter the Frult Bat wouldn't have had the same ring to them as film titles.
But here we are.

Pitch n Putt · 09-11-2020 03:03PM

the kelt wrote: »

I was listening to a snippet from one of the HSE head men, think it was Paul Reid director general.

Anyway I was listening in the background (I’m gone to the stage where I hear the news in the car, interviews or others and I hear a NPHET or HSE person talking I just say oh eff off and turn it off) but he made a comment which made me think.

He talked about the hardest thing he’s ever had to do (or words to that effect) was tell a family that a person had died because of COVID and it got me thinking, why?

Why is a COVID death more important or heart breaking compared to suicide for example which personally I’ve had to pick up the pieces of the person left behind from suicide in a family.

Why is it’s harder than a death from cancer, car crash or whatever?

Every death is a tragedy but why is this rhetoric being put out there that COVID deaths are that bit worse?

Heard the piece on the radio earlier and while I wouldn’t have much time for Paul Reid.

What he did say was the hardest thing was to tell the families of healthcare workers that they had passed from Covid.
Which wouldn’t be easy considering they risk is far far greater because of their proximity to the virus daily.

09-11-2020 03:05PM

the kelt wrote: »

I was listening to a snippet from one of the HSE head men, think it was Paul Reid director general.

Anyway I was listening in the background (I’m gone to the stage where I hear the news in the car, interviews or others and I hear a NPHET or HSE person talking I just say oh eff off and turn it off) but he made a comment which made me think.

He talked about the hardest thing he’s ever had to do (or words to that effect) was tell a family that a person had died because of COVID and it got me thinking, why?

Why is a COVID death more important or heart breaking compared to suicide for example which personally I’ve had to pick up the pieces of the person left behind from suicide in a family.

Why is it’s harder than a death from cancer, car crash or whatever?

Every death is a tragedy but why is this rhetoric being put out there that COVID deaths are that bit worse?

He was referring to telling family of front line HSE staff that they'd died of Covid after getting it at work.

the kelt · 09-11-2020 03:25PM

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Heard the piece on the radio earlier and while I wouldn’t have much time for Paul Reid.

What he did say was the hardest thing was to tell the families of healthcare workers that they had passed from Covid.
Which wouldn’t be easy considering they risk is far far greater because of their proximity to the virus daily.

Thanks for the update on it, thought it was an odd thing to say to be honest, that makes more sense.

Cyrus · 09-11-2020 03:32PM

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s statistics based on real numbers of deaths and confirmed cases.

you actually sound a bit like donald trump :pac:

charlie14 · 09-11-2020 03:35PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It is good to see progress, but I would not get overly positive as yet considering this

That is a very small sample to base any conclusions on.

Well according to that link the 90% is based on the first 94 volunteers in the trial rather than just 94 randomly picked from the overall total.

While the percentage may vary when the full test base is included, I would not see any grounds to suggest it will be to any great degree plus or minus that 90%

charlie14 · 09-11-2020 03:41PM

Cyrus wrote: »

you actually sound a bit like donald trump :pac:

The opposite in fact.
Trump was a great man for making baseless assumptions while ignoring the data and look where that got him. Unfortunately for America, it`s also left many states with rising cases due to his assumptions as well .:pac:

Cyrus · 09-11-2020 03:43PM

charlie14 wrote: »

The opposite in fact.
Trump was a great man for making baseless assumptions while ignoring the data and look where that got him. Unfortunately for America, it`s also left many states with rising cases due to his assumptions as well .:pac:

you are ignoring the fact that the number of confirmed cases massively under reports the number of actual cases.

Johnboy1951 · 09-11-2020 04:13PM

charlie14 wrote: »

Well according to that link the 90% is based on the first 94 volunteers in the trial rather than just 94 randomly picked from the overall total.

While the percentage may vary when the full test base is included, I would not see any grounds to suggest it will be to any great degree plus or minus that 90%

I see no grounds to suppose the rest of those will follow the same 'path' as the first 94.

The manufacturer is also not making any claims that they will as they draw attention to the small sample number and no conclusion is being drawn as to its effectiveness overall.

The data presented is not the final analysis. It is based on the first 94 volunteers to test positive for Covid - the precise effectiveness of the vaccine may change when the full results are analysed.

BeefeaterHat · 09-11-2020 04:27PM

Cyrus wrote: »

you are ignoring the fact that the number of confirmed cases massively under reports the number of actual cases.

I wouldn't waste any more time on this. You're not going to convince him the covid death toll is less than 3 percent so why bother?

charlie14 · 09-11-2020 04:39PM

JRant wrote: »

So, couple of points then.

First, the 3% is based on assumptions. That's my whole point. We don't know how many died from COVID

Second. the modelling used to justify lockdowns and restrictions has been laughable. You are completely correct there.

Third, the fact that so many died at home or in care homes does not show how lethal this virus is. It shows how poorly these people were to begin with. Many may have been receiving palliative care for all we know before they got COVID. We just don't know. HIQA should do a detailed report and let us all know.

Fourth, depends on how you define vulnerable. The statistics show that it is over 65 with multiple comorbities. I seriously doubt that number is 1.5 million but if you have the numbers please share.

First. Incorrect.
As I have repeatedly said here unlike numbers being bandied around here based on assumptions, that 3% for Ireland and 6% for Sweden are the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases from the first wave.

Second. The number ratio of deaths to confirmed cases being thrown around here by some are also the product of modelling, which as you have agreed has been consistently laughable.

Third. We have a very good idea how lethal this virus is worldwide.
Presently there are 50M confirmed cases with 1.25M deaths. That is a ratio of 2.5% deaths to confirmed cases and there will be a time lag on deaths from recent cases in relation to deaths of between 6 - 8 weeks so in all probability that percentage will rise.

Fourth. 14% of our population is aged 65 or over. That is 700,000 people.
Underlying conditions that put you in the high risk category are not solely confined to those 65 and over. We have 150,000 people living with cancer who have suppressed immunity. Other underlying conditions include diabetes, asthma, hypertension, kidney disease, liver disease, obesity etc.
For diabetes alone the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas (2013) gives a figure of 6.5% of the population suffering with diabetes.
There may be crossovers there in regards to 65 and over with these underlying conditions but I would not see it a stretch that the number is somewhere in the 1.25M - 1.5M range.

Now having gone through all your questions would you care to explain how you propose we look after all those people to get your correct outcome seeing as you have avoided answering each time I have asked ?
The 700,000 aged 65 and over where only 30,000 (Nursing Homes Ireland) are actually living in nursing homes would be on its own at least a beginning.

charlie14 · 09-11-2020 04:43PM

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

I wouldn't waste any more time on this. You're not going to convince him the covid death toll is less than 3 percent so why bother?

You really could have saved both of us the time and effort much sooner by acknowledging that the 3% ratio is based on deaths to confirmed cases for the first wave, rather than the guesswork figures you were favouring.

Cyrus · 09-11-2020 04:55PM

charlie14 wrote: »

You really could have saved both of us the time and effort much sooner by acknowledging that the 3% ratio is based on deaths to confirmed cases for the first wave, rather than the guesswork figures you were favouring.

i think he acknowledged as does almost everyone that it massively overstates the mortality rate of covid-19, it appears you think differently.

JRant · 09-11-2020 05:14PM

charlie14 wrote: »

First. Incorrect.
As I have repeatedly said here unlike numbers being bandied around here based on assumptions, that 3% for Ireland and 6% for Sweden are the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases from the first wave.

Second. The number ratio of deaths to confirmed cases being thrown around here by some are also the product of modelling, which as you have agreed has been consistently laughable.

Third. We have a very good idea how lethal this virus is worldwide.
Presently there are 50M confirmed cases with 1.25M deaths. That is a ratio of 2.5% deaths to confirmed cases and there will be a time lag on deaths from recent cases in relation to deaths of between 6 - 8 weeks so in all probability that percentage will rise.

Fourth. 14% of our population is aged 65 or over. That is 700,000 people.
Underlying conditions that put you in the high risk category are not solely confined to those 65 and over. We have 150,000 people living with cancer who have suppressed immunity. Other underlying conditions include diabetes, asthma, hypertension, kidney disease, liver disease, obesity etc.
For diabetes alone the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas (2013) gives a figure of 6.5% of the population suffering with diabetes.
There may be crossovers there in regards to 65 and over with these underlying conditions but I would not see it a stretch that the number is somewhere in the 1.25M - 1.5M range.

Now having gone through all your questions would you care to explain how you propose we look after all those people to get your correct outcome seeing as you have avoided answering each time I have asked ?
The 700,000 aged 65 and over where only 30,000 (Nursing Homes Ireland) are actually living in nursing homes would be on its own at least a beginning.

Again, your 3% is based on the massive assumption that those people died from COVID, which is a massive leap to make.

Anyway, how do we protect those most vulnerable. Well for a start we stop testing healthy people that have no clinical diagnosis and instead target our limited testing capabilities on nursing and care homes for staff and residents. We should also greatly increase the cleaning regimes in those facilities and have screening for families who want to visit their lives ones. Lest we forget most people only spend a year or two in nursing homes before passing. To deprive them of family is a cruel thing to do.

For the at risk group in the community, have dedicated home delivery programs for groceries and additional support mechanisms if the person chooses. Remembering that these people over 65 are as much entitled to determine what level of risk is acceptable to them as the rest of us.

In fact, we need to stop this infantilism of the population and let people get back to the business of living their lives with as little government interference as they see fit.

We can't, as a society, protect everyone and to think we can do that by locking down the entire population is a level of hubris never before seen.

CalamariFritti · 09-11-2020 05:28PM

The real issue with the nursing and care homes - which is not being talked about at all - is the underlying business model where care staff and cleaners and everyone is contract staff that gets paid cr@p money and sees staff being shifted around all the time.

The public health risk aspect of this came to the fore due to covid but there are other issues which no one talks about at all.

Care staff carry out tasks which are often very private and depending on the receiver potentially quite humiliating. I can only imagine the distress of being wiped down by someone you barely know and next week by someone else. Especially if you are older and grew up in times where such things are a big deal.

The gig economisation of everything has a lot to answer for.

charlie14 · 09-11-2020 06:23PM

Cyrus wrote: »

i think he acknowledged as does almost everyone that it massively overstates the mortality rate of covid-19, it appears you think differently.

By the everyone else I presume you mean everyone else that is stabbing a guess at the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases based on the by now very discredited method of modelling, rather than the actual statistics.

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

Comments

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