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

JRant wrote: »

That will need a complete change in approach though. We had around 300 in hospital with COVID and less than 40 in ICU when we were back in to lockdown. Even if we doubled our ICU capacity I'm sure Dr Lockdown would be able to find some "forecast" to say we would fill it twice as quick.

Being honest, the numbers don't seem to matter. When they are at a moderate level we need to lockdown, when they are single digits we can't open up for months "because reasons".

The way I would see it is lockdown is not just about ensuring that your health services is not over-run. It`s to control the rise in infection as well.
We do know that the higher the rate of infections will result in higher deaths.
Increasing the number of ICU beds and then using that number as an indicator of how high you can let the numbers rise before your health service is over-run will not lower the percentage of deaths.


People talk about Sweden doubling their ICU numbers but do not seem to realise that Sweden`s approach was totally different to anywhere else.They were going for herd immunity and were not making much of an effort to keep infections down .Keeping numbers down runs contradictory to the aim of achieving herd immunity.
Even with extra ICU capacity it is very questionable how much good that did in Sweden. Who made it into ICU and who did not for one, as well as even with that extra capacity their deaths ratio to confirmed cases during the first wave was double Ireland`s

charlie14 wrote: »

The way I would see it is lockdown is not just about ensuring that your health services is not over-run. It`s to control the rise in infection as well.
We do know that the higher the rate of infections will result in higher deaths.
Increasing the number of ICU beds and then using that number as an indicator of how high you can let the numbers rise before your health service is over-run will not lower the percentage of deaths.


People talk about Sweden doubling their ICU numbers but do not seem to realise that Sweden`s approach was totally different to anywhere else.They were going for herd immunity and were not making much of an effort to keep infections down .Keeping numbers down runs contradictory to the aim of achieving herd immunity.
Even with extra ICU capacity it is very questionable how much good that did in Sweden. Who made it into ICU and who did not for one, as well as even with that extra capacity their deaths ratio to confirmed cases during the first wave was double Ireland`s

Okay, so it's not about stopping the health system from being overrun. I think you need to double check with HQ on that one.

But, if we take that at face value for one second, how do you define infections?

Do we only use results from the super sensitive PCR tests or do we go back to proper medicine and use a proper clinical diagnosis coupled with a test result. You know, the old school method, whereby we look at hospitalisation as a true measure of a disease.

JRant wrote: »

Okay, so it's not about stopping the health system from being overrun. I think you need to double check with HQ on that one.

But, if we take that at face value for one second, how do you define infections?

Do we only use results from the super sensitive PCR tests or do we go back to proper medicine and use a proper clinical diagnosis coupled with a test result. You know, the old school method, whereby we look at hospitalisation as a true measure of a disease.

When you have a viral infectious pandemic just looking at the numbers hospitalised is not going to tell you much on the level of infections. Doing that would give you no idea what was coming down the line regarding hospitalisations or ICU numbers.

JRant wrote: »

But, I thought you said it has nothing to do with hospital and ICU numbers.

How do we measure infections?
Do we persist with this test only approach or do we use the long established medical practice of a clinical diagnosis and then test?

Oh, and by the way a 30 second phonecall with a doctor is not a clinical diagnosis, never has been, never will be.

That is not what I said.
If you read my post I said it was to control infections as well.


As I explained you are not going to to know what level of infections you have from just looking at those hospitalised. You can only know that from testing, which will give you a good indication of what is coming down the line regarding hospital and ICU bed requirements. Just counting people in hospital beds will not do that.



I do not know what the 30 second phone call reference is too, but I do know where it was used by one country whose approach quite a few here favour when it was a matter of life or death.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Fear sells.

If I, in the course of my professional career, made such a gross miscalculation and pronouncement which caused needless and untold stress to millions of people, I hope I would have the shame, grace and humility to keep my trap shut on the matter there after. Not Sam, though.

bucketybuck wrote: »

Which is why the current headline on the states national broadcaster is "150 deaths a month if we'd stayed at Level 3 - warns Philip Nolan".

I hope others can see how insidious RTE have been throughout this pandemic, acting as little more than a propaganda arm of NPHET.

Imagine if the headline on the national broadcaster had been "Older people are vulnerable, why won't NPHET protect our nursing homes", I wonder if that might have saved a few hundred lives? We'll never know.

All the while they completely ignored the fact that on average 80 people a day die in this country.

JRant wrote: »

All the while they completely ignored the fact that on average 80 people a day die in this country.

We are very lucky actually, nobody has died of old age or the flu in months.

AssetBacked2 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-19-hospital-numbers-falling-but-warning-of-unpredictable-nature-of-virus-1.4409628?mode=amp

Hospital numbers falling but don't celebrate as the virus is unpredictable. Are they ****ing serious? It's good news full stop and to say at this stage it is unpredictable, nearly a year into the crisis, is unforgiveable.

The last thing the government wants is people to think that the job is done and everyone can go back to mixing. They have to avoid premature celebrations.

Thankfully despite what many on this thread have predicted we have a very effective vaccine, and more are likely in the near future - Moderna probably to release results next week. Once we get increasing amounts of the population vaccinated, restrictions will increasingly become a thing of the past.

If we want to see what happens when restrictions are lifted too early, the US is a case in point. There was a Chicago restauranteur interviewed on CNBC last week looking for restrictions, as customers are too afraid to eat in his restaurants because of the rising numbers of cases. He could see what is obvious to everyone that controlling this virus is where everything starts.

hmmm wrote: »

The last thing the government wants is people to think that the job is done and everyone can go back to mixing. They have to avoid premature celebrations.

Thankfully despite what many on this thread have predicted we have a very effective vaccine, and more are likely in the near future - Moderna probably to release results next week. Once we get increasing amounts of the population vaccinated, restrictions will increasingly become a thing of the past.

If we want to see what happens when restrictions are lifted too early, the US is a case in point. There was a Chicago restauranteur interviewed on CNBC last week looking for restrictions, as customers are too afraid to eat in his restaurants because of the rising numbers of cases. He could see what is obvious to everyone that controlling this virus is where everything starts.

God forbid we'd have a bit of positivity, sure ya can't be doing that.

It would be fantastic if we had a vaccine tomorrow and we could put an end to all this ridiculous carry-on. Unfortunately we don't and have to make a plan for how to live now.

I think we can find a balance between the constant doom and gloom restrictions/lockdowns and completely opening up. It does seem like the government are stuck between two stools at the moment. If lockdown is required every few months, even with quite strict restrictions, then we should open up fully in between them as the restrictions clearly don't work as NPHET would like.

https://twitter.com/bl_byrne/status/1326463303544082432

"Listen to NPHET, they're the experts"

Yeah, experts at destroying small and medium sized businesses.

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Or perhaps, covid is a seasonal illness, and no matter how many business you shut down you ll always have people dying with covid in the colder months, and have "cases"?

It's not a seasonal illness. People are still dying in the southern hemisphere.

MelbourneMan wrote: »

NPHET's role is advisory, to support the government making informed decisions. In no case does it dictate policy to the government, and executive decision making rests with the government.

Shooting the messenger will not solve the problem of the virus. The process works. Because the country is now waking up to the reality that it is facing a very unpleasant vista of the next 6-8 months at least, is not a reason to jettison its best informed people on the matter.

The attitude of many here is reminiscent of a Brexit comment about having had enough of 'experts' because their analysis didnt reach the conclusions the Brexit faithful wish to hear. It really is illogical to dismiss the doctors' diagnosis, prognosis, and prescription, from a basis of ignorance, and just because one doesnt like the message.

No "Hello"?

What did I do wrong? :pac: