Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings

beauf · 28-01-2021 05:50PM

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

...Its always easier to fool people than to prove to them they have been fooled......

It would help your argument if people posted facts that were true, instead of just hysterical doomposting.

There's is a valid argument that they lockdown is a crude and imprecise strategy, that the govt policy is far from perfect especially with regard to international travel etc. There is a useful discussion to be had there.

But unfortunately any valid anti lockdown arguments in this thread are entirely drowned out, and undermined by the sheer volume of fake facts, strawman, and hyperbole that would fool no one who bothered to spend a few seconds checking their validity. So either they don't care that the facts are false, or they never checked them before posting.

28-01-2021 05:51PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

You really twisted his words to suit yourself didnt you

Compliance getting harder is in no way saying lockdowns dont work

They also said that cases might rise as a result.
If you’re in lockdown and cases start rising... I think you can say it is not working.

I actually fear what our government will try at that point....

Pitch n Putt · 28-01-2021 05:51PM

Close contact testing to resume tomorrow. That should help to keep the numbers high and extend the restrictions until early summer at least and buy the government some time to cover the vaccine fiasco.

If you are not going to test to the same standards always then forget about testing at all. Forget this moving the goalposts sh1t.

Why is the testing not following the latest WHO advice regarding symptoms needed for a test ?

When will people say enough is enough and stop presenting for a test when they feel perfectly fine? With the results telling them they’re sick ...

It’s looking like the only way to stop this here is for the general population to say no and refuse a a test unless they have symptoms.

SAMTALK · 28-01-2021 05:52PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Compliance is needed for the lockdowns to work. Compliance drops therefore the lockdowns stop working. There is no way around this, humans are not automatons. Maybe in theory lockdowns work, in practice not so much. That's why the WHO only advise using them as a last resort and not as the primary means of control. Look at the unrest bubbling up all over europe. Thats what happens when you try to suppress and control human nature.

In NPHETs latest letter to Donnelly, they are more or less conceding that lockdown doesn’t work and they are expecting cases to rise. Strange strategy to pursue...

this is what poster said.
So you could also say lockdowns do work if compliance is high ?

You can twist things any way you want to suit your arguement

Ginger n Lemon · 28-01-2021 05:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They also said that cases might rise as a result.
If you’re in lockdown and cases start rising... I think you can say it is not working.

I actually fear what our government will try at that point....

Ugh. I fear that too.

Potentially mandatory masks at peoples homes? difficult to police, a bit like literally everything else but these politicians will say just about anything.

beauf · 28-01-2021 05:53PM

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Damn.

Thats a brilliant post.

Post of the day.

Except they did work in practise.

Silentcorner · 28-01-2021 05:54PM

Lundstram wrote: »

And of those 2M deaths worldwide, the vast majority died with the virus not because of it. That’s per WHO.

The hysteria continues, however. Facts seem to be an afterthought.

Ya, we know this is hysteria, which is why there seems to be an industry that is hell bent on maintaining it.

We knew, after the first surge and lockdown, who were most vulnerable from this virus, the figures spoke for themselves.

This is not a danger to the vast majority of us, uncomfortable - sure...it's just funny watching the people who think they know better than all of us!!!!

SAMTALK · 28-01-2021 05:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They also said that cases might rise as a result.
If you’re in lockdown and cases start rising... I think you can say it is not working.

I actually fear what our government will try at that point....

It's not because lockdowns don't work , it's because people are ignoring the guidelines

beauf · 28-01-2021 05:57PM

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Close contact testing to resume tomorrow. That should help to keep the numbers high and extend the restrictions until early summer at least and buy the government some time to cover the vaccine fiasco.

If you are not going to test to the same standards always then forget about testing at all. Forget this moving the goalposts sh1t.

Why is the testing not following the latest WHO advice regarding symptoms needed for a test ?

When will people say enough is enough and stop presenting for a test when they feel perfectly fine? With the results telling them they’re sick ...

It’s looking like the only way to stop this here is for the general population to say no and refuse a a test unless they have symptoms.

Maybe you'll post some information to backup your assertion that you can't spread Covid unless you have symptoms.

28-01-2021 05:57PM

Lundstram wrote: »

And of those 2M deaths worldwide, the vast majority died with the virus not because of it. That’s per WHO.

The hysteria continues, however. Facts seem to be an afterthought.

We'll never find out what percentage of that 2 million were as a result of Covid being a primary contributing factor. Why? More people would be up in arms protesting and disregarding lockdowns. Fear is an effective tool of manipulation, here only NPHET and the Government have access to key information which they cherry pick to frighten the Irish public into compliance. And RTÉ are the main propaganda wing to drive home the message. We're being played like a fiddle, smokescreen for the fallacy that is the HSE and subpar vaccine delivery.

froog · 28-01-2021 05:58PM

Lundstram wrote: »

And of those 2M deaths worldwide, the vast majority died with the virus not because of it. That’s per WHO.

The hysteria continues, however. Facts seem to be an afterthought.

that's the exact opposite of the WHO guidelines.

which you haven't read.

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically
compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative
cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of
complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be
counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of
COVID-19.

beauf · 28-01-2021 06:01PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We'll never find out what percentage of that 2 million were as a result of Covid being a primary contributing factor. Why? More people would be up in arms protesting and disregarding lockdowns. Fear is an effective tool of manipulation, here only NPHET and the Government have access to key information which they cherry pick to frighten the Irish public into compliance. And RTÉ are the main propaganda wing to drive home the message. We're being played like a fiddle.

What's the ultimate objective of this manipulation through fear?

Why post positive numbers and ease restrictions, even lift them, if the objective is to maintain control through fear?

francogarbanzo · 28-01-2021 06:01PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

It's not because lockdowns don't work , it's because people are ignoring the guidelines

Uh, where?

Whatsisname · 28-01-2021 06:04PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Compliance is needed for the lockdowns to work. Compliance drops therefore the lockdowns stop working. There is no way around this, humans are not automatons. Maybe in theory lockdowns work, in practice not so much. That's why the WHO only advise using them as a last resort and not as the primary means of control. Look at the unrest bubbling up all over europe. Thats what happens when you try to suppress and control human nature.

I absolutely hate the Tories but ironically, this was something they were worried about in the beginning and it seemed to have been dismissed by scientists.

" The objection was that behavioural arguments that were presented as supporting the decision to wait rather than adopt drastic measures were ill-founded. The fear that “behavioural fatigue” – as the UK government called it – might kick in and undermine the effectiveness of a lockdown as people would start violating the recommendation to stay home may be intuitively plausible but, behavioural scientists said, is not a documented behavioural phenomenon. 31 Not adopting a potentially life-saving lockdown based on the mere intuition that people may get tired of it simply is not good enough. It is not evidence-based behavioural policy-making. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7201134/

It's a bit mad that scientists didn't think people would get fed up of having every social outlet taken away from them.

28-01-2021 06:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll never find out what percentage of that 2 million were as a result of Covid being a primary contributing factor. Why? More people would be up in arms protesting and disregarding lockdowns. Fear is an effective tool of manipulation, here only NPHET and the Governments have access to key information which they cherry pick to frighten the Irish public into compliance. And RTÉ are the main propaganda wing to drive home the message. We're being played like a fiddle.

We do know that in countries that are part of Euromomo mortality monitoring system, there were 350,000 excess deaths in 2020. Total covid deaths in those countries - about 420,000. Hmmm.

But propaganda, hysteria..blah blah sh*te

28-01-2021 06:07PM

froog wrote: »

that's the exact opposite of the WHO guidelines.

which you haven't read.

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically
compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative
cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of
complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be
counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of
COVID-19.

That's reality. It doesn't belong on this thread

wakka12 · 28-01-2021 06:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Over 101M cases worldwide. A figure that we all know is probably a fraction of the actual cases.

Just 2M deaths...

Where is this deadly pandemic that people keep on talking about?

And those 2M include countries like ourselves, admitting that we are way overstating the deaths.

Yes but it also includes countries like Russia and Mexico only reporting about 1/3 of the actual COVID deaths . So..maybe it would balance out gobally ..roughly
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55474028
https://www.barrons.com/news/mexico-covid-deaths-far-higher-than-reported-new-data-shows-01611783010?tesla=y

Arghus · 28-01-2021 06:16PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Compliance is needed for the lockdowns to work. Compliance drops therefore the lockdowns stop working. There is no way around this, humans are not automatons. Maybe in theory lockdowns work, in practice not so much. That's why the WHO only advise using them as a last resort and not as the primary means of control. Look at the unrest bubbling up all over europe. Thats what happens when you try to suppress and control human nature.

Of course when compliance drops lockdowns stop working, or they aren't as effective, certainly. And compliance drops for all of the reasons and more that you have outlined.

But it is a different thing entirely to conflate lockdowns being less effective or having less effect after a point, with lockdowns simply not working full stop.

Bluntly put, all that lockdowns do is the wrestle control of the virus for a period of time and buy you a bit of time and to stop your health system from being overwhelmed: that's it.

That's their purpose, unless you are explicitly trying to go for total elimination. And they do work, they have worked - more than once! But people on this thread seem to think that the purpose of lockdown is to completely eliminate the virus.

Yes, the WHO says they should be used as a last resort, but that's not contradictory to me with how they've been employed in this country. Each time we went to level 5 or above it was necessary at the time.

Pitch n Putt · 28-01-2021 06:17PM

beauf wrote: »

Maybe you'll post some information to backup your assertion that you can't spread Covid unless you have symptoms.

Well you can’t pick and choose who and when you test and expect people to follow blindly.

What we currently have here is . Numbers up system overload-stop testing certain people

Cases down-numbers down now we’ll test more people.

It means the numbers are useless as the standard is different.

WHO have stated only symptomatic people should be tested.

28-01-2021 06:19PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

It's not because lockdowns don't work , it's because people are ignoring the guidelines

Which means that lockdown doesn’t work.

Arghus · 28-01-2021 06:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Which means that lockdown doesn’t work.

I'm curious to know what you mean by "doesn't work".

28-01-2021 06:23PM

Arghus wrote: »

Of course when compliance drops lockdowns stop working, or they aren't as effective, certainly. And compliance drops for all of the reasons and more that you have outlined.

But it is a different thing entirely to conflate lockdowns being less effective or having less effect after a point, with lockdowns simply not working full stop.

Bluntly put, all that lockdowns do is the wrestle control of the virus for a period of time and buy you a bit of time and to stop your health system from being overwhelmed: that's it.

That's their purpose, unless you are explicitly trying to go for total elimination. And they do work, they have worked - more than once! But people on this thread seem to think that the purpose of lockdown is to completely eliminate the virus.

Yes, the WHO says they should be used as a last resort, but that's not contradictory to me with how they've been employed in this country. Each time we went to level 5 or above it was necessary at the time.

But we’ve been locked down or heavily restricted at many times when hospitals were nowhere near to being overwhelmed.

It is certainly not a strategy that is only used to ensure hospitals are not overwhelmed.

28-01-2021 06:25PM

Arghus wrote: »

I'm curious to know what you mean by "doesn't work".

If we have half a million out of work, every school in the country closed, 20 billion budget deficit and the CMO saying that he expects cases to rise soon as compliance drops...

Yeah, that’s not working on any front.

Arghus · 28-01-2021 06:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But we’ve been locked down or heavily restricted at many times when hospitals were nowhere near to being overwhelmed.

It is certainly not a strategy that is only used to ensure hospitals are not overwhelmed.

You don't wait until your hospitals are overwhelmed before you lockdown - even if we left it mighty close this time.

You take preventative action before the situation you are trying to avoid occurs.

Ginger n Lemon · 28-01-2021 06:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If we have half a million out of work, every school in the country closed, 20 billion budget deficit and the CMO saying that he expects cases to rise soon as compliance drops...

Yeah, that’s not working on any front.

In Italy some of the police have taken off their helmet and joined protests against lockdown.

I have a feeling lockdown in Italy is also not working :pac:

Arghus · 28-01-2021 06:28PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If we have half a million out of work, every school in the country closed, 20 billion budget deficit and the CMO saying that he expects cases to rise soon as compliance drops...

Yeah, that’s not working on any front.

I disagree with you.

You've listed off some of the bad consequences of lockdown, which absolutely exist,

But the alternative is far worse. How many extra thousand dead would be worth it in your opinion?

Pitch n Putt · 28-01-2021 06:30PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If we have half a million out of work, every school in the country closed, 20 billion budget deficit and the CMO saying that he expects cases to rise soon as compliance drops...

Yeah, that’s not working on any front.

It’s actually quite the farce when put like that.

It’s a yo yo effect to oblivion.

What ever happened to the living with covid plan. ?In the bin with the tracker app I suppose.

We’re clinging on to a vaccine that may never be effective.

We need to start thinking of something different and fast. It’s all like this here because of the HSE shambles.

The only thing lockdown does is reduces the numbers so that they can go up again.

risteard7 · 28-01-2021 06:41PM

Had my second Pfizer vaccine today. All good so far. I haven't grown a tail or anything yet

Lundstram · 28-01-2021 06:45PM

froog wrote: »

that's the exact opposite of the WHO guidelines.

which you haven't read.

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically
compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative
cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of
complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be
counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of
COVID-19.

I read it months ago.

Do yourself a favour and read it closely. Or get some family member or an intelligent friend and ask them to explain it to you.

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

If a doctor suspects Covid19 was a contributing factor in a persons death, no matter how small, it goes down as a Covid19 death.

They died with Covid19 not because of it.

minitrue · 28-01-2021 06:46PM

If R0 goes from 0.1 to 0.2 then the R0 number has drifted upwards, the rate of suppression has got worse but case numbers continue to go down. Obviously we can only dream of an R0 of 0.1 or 0.2 but the figures are irrelevant as the point stands so long as R0 does not go above 1.

Put another way, if you look at the 7-day rolling average of cases/day then the number had gone down to 54% of peak in the first week after peak while the next week it "only" fell by 59% from there so the rate of suppression was worse.

So what he was saying was that you can't extrapolate out the 54% to say that we would be under 100 cases 7 weeks after the peak (March 1st) which is probably what some idiot politician did trying to argue for a March 5th date to start easing restrictions.

What he did NOT say was that cases would go up.

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings