Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings

30-01-2021 05:29PM

froog wrote: »

are you just throwing out random phrases now, hoping they might congeal into some kind of a point?

He asked for evidence. I assume for me saying that most deaths would have died anyways.

Excess death provides the proof.

Sweden provides proof that lockdown doesn’t prevent huge numbers of deaths.

Now show us your proof. And I want something that isn’t an “estimate” based on some model.

Windmill100000 · 30-01-2021 05:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet you have no evidence other than a “feeling”.

Horrible for all those whose lives have been destroyed because we “believe” lockdown saves lives.

So according to you we should have just stayed open when ICU/CCU were at capacity and if someone needed a bed ah well....

FintanMcluskey · 30-01-2021 05:31PM

Windmill100000 wrote: »

We will never know exactly how many lives were saved because of lockdown. But most people believe lives were saved.

I’ve been waiting for a poster to make such an admission.

It’s incredibly truthful, we don’t know how many lives were saved.

It’s likely that basic mitigation measures like social distancing, mask wearing and improvements in hygiene are the most cost effective at saving lives and not having the disadvantage of massive sunk costs.

Ireland’s approach of implementing Europe’s longest lockdown last year is hard to defend for its cost effectiveness.

Even now, construction closure until Summer is a measure that is difficult to defend.

FintanMcluskey · 30-01-2021 05:33PM

Penfailed wrote: »

Let me try to be more clear. You want the government to ease restrictions on the population. The government are currently following public health advice. So, if you want restrictions eased, it's not a massive leap to assume that you want the government (and, in turn the population) to ignore public health advice.

This is baffling nonsense.

Never did I suggest such.

I did perhaps suggest the advice should change

30-01-2021 05:34PM

Windmill100000 wrote: »

So according to you we should have just stayed open when ICU/CCU were at capacity and if someone needed one ah well....

Were they at capacity for most of the last year?

Some me the figures...

FintanMcluskey · 30-01-2021 05:35PM

Penfailed wrote: »

Eh? I thought Ireland had the youngest population in Europe? I thought this thing only affected the elderly and infirm? You are tying yourself up in knots now.

Please read the post you actually quoted?

It reads “if Ireland had a population similar to Italy”

Penfailed · 30-01-2021 05:37PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

This is baffling nonsense.

Never did I suggest such.

I did perhaps suggest the advice should change

Oh, so you don't want the government to ease restrictions now? It's hard to keep up with you.

Windmill100000 · 30-01-2021 05:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

He asked for evidence. I assume for me saying that most deaths would have died anyways.

Excess death provides the proof.

Sweden provides proof that lockdown doesn’t prevent huge numbers of deaths.

Now show us your proof. And I want something that isn’t an “estimate” based on some model.

But you acknowledge lockdown saved some deaths in Sweden?

froog · 30-01-2021 05:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ve never actually said that lockdowns don’t save any lives, you made that up, which you are good at.

But I don’t think they saved many lives at all. Have a good look at Sweden. No lockdown and an elderly population. They don’t have a huge number of deaths. Even less excess deaths.

Proof that not locking down doesn’t lead to hospitals getting overwhelmed and bodies piling up on the streets.

And if it doesn’t save many lives, than why do we have half a million unemployed and every school in the country closed.

Over to you. Actual proof that lockdown saved millions of lives. Oh yeah... you don’t have it.

what would proof that lockdowns saved lives look like to you? i'm serious, what kind of proof do you want and be specific.

we know you find scientific modelling and estimates funny, so where does that leave us?

Penfailed · 30-01-2021 05:39PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Please read the post you actually quoted?

It reads “if Ireland had a population similar to Italy”

Oh, you mean demographically the same, not numerically the same? Why didn't you say so?

30-01-2021 05:40PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I’ve been waiting for a poster to make such an admission.

It’s incredibly truthful, we don’t know how many lives were saved.

It’s likely that basic mitigation measures like social distancing, mask wearing and improvements in hygiene are the most cost effective at saving lives and not having the disadvantage of massive sunk costs.

Ireland’s approach of implementing Europe’s longest lockdown last year is hard to defend for its cost effectiveness.

Even now, construction closure until Summer is a measure that is difficult to defend.

Hard to believe how many lives have been destroyed because of this “feeling” that lockdown works.

National debt now at 239 billion or so

hynesie08 · 30-01-2021 05:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

He asked for evidence. I assume for me saying that most deaths would have died anyways.

Excess death provides the proof.

Sweden provides proof that lockdown doesn’t prevent huge numbers of deaths.

Now show us your proof. And I want something that isn’t an “estimate” based on some model.

So you're discrediting proof of lives saved because it is based on modelling data, but your evidence is excess deaths, which is based on modelling data?

Arghus · 30-01-2021 05:41PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

So you're discrediting proof of lives saved because it is based on modelling data, but your evidence is excess deaths, which is based on modelling data?

Welcome to the thread mate!

hynesie08 · 30-01-2021 05:42PM

froog wrote: »

what would proof that lockdowns saved lives look like to you? i'm serious, what kind of proof do you want and be specific.

we know you find scientific modelling and estimates funny, so where does that leave us?

I'm assuming he wants some sort of multiverse scenario.

30-01-2021 05:43PM

froog wrote: »

what would proof that lockdowns saved lives look like to you? i'm serious, what kind of proof do you want and be specific.

we know you find scientific modelling and estimates funny, so where does that leave us?

Perhaps a country that didn’t lockdown for large periods and had hospitals overwhelmed and huge numbers of deaths.

It doesn’t exist though.

Whatsisname · 30-01-2021 05:44PM

Regardless of whatever side of the debate you’re on, I don’t think anybody can use China to prove anything. You can’t trust a word that comes from them.

froog · 30-01-2021 05:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps a country that didn’t lockdown for large periods and had hospitals overwhelmed and huge numbers of deaths.

It doesn’t exist though.

so the evidence that would satisfy you is impossible to find, and you find scientific studies, estimates and models funny.

you realize how ridiculous you sound here right?

Silentcorner · 30-01-2021 05:46PM

Arghus wrote: »

I don't know where you are getting your statistics, but Croatia's death rate is roughly twice ours.

You are correct, they have had 1,700 more deaths, 50k more cases, but I don't know how accurate that figure is...but they do have a fairly larger over 65s demographic.

But even at that...the difference when you factor in the key demographic we are probably talking about hundreds...

How do you explain Sweden and Britain/Spain/Portugal?

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

30-01-2021 05:48PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

So you're discrediting proof of lives saved because it is based on modelling data, but your evidence is excess deaths, which is based on modelling data?

It’s really not hard to look at a figure from last year and the year before and factor in some population growth.

Models that predict infections etc have been very far off so far in this. Look at NPHETS models for December.

Would you trust them?

30-01-2021 05:48PM

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/birthsdeathsandmarriages/vitalstatistics/

I'd look at figures like that and think "I wonder what the % increase would have been if we weren't in lockdown during that period."

I guess you could also interpret is as "See, even in lockdown people died, lockdown doesn't work!"

But most wouldn't.

Kunta Kinte · 30-01-2021 05:50PM

ypres5 wrote: »

sounds like you almost want it to turn out badly for the italians out of spite

See whatever you want to see old buddy. As you well know the government here bowed to pressure from various sectors and went against NPHET recommendations`by greatly easing restrictions almost 2 months ago now when the case numbers were far too high to justify doing so. We have all seen what the dire results of that were. The Italian authorities may be making the same mistake now. As I already stated time will tell what the outcome is. Whatever happens we won`t have too long to find out.

30-01-2021 05:50PM

froog wrote: »

so the evidence that would satisfy you is impossible to find, and you find scientific studies, estimates and models funny.

you realize how ridiculous you sound here right?

Why is it so difficult?

Just find a country that didn’t implement too many restrictions but had huge numbers of deaths.

You can’t. Simply because it didn’t happen.

Arghus · 30-01-2021 05:52PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

You are correct, they have had 1,700 more deaths, 50k more cases, but I don't know how accurate that figure is...but they do have a fairly larger over 65s demographic.

But even at that...the difference when you factor in the key demographic we are probably talking about hundreds...

How do you explain Sweden and Britain/Spain/Portugal?

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

I'm not denying that the disease predominantly impacts the over 65's, clearly it does and generally speaking if you take that in to account, it plays a big role in determining how a country does.

What I took exception to was your assertion earlier that it was very simple and to be seen everywhere.

I pointed out that are exceptions, which prove that it isn't just a simple slam dunk of more over 65's equals higher death rate in every case. There's individual factors in each jurisdiction.

30-01-2021 05:53PM

Some people are now looking at excess deaths and thinking maybe we should stop living to try get deaths down!!

froog · 30-01-2021 05:54PM

all of this goes back to posters in this thread not understanding the basic mechanism of how the virus spreads. all the other wacky viewpoints can be traced back to that.

Windmill100000 · 30-01-2021 05:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Were they at capacity for most of the last year?

Some me the figures...

Not last year because we spent a lot of it locked down keeping case numbers in check.

The surge of cases in January, far higher than anything last year resulted in ICU at capacity.

So, you are saying we should open up when hospital intensive care units around the country are full in many hospitals?

Windmill100000 · 30-01-2021 05:56PM

Double post

Ginger n Lemon · 30-01-2021 06:06PM

Jealous of Italians. Bloody fresh pasta and house wine for every1 starting tomorrow.

Potential holiday destination :pac:

Gonna get all the hate now about Irish hospitality etc. Lovely, beautiful, high standards Irish hospitality businesses that are closed. For months on end. Assuming they re open ofcourse.

I'd say Tony is gonna be very concerned now at 6.01 with Italians letting loose. He ll want mandatory 14 day quarantine regardless of the test result if you coming from the EU covid vector that is Italy.

Boggles · 30-01-2021 06:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Were they at capacity for most of the last year?

Yes. ICU's operate at around 80-90% capacity all year round.

It's how our health service works.

gmisk · 30-01-2021 06:12PM

House opposite and a bit up....having a house party....

All in this together....yep...

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

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings