When will it all end?

aido79 · 15-03-2021 03:51PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Ahem.

If you actually read the rest of my post you might see that I mentioned there are other factors involved in opening up and not just hospital numbers.

15-03-2021 03:57PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I was listening, a breath of fresh air, MM and Leo should grow a pair, NPHET were elected by nobody, The media are useless.
We could really do with him back on the airwaves he'd probably beat the head of Crazy Kenny and Shill O'Neill on his first day though.

There is simply nobody like Yates anymore, no voices of dissent are allowed, no questioning of the narrative. The fact he is articulate, questions the status quo, and doesn't mind saying what he thinks is so refreshing it almost shocked me today. Its been SO long since we heard speaking a bit of truth !!

ujjjjjjjjj · 15-03-2021 04:26PM

aido79 wrote: »

So you just ignore trends of rising cases and say that there is no proof that hospital numbers would have continued to rise? Do you just want the government to take a chance and let them rises and then apologise saying they f$%led up?

There is no denying the fact that there has been decades of mismanagement and incompetence in the health service in Ireland. It's not something that can be fixed overnight so it's the cards we have to play with right now.

So your solution is everyone over a certain age stay at home and the rest of us just go back to normal?

Or it was just a winter spike like every year. Reality is we don't know.

We have had a year to put emergency capacity in place. In the UK overnight they has huge Nightingale Hoapitals built. Never used but there you go. We did SFA.

Yes to your last question but not legally so you are only advised to restrict your movements if you are elderly or at risk.

ujjjjjjjjj · 15-03-2021 04:28PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I was listening, a breath of fresh air, MM and Leo should grow a pair, NPHET were elected by nobody, The media are useless.
We could really do with him back on the airwaves he'd probably beat the head of Crazy Kenny and Shill O'Neill on his first day though.

Thank god I heard Ivan.....good man. Telling it as it is.

Those doing fine don't give a horlicks about anyone else.

ELM327 · 15-03-2021 04:31PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I was listening, a breath of fresh air, MM and Leo should grow a pair, NPHET were elected by nobody, The media are useless.
We could really do with him back on the airwaves he'd probably beat the head of Crazy Kenny and Shill O'Neill on his first day though.

Exactly. We need to stop listening to these fools.

15-03-2021 04:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ivan Yates was on Newstalk at lunchtime.
He said (and I agreed): There are only 3 cohorts in Ireland who have NOT been affected financially by Covid 19.

1. Those working in Pharma and IT
2. Those working in supermarkets (who are raking in the money) and retail.
3. Those working in the public service[/url]

Forgetting the lifelong welfare recipients.

OwenM · 15-03-2021 04:41PM

aido79 wrote: »

We should not react to decreasing hospital numbers at all. What's the point in repeating previous mistakes? Public buy in is at the lowest since the start of this so any easing of restrictions will result in a "give an inch take a mile" effect and we'll end up in a worse situation than we are in at present.

Do you honestly believe that we are in a level 5 lockdown? As far as I can see it is level 5 in name only. There will be easing of restrictions either in April or May but this will be based on the level of virus in the community, the average case numbers, the R number etc rather than hospital numbers.

Keeping covid related hospital numbers low gives the health service a chance to catch up on non covid related treatments for which waiting lists are growing all the time. Your way of looking at things ensures that covid cases will rise leaving less hospital beds for non covid related treatments.

Lets start with the R number, last time I looked the modelling group said it was between .6 and 1 which is a complete pile of bo##ocks . If it's .6 then it is falling quickly, if it's 1 then it not falling at all? So they can't decide either way. They haven't a scooby doo.

The case numbers mean less and less as a proxy for deaths and hospitilisations as we vaccinate in the sequence we are doing it. In about 3 weeks from now the data surrounding deaths and numbers in hospital will drive the government to open up more, I'm hoping for level three by start of May.

15-03-2021 04:43PM

aido79 wrote: »

You're heading for conspiracy theory stuff there. Who has ever mentioned staying in lockdown indefinitely?

Saying we should stay in lockdown until we have a significant portion of the population vaccinated is literally staying in lockdown indefinitely. That isn't a conspiracy theory. We do not know how long its going to take to get people vaccinated.

Even if things go to plan (hopefully), you're still talking about July, which means half a year of lockdown.

ELM327 · 15-03-2021 04:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Forgetting the lifelong welfare recipients.

But they are the neaveau riche, not even impacted by recessions!

aido79 · 15-03-2021 04:51PM

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Or it was just a winter spike like every year. Reality is we don't know.

We have had a year to put emergency capacity in place. In the UK overnight they has huge Nightingale Hoapitals built. Never used but there you go. We did SFA.

Yes to your last question but not legally so you are only advised to restrict your movements if you are elderly or at risk.

By your logic we should avoid the spike in April that we had last by staying locked down for April and then easing restrictions in May.

Why did the UK bother with lockdowns if those nightingale hospitals which were barely used were the solution?

What age would you set for people who need to cocoon?

ELM327 · 15-03-2021 04:53PM

aido79 wrote: »

By your logic we should avoid the spike in April that we had last by staying locked down for April and then easing restrictions in May.

Why did the UK bother with lockdowns if those nightingale hospitals which were barely used were the solution?

What age would you set for people who need to cocoon?

Just 10-14 days to flatten the curve should do it.

aido79 · 15-03-2021 04:59PM

OwenM wrote: »

Lets start with the R number, last time I looked the modelling group said it was between .6 and 1 which is a complete pile of bo##ocks . If it's .6 then it is falling quickly, if it's 1 then it not falling at all? So they can't decide either way. They haven't a scooby doo.

The case numbers mean less and less as a proxy for deaths and hospitilisations as we vaccinate in the sequence we are doing it. In about 3 weeks from now the data surrounding deaths and numbers in hospital will drive the government to open up more, I'm hoping for level three by start of May.

Do you understand the R number? If it's at 0.6 then for every 10 people who contract it they will pass it onto 6 people so the numbers will drop.
If the R number is at 1 then those 10 people will pass it onto 10 more people so the numbers stay steady.
Do you have a more accurate figure for the R number if you think their figure is a complete pile of bo##ocks?

I would also be very confident of level 3 by the beginning of May. As I said earlier we are in level 5 in name only. Level 3 from where we are now would not be a huge leap and should be possible if the vaccine supply issues are resolved.

ELM327 · 15-03-2021 05:02PM

aido79 wrote: »

Do you understand the R number? If it's at 0.6 then for every 10 people who contract it they will pass it onto 6 people so the numbers will drop.
If the R number is at 1 then those 10 people will pass it onto 10 more people so the numbers stay steady.
Do you have a more accurate figure for the R number if you think their figure is a complete pile of bo##ocks?

I would also be very confident of level 3 by the beginning of May. As I said earlier we are in level 5 in name only. Level 3 from where we are now would not be a huge leap and should be possible if the vaccine supply issues are resolved.

It is 2029, the taoiseach addresses the nation and says we are in level 2++, we just need 10-14 days to flatten the curve.

Quazzie · 15-03-2021 05:04PM

ELM327 wrote: »

It is 2029, the taoiseach addresses the nation and says we are in level 2++, we just need 10-14 days to flatten the curve.

It is 2020, and that joke stopped being funny

Parachutes · 15-03-2021 05:05PM

Quazzie wrote: »

It is 2020, and that joke stopped being funny

It stopped being funny because it's slowly becoming reality.

aido79 · 15-03-2021 05:06PM

AdamD wrote: »

Saying we should stay in lockdown until we have a significant portion of the population vaccinated is literally staying in lockdown indefinitely. That isn't a conspiracy theory. We do not know how long its going to take to get people vaccinated.

Even if things go to plan (hopefully), you're still talking about July, which means half a year of lockdown.

No it's not. An indefinite lockdown is conspiracy theory stuff.
I also hope things go to plan but I would not class restrictions until July as an indefinite lockdown.

aido79 · 15-03-2021 05:07PM

ELM327 wrote: »

It is 2029, the taoiseach addresses the nation and says we are in level 2++, we just need 10-14 days to flatten the curve.

You're almost in trolling territory....

Parachutes · 15-03-2021 05:08PM

aido79 wrote: »

No it's not. An indefinite lockdown is conspiracy theory stuff.
I also hope things go to plan but I would not class restrictions until July as an indefinite lockdown.

It's gone from April to July now? :rolleyes:

aido79 · 15-03-2021 05:10PM

Parachutes wrote: »

It's gone from April to July now? :rolleyes:

Relaxation of restrictions end of April. End of restrictions in July. Roll your eyes all you want but that's the most positive prediction that anyone can hope for.

ujjjjjjjjj · 15-03-2021 05:13PM

aido79 wrote: »

By your logic we should avoid the spike in April that we had last by staying locked down for April and then easing restrictions in May.

Why did the UK bother with lockdowns if those nightingale hospitals which were barely used were the solution?

What age would you set for people who need to cocoon?

Look you can bat this around forever.

I've never agreed with any legally enforceable restrictions, health advice sure go ahead but removing basic freedoms for a virus of this low level of lethality to the vast majority of the population is just not something I can find any reason to justify.

Sweden has come closest to managing this sensibly in my opinion. They made a horlicks of protecting their elderly in the nursing homes where the majority of their deaths have come from but otherwise the closest to a pragmatic approach to this while limiting damage to personal freedoms.

It may gall you and others in the lockdown and safety at all costs brigade but while I would of course prefer these viruses not to exist I think the damage outweighs the benefits and life years saved in the elderly and vulnerable and we should have just got on with like Sweden did and muddle through as best we can, providing assistance for the elderly and vulnerable who wished to isolate.

As a caring society we can afford to put in place protections and assistance for the elderly and vulnerable who wish to restrict their movements.

Staying as a free society carries a price and we haven't been prepared to pay that price. But there is another price to pay now and I don't think anyone has really thought it through, you cross a point and it's very hard to go back, in fact I'd say it's impossible.

We can argue forever about whether it was right or wrong. I don't think it was, other will disagree and that's fine.

History in time I have no doubt will judge this as a substantial inflection point in what we call Western Democracy and it won't be well judged. Unfortunately my overwhelming emotion is one of sadness as most people don't realise what has happened here.

I know many won't agree and that's fine but it isn't going to change my perspective or assessment of what has happened here.

ujjjjjjjjj · 15-03-2021 05:20PM

aido79 wrote: »

Do you understand the R number? If it's at 0.6 then for every 10 people who contract it they will pass it onto 6 people so the numbers will drop.
If the R number is at 1 then those 10 people will pass it onto 10 more people so the numbers stay steady.
Do you have a more accurate figure for the R number if you think their figure is a complete pile of bo##ocks?

I would also be very confident of level 3 by the beginning of May. As I said earlier we are in level 5 in name only. Level 3 from where we are now would not be a huge leap and should be possible if the vaccine supply issues are resolved.

They haven't a clue what the 'R' number is and never have. With a virus of this nature with so many asymptomatic or mild cases many people who have been infected you simply can't estimate it with any degree of accuracy. You can also only record an R number if you have a consistent level of testing. If you test more you find more and the R number goes up, test less and it drops. It hasn't been scientifically done since day one and therefore it's just garbage.

Read the CSO stats, that is data and clearly shows who is at risk and who isn't.

ujjjjjjjjj · 15-03-2021 05:23PM

aido79 wrote: »

You're almost in trolling territory....

Close but if you'd say to me last year we would be breaking the law on the 4th April 2021 by going to a beach 6km away I would have laughed and said you were nuts..............:)

ulster · 15-03-2021 05:24PM

I reckon late 2022 for full vaccination given our government's capability.

gozunda · 15-03-2021 05:26PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Sorry but I don’t understand your argument here. If lockdown is about maintaining the capacity of the health service to treat people then this is absolutely and invariably linked to the saving of lives. The argument is that, if the health service cannot treat people properly, then more people will die — right?

I think it would be fairly ludicrous to claim that the unprecedented shutdown of society (and support for it), hinges merely on the desire to ensure that people get the same level treatment they would have received in any other recent year. It was the prospect of a huge rise in excess deaths that spurred lockdown and spurred people into supporting lockdown. To argue otherwise is moving the goalposts into an entirely different stadium.

Indeed, and when that day arrives and we bow our heads in remembrance, the people who will continue to die from Covid and other infectious illnesses every year will be forgotten. If those deaths remain at tolerable numbers, the very same people who have spent the past year accusing others of being happy to ‘let’ people die in order to have normality back will, unavoidably, support ‘letting’ these people die so they can have normality back.

Nope. Not too sure what you're trying hard to understand. You stated

its hard to advocate even moderate lifting of restrictions because it means at least some more people will die and Mr / Mrs Morality finds themselves in the selfish cretin bucket too

As if that was the only metric on which restrictions and lockdown is based. As pointed out it's not. What is correct is that your argument is not only in the wrong stadium - it's also in the wrong ballpark.

Restrictions are about managing infection rates ie keeping the numbers infected down and allowing health care services to cope both with Covid patient care and other services. By no means is it only about "saving" lives. Those who also need hospital admission for covid and non covid related or other non terminal condition have a much greater chance of proper medical care where heath resources are available.

But yes it also about saving some lives - especially those who require critical care.

Its always been about that and to use a phrase "flattering the curve" ie reducing the number who need care at any one time. So the proposition that restrictions are solely based on people dying is indeed ludicrous.

When we get to the point where covid19 infection rates are manageable with vaccination rates then "normality" will have nothing whatsoever to do with "letting people die" and deciding fuk it we'll do nothing

ELM327 · 15-03-2021 05:33PM

Quazzie wrote: »

It is 2020, and that joke stopped being funny

Only because it's becoming a reality.

aido79 wrote: »

You're almost in trolling territory....

No, just venting my anger at the incessant lockdowns

Parachutes · 15-03-2021 05:36PM

ulster wrote: »

I reckon late 2022 for full vaccination given our government's capability.

The government can fcuk off if they think they can get away locking me up like a dog till the end of 22. Don't even suggest something like that

aido79 · 15-03-2021 05:37PM

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Look you can bat this around forever.

I've never agreed with any legally enforceable restrictions, health advice sure go ahead but removing basic freedoms for a virus of this low level of lethality to the vast majority of the population is just not something I can find any reason to justify.

Sweden has come closest to managing this sensibly in my opinion. They made a horlicks of protecting their elderly in the nursing homes where the majority of their deaths have come from but otherwise the closest to a pragmatic approach to this while limiting damage to personal freedoms.

It may gall you and others in the lockdown and safety at all costs brigade but while I would of course prefer these viruses not to exist I think the damage outweighs the benefits and life years saved in the elderly and vulnerable and we should have just got on with like Sweden did and muddle through as best we can, providing assistance for the elderly and vulnerable who wished to isolate.

As a caring society we can afford to put in place protections and assistance for the elderly and vulnerable who wish to restrict their movements.

Staying as a free society carries a price and we haven't been prepared to pay that price. But there is another price to pay now and I don't think anyone has really thought it through, you cross a point and it's very hard to go back, in fact I'd say it's impossible.

We can argue forever about whether it was right or wrong. I don't think it was, other will disagree and that's fine.

History in time I have no doubt will judge this as a substantial inflection point in what we call Western Democracy and it won't be well judged. Unfortunately my overwhelming emotion is one of sadness as most people don't realise what has happened here.

I know many won't agree and that's fine but it isn't going to change my perspective or assessment of what has happened here.

Sweden got lucky in my opinion. They may have avoided lockdown but not everything is sunshine and roses there either as you can see from articles like this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2020/12/13/sweden-frontline-health-care-workers-quitting-covid/amp/

There are plenty of other articles that show how close Sweden came to real problems.

It's very difficult to compare other country's covid measures as every country done things differently and reacted to peaks at different times.

A few months ago people on Facebook were championing Poland and Italy for defying restrictions and opening up. Now they seem to be 2 of the countries in Europe heading for stricter lockdowns. In fact the numbers in most countries in Europe seem to be going in the opposite direction to the numbers in Ireland.

What in your opinion has happened here?

aido79 · 15-03-2021 05:43PM

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

They haven't a clue what the 'R' number is and never have. With a virus of this nature with so many asymptomatic or mild cases many people who have been infected you simply can't estimate it with any degree of accuracy. You can also only record an R number if you have a consistent level of testing. If you test more you find more and the R number goes up, test less and it drops. It hasn't been scientifically done since day one and therefore it's just garbage.

Read the CSO stats, that is data and clearly shows who is at risk and who isn't.

I'd actually agree with that. It's only an estimate and they've always made that clear.
Even with the case numbers that's only an estimate too. I would say if you took the official case numbers each day and doubled or even tripled them you would be closer to the actual level of covid in the country due to asymptomatic cases.

Harry Palmr · 15-03-2021 05:46PM

So then is this the thread that'll be marching on Wednesday?

Scotty # · 15-03-2021 05:49PM

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

They haven't a clue what the 'R' number is and never have.

Case numbers mean nothing, CFR is irrelevant. Deaths are no indication of anything. Modelling doesn't work... etc, etc, etc.

At one point or another every measurable yard stick has been rubbished by the anti-restriction argument. Can I ask, if all the data is irrelevant, on what information are you actually forming your opinions? Genuinely curious to know.

When will it all end?

Comments