Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX Read OP For Mod Warnings

TonyMaloney · 24-03-2021 01:57PM

Flyer1 wrote: »

And the 99% + survival rate of COVID is dangerous ?

I'm mostly a lurker on these forums with the odd post but you are difficult reading.

Eh thanks.

A low case fatality rate can still lead to an enormous number of deaths when you're dealing with a virus as transmissible as this and a global population with no immunity.
Even if the survival rate was 100%, if your hospitals are overwhelmed with covid then all-cause mortality will rise dramatically.

And of course death is only one aspect. Severe illness is another.

This is all stuff that most of us wrapped our heads around last March. Weird having to explain it a year later.

24-03-2021 01:57PM

OwenM wrote: »

Disingenuous drivel as usual.

Balance is required and if anyone wanted evidence that the balance is wrong it's the news from last night that the HSE don't plan to resume cancer screening (as an example) until the end of the year.

Phrase of the day evidently

Penfailed · 24-03-2021 01:57PM

ypres5 wrote: »

Not for the first time. It happened back in September too

Yeah, the vaccination program is going well for them. The death toll prior to that...not so much.

No. He's not. He's only done one thing of note since becoming PM and that's the vaccination program. He's not making a laughing stock out of anyone though.

You've really shown the uk vaccine rollout your support alright...

You can't be serious?

The first point had nothing to do with the vaccine program.

The second point actually says that the vaccination program is going well for them.

The third point also says that the only thing of note that Boris has accomplished is the vaccination program.

Seriously, what more can I say?! How is that not showing support?

gozunda · 24-03-2021 01:58PM

colly10 wrote: »

Anyone know if they'll call the minor changes being made in April level 4 or will they continue to call them level 5?

Waiting for the passport office to open so I can get my son a passport, taking a one way flight out till things settle here or there's an actual plan like "X number in hospital means level Y and level Y means these things are open"

Pretty much no country uses a single metric like that in managing covid infection rates or to determine levels of restrictions.

Its simply not possible as the the virus has shown itself to just infectious enough to cause a fairly rapid rise in cases or at least until we get a increased number of people in all age groups vaccinated and we can open up then as is possible

For example in the UK - despite provisional dates there are four presets which must be met before anything will be rolled back

The data on the following will be assessed to determine any change

•The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
•Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated
•Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
•Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern.

We have something similar but without the provisional dates

24-03-2021 01:58PM

TonyMaloney wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0324/1205775-coronavirus-global/

Never let facts get in the way of a good frothing rage

24-03-2021 02:01PM

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Eh thanks.

A low case fatality rate can still lead to an enormous number of deaths when you're dealing with a virus as transmissible as this and a global population with no immunity.
Even if the survival rate was 100%, if your hospitals are overwhelmed with covid then all-cause mortality will rise dramatically.

And of course death is only one aspect. Severe illness is another.

This is all stuff that most of us wrapped our heads around last March. Weird having to explain it a year later.

The ONLY metric to consider when discussing restrictions is mortality. We cannot get caught up in imposing significant restrictions to prevent illness, that's incomprehensible.

Boggles · 24-03-2021 02:03PM

11521323 wrote: »

The ONLY metric to consider when discussing restrictions is mortality. We cannot get caught up in imposing significant restrictions to prevent illness, that's incomprehensible.

Dear Jesus, 12 months in.

Glynn will have to get the sock puppets out at the next briefing.

Penfailed · 24-03-2021 02:03PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Talk to you in June Dickie.

When we’re still in level 5 just in case

Talk to you in a few weeks when those golf clubs you mentioned are liquidated.

TonyMaloney · 24-03-2021 02:04PM

11521323 wrote: »

The ONLY metric to consider when discussing restrictions is mortality. We cannot get caught up in imposing significant restrictions to prevent illness, that's incomprehensible.

Alright. Then consider excess mortality from other ailments due to overwhelmed hospitals that can't provide routine services.

Have a little ponder on it there, and when you're done maybe you'll see the value in measuring other metrics too.

ninebeanrows · 24-03-2021 02:05PM

The Germans back track on a lockdown!

24-03-2021 02:07PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

May democracy RIP

You mean the special committee that was established to look at the response and produced a final report when they concluded they had completed all their work?

24-03-2021 02:09PM

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Alright. Then consider excess mortality from other ailments due to overwhelmed hospitals that can't provide routine services.

Have a little ponder on it there, and when you're done maybe you'll see the value in measuring other metrics too.

So the goalposts have shifted monumentally now from:

"we need to lockdown to flatten the curve"

to:

"we need to lockdown to allow treatment for other illnesses that have nothing to do with Covid"

Do you not see the major issue there?

By the way, I'm not talking about light restrictions (social distancing, limiting numbers in stores/restaurants, mask-wearing, etc.), just to make sure we're not arguing over different things. Restrictions is a word that needs context. I agree with those restrictions for as long as needed to prevent transmission, but lockdown of any sort once we have a critical mass vaccinated is preposterous. The cost outweighs any benefit by enormous proportions at that stage and thankfully they can't afford to do that.

gozunda · 24-03-2021 02:12PM

BlaktainPicard wrote: »

Becuase cases will still rise amoungst the young !!

And there is a possibility of scary new variants that could be vaccine resistant.

If you keep going with this logic, we see never ending restrictions.

Not quite. Restrictions will be rolled back as the rate of vaccinations increase.

And when all age groups who need it are vaccinated - any covid will be regulated by an annual vaccine covering known variants much in the same way as the way flu is managed on a yearly basis.

This 'we're all doomed stuff is simply hyperbole

TonyMaloney · 24-03-2021 02:14PM

11521323 wrote: »

So the goalposts have shifted monumentally now from:

"we need to lockdown to flatten the curve"

to:

"we need to lockdown to allow treatment for other illnesses that have nothing to do with Covid"

Do you not see the major issue there?

By the way, I'm not talking about light restrictions (social distancing, limiting numbers in stores/restaurants, mask-wearing, etc.), just to make sure we're not arguing over different things. Restrictions is a word that needs context. I agree with those restrictions for as long as needed to prevent transmission, but lockdown of any sort once we have a critical mass vaccinated is preposterous. The cost outweighs any benefit by enormous proportions at that stage and thankfully they can't afford to do that.

Once we have a critical mass of people vaccinated we can absolutely start accelerating the reopening and getting back to something like normal.

We don't really know what that critical mass point is though. What do you think?

RGS · 24-03-2021 02:20PM

NIMAN wrote: »

To be fair, if you are feeling bad enough to go for a test, and you turn out to be positive, is it not better knowing?

Rather than having a person walking around in society infecting people.

These centres are for those who are symptom free.

If you have no symptoms why have a test?

Again it looks like optics
Put test centres in high case load areas to show we are doing something.

If you are feeling poorly yes get tested.

BlaktainPicard · 24-03-2021 02:21PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, thats exactly why there are doing it. They want the country locked down forever because............

I don't know, all I know is what is going on , and they have no plan and seem intent on just dragging this out for as long as possible.

gozunda · 24-03-2021 02:22PM

11521323 wrote: »

So the goalposts have shifted monumentally now from:

"we need to lockdown to flatten the curve"

to:

"we need to lockdown to allow treatment for other illnesses that have nothing to do with Covid"

Do you not see the major issue there?

By the way, I'm not talking about light restrictions (social distancing, limiting numbers in stores/restaurants, mask-wearing, etc.), just to make sure we're not arguing over different things. Restrictions is a word that needs context. I agree with those restrictions for as long as needed to prevent transmission, but lockdown of any sort once we have a critical mass vaccinated is preposterous. The cost outweighs any benefit by enormous proportions at that stage and thankfully they can't afford to do that.

The two are not necessarily incompatible you know?

Though I'd suggest its more correctly varying levels of restrictions which will be required going forward.

And yes there can be more than one single reason for restrictions to help manage covid infection rates whilst vaccinations are being rolled out.

The main reason to 'flatten the curve' which you detailed was to keep numbers down so heatlhcare services could cope with those sick and in need of specialist medical care.

Not being smart but I haven't seen anyone suggest 'lockdowns' once we have a critical mass vaccinated

growleaves · 24-03-2021 02:23PM

ninebeanrows wrote: »

The Germans back track on a lockdown!

That's no way to clatten the furve.

gozunda · 24-03-2021 02:24PM

growleaves wrote: »

That's no way to clatten the furve.

Clatten? Is that a German thing?

Pitch n Putt · 24-03-2021 02:39PM

Five pop up walk in centres now ffs

If you have symptoms you’re asked not to go to these centres.

Anyone would think their trying to find more cases. Not long ago in January we couldn’t even test close contacts but that didn’t matter we had enough cases at the time.

Now the numbers are dropping we want to find more. What the hell is gonig on in this country. What’s the big need to hold onto covid cases here ...

The shambles from testing,tracing and vaccination continues unabated.

ceadaoin. · 24-03-2021 02:45PM

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Five pop up walk in centres now ffs

If you have symptoms you’re asked not to go to these centres.

Anyone would think their trying to find more cases. Not long ago in January we couldn’t even test close contacts but that didn’t matter we had enough cases at the time.

Now the numbers are dropping we want to find more. What the hell is gonig on in this country. What’s the big need to hold onto covid cases here ...

The shambles from testing,tracing and vaccination continues unabated.

What you need is pop up vaccination centres, not more testing.

RobitTV · 24-03-2021 02:55PM

NPHET defers meeting to look at the data before April 5th decision

NPHET defers meeting so it can include latest data in analysis ahead of reopening decisions

A key meeting of the National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet) planned for Thursday has been deferred in advance of decisions on reopening parts of society and the economy from April 5th.

Sources said the decision was taken so the latest trends in the data could be taken into account in the final analysis being sent to Government ahead of the decisions on reopening.

Irish Times

PTH2009 · 24-03-2021 02:57PM

RobitTV wrote: »

NPHET defers meeting to look at the data before April 5th decision

NPHET defers meeting so it can include latest data in analysis ahead of reopening decisions

A key meeting of the National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet) planned for Thursday has been deferred in advance of decisions on reopening parts of society and the economy from April 5th.

Sources said the decision was taken so the latest trends in the data could be taken into account in the final analysis being sent to Government ahead of the decisions on reopening.

Irish Times

Should just come out and say they recommend no change

RobitTV · 24-03-2021 02:57PM

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1374694467366744070

fin12 · 24-03-2021 03:03PM

Meeting postponed , they are well able to tell us ahead of time that no restrictions are changing and extended it but when they have to lift anything all this last minute sh*t.

KrustyUCC · 24-03-2021 03:06PM

RobitTV wrote: »

NPHET defers meeting to look at the data before April 5th decision

NPHET defers meeting so it can include latest data in analysis ahead of reopening decisions

A key meeting of the National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet) planned for Thursday has been deferred in advance of decisions on reopening parts of society and the economy from April 5th.

Sources said the decision was taken so the latest trends in the data could be taken into account in the final analysis being sent to Government ahead of the decisions on reopening.

Irish Times

hmmm that's not good

any small easing of restrictions less likely now I fear

RobitTV · 24-03-2021 03:08PM

It looks like we have all failed to play our part and do that little bit more. Naughty boys and girls.

timmyntc · 24-03-2021 03:09PM

You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves - I have been adhering to the restrictions more than anyone, its everyone elses fault for letting the side down.

We should get the army in to arrest people for gathering on the beaches and meeting up with their friends

Boggles · 24-03-2021 03:09PM

RobitTV wrote: »

NPHET defers meeting to look at the data before April 5th decision

NPHET defers meeting so it can include latest data in analysis ahead of reopening decisions

A key meeting of the National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet) planned for Thursday has been deferred in advance of decisions on reopening parts of society and the economy from April 5th.

Sources said the decision was taken so the latest trends in the data could be taken into account in the final analysis being sent to Government ahead of the decisions on reopening.

Irish Times

PTH2009 wrote: »

Should just come out and say they recommend no change

Well no, they are clearly doing the opposite.

They are playing out whether the recent uptick is a trend to be worried about or a blip before they give advice for the future.

Very wise and welcome move.

Sofa King Great · 24-03-2021 03:10PM

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Five pop up walk in centres now ffs

If you have symptoms you’re asked not to go to these centres.

Anyone would think their trying to find more cases. Not long ago in January we couldn’t even test close contacts but that didn’t matter we had enough cases at the time.

Now the numbers are dropping we want to find more. What the hell is gonig on in this country. What’s the big need to hold onto covid cases here ...

The shambles from testing,tracing and vaccination continues unabated.

This just highlights the failure that is the contact tracing. Instead of adequately resourcing the contact tracing to look further back in these areas they are hoping they track them just through people wandering in.

The people who are spreading covid in these areas are unlikely to be the ones who stroll in for a random test

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

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX Read OP For Mod Warnings