Relaxation of Restrictions, Part X Read OP For Mod Warnings

gozunda · 07-04-2021 10:35AM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

They had a 30-day stay at home order. Last April. They didn't even close the beaches. Yes, they've had barely any restrictions.

Typical response though. It's all about trying to save the healthcare service when it suits the narrative, but when you can point to a state with basically no restrictions, and no healthcare access catastrophe, it's all about the case numbers.

Did you forget about all the other restrictions which were out in place last year or do the not suit the story? Who mentioned "beaches" btw?
But as you brought them up. They were indeed closed

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/325997-which-florida-beaches-are-closed-which-are-still-open/

Heres a list of restrictions statewide FYI (does not include individual state counties restrictions)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Florida#Response

And its not you know. Its nothing about "trying to "save the healthcare service". Its about keeping the rate of infection down so health services can continue to cope with new case numbers.

Or do you bizarrely think the two are not linked?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53357742

francogarbanzo · 07-04-2021 10:38AM

gozunda wrote: »

Did you forget about all the other restrictions whichvwere out in place last year or do the not suit the story? Who mentioned "beaches" btw?

And its not you know. Its nothing about "trying to "save the healthcare service. Its about keeping the rate of infection down so health services can continue to cope with new case numbers.

Or do you bizarrely think the two are not linked?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53357742

And Florida's healthcare system was able to, and has continued to be able to cope with its case numbers despite its minimal restrictions.

Please, let's hear what Florida's restrictions have been in full compared to ours.

Boggles · 07-04-2021 10:56AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Oh please.. Really?

Less than 5 thousand deaths from a population of 4.9 million people over a period of 12 months is a very very small number in that perspective, and less again when you consider that most of those deaths were among people with serious underlying/end stage conditions anyway.

Do you think that "very very small number" had any correlation with mitigation?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

As for sick. Unless you actually have serious symptoms that can't be treated by rest and over the counter medication then you aren't particularly sick. You certainly aren't sick if you don't even realise you have Covid without a test telling you so.

So when you are musing about sickness you are not referencing data just your opinion?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'd suggest you stop there.

Why, because I asked you the simplest of questions and you cannot answer it?

It's a messaging board, if you are going to make broad sweeping statements, you will be challenged, especially when you claim "truth".

Maybe go on Twitter and turn comments off it you would prefer an echo chamber.

_Kaiser_ · 07-04-2021 11:07AM

Boggles wrote: »

Do you think that "very very small number" had any correlation with mitigation?

We'll never know really, but given that the numbers not only stayed low but declined last summer despite the country being almost fully reopened, travel permitted anywhere, and (gasp) no masks I think it's still fair to say our response has been completely disproportionate to the level of actual risk.

Let's not forget our young population overall and that the majority of the deaths we have had are in the very elderly and among those in care homes, and it's obvious that the Government completely misjudged the situation after those initial few months.

So when you are musing about sickness you are not referencing data just your opinion?

If you have no symptoms then you're not sick. If you can shake it off at home it's not a danger

Why, because I asked you the simplest of questions and you cannot answer it?

It's a messaging board, if you are going to make broad sweeping statements, you will be challenged, especially when you claim "truth".

Maybe go on Twitter and turn comments off it you would prefer an echo chamber.

Because you and others like you persist to come to this thread just to provoke reaction, cherrypicking or quoting only a line or two from a post and responding with yet more provocative nonsense.

I'll ask YOU a question though.. actually 3:

- What are you so afraid of at this point, with 12 months of data proving the risk to 98%+ of the population is extremely low?

- How much is enough for you? How long are you willing to live under restrictions and curtailments on your freedom? IS there a point that you'd say enough is enough?

- Do you think that locking up a country of 4.9 million people, causing massive job loss and debt and all the other issues we've seen in the last year, has been "worth it" to protect a very very small percentage of the population - who would likely have been far better served by a more targeted approach for them, and who anecdotally didn't want to be locked away from their families and loved ones anyway?

funnydoggy · 07-04-2021 11:10AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

- Do you think that locking up a country of 4.9 million people, causing massive job loss and debt and all the other issues we've seen in the last year, has been "worth it" to protect a very very small percentage of the population - who would likely have been far better served by a more targeted approach for them, and who anecdotally didn't want to be locked away from their families and loved ones anyway?

Sorry to intervene between you both, but I fully agree with the point in bold.

Boggles · 07-04-2021 11:17AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

We'll never know really, but given that the numbers not only stayed low but declined last summer despite the country being almost fully reopened, travel permitted anywhere, and (gasp) no masks I think it's still fair to say our response has been completely disproportionate to the level of actual risk.

Let's not forget our young population overall and that the majority of the deaths we have had are in the very elderly and among those in care homes, and it's obvious that the Government completely misjudged the situation after those initial few months.

So you reckon if we didn't mitigate we would have had in and around the same level of mortality? I think most reasonable people who disagree with that assertion.

Again though if you are judging the pandemic solely on mortality, you haven't been paying attention.

The myth that this just makes old people sick is well and truly busted at this stage.

Approx 50% of hospital admissions and 70% of ICU admission were under 70.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

If you have no symptoms then you're not sick. If you can shake it off at home it's not a danger

Again you are avoiding the question.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Because you and others like you persist to come to this thread just to provoke reaction, cherrypicking or quoting only a line or two from a post and responding with yet more provocative nonsense.

Really, and your not so thinly vailed it's "just a flu" post was to do what exactly?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

- What are you so afraid of at this point, with 12 months of data proving the risk to 98%+ of the population is extremely low?

What's that percentage based on?

Mortality, Hospitalizations, Sickness, long term sickness?

Why do you assume I am afraid?

gozunda · 07-04-2021 11:23AM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

And Florida's healthcare system was able to, and has continued to be able to cope with its case numbers despite its minimal restrictions.

Please, let's hear what Florida's restrictions have been in full compared to ours.

Ah I see were back to the pointless discussion of Florida. :rolleyes:

Btw Is this some new daft comparison? Anytime other posters mention another country where restrictions are working - we're told we can't compare countries because they're not alike!

And now demands for comparisons for one state in the US to be compared with Ireland! That's the US with the one of the highest death rates from Covid in the world.

Guess what guys- its not some sick competition to promote covid scepticism.

And yes there were restrictions that were in place This is a partial list covering statewide restrictions only. Individual state counties restrictions (and beach closures!) not included.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Florida#Response

Healthcare? Here's accounts of hospitals 'coping'. Luckily for them Florida has a well resourced healtcare system

This from July 2020 - shortly after many restrictions were removed oddly enough

Florida...overrun by the surge of cases...

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday that officials are sending 100 nurses and adding nearly 50 beds to Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital.....

In Florida, at least 43 hospitals across 21 counties -- including Miami-Dade, Broward, Hillsborough and Orange counties -- have hit capacity and show zero ICU beds available, according to data released by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA).

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

Here's some more

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-flow/48-florida-hospitals-at-icu-capacity.html

And whatever you do don't mention one of the highest death rates in nursing homes in the states. That doesn't suit the story at all!

10,000 residents, staff of nursing homes dead from COVID Since the pandemic began..
the far more populous county had recorded the most COVID-19 deaths at its long-term care facilities.

https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2021/02/12/10-000-residents-staff-florida-nursing-homes-dead-covid/6738545002/

And here is somewhere else that didn't pay attention to the importance of restrictions in helping keep infection rates down.

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1208099/

Chivito550 · 07-04-2021 11:25AM

How much of this is really about saving peoples' lives? To me, at this point, it's simply all about bailing out a shambolic health service which is not fit for purpose.

If it was all about saving lives, then maybe homelessness and addiction would have been taken seriously over the past decade.

Or do only some lives matter?

arccosh · 07-04-2021 11:33AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

How much of this is really about saving peoples' lives? To me, at this point, it's simply all about bailing out a shambolic health service which is not fit for purpose.

If it was all about saving lives, then maybe homelessness and addiction would have been taken seriously over the past decade.

Or do only some lives matter?

pretty much

the health service was just about getting by before Covid...

now all those years of neglect came back to bite everyone

it won't be fixed over night either (if ever)

francogarbanzo · 07-04-2021 11:34AM

gozunda wrote: »

Ah I see were back to the pointless discussion of Florida. :rolleyes:

Btw Is this some new daft comparison? Anytime other posters mention another country where restrictions are working - we're told we can't compare countries because they're not alike!

And now demands for comparisons for one state in the US to be compared with Ireland! That's the US with the one of the highest death rates from Covid in the world.

Guess what guys- its not some sicck competition to promote covid scepticism.

And yes there were restrictions that were in place This is a partial list covering statewide restrictions only. Individual state counties restrictions (and beach closures!) not included.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Florida#Response

Healthcare? Here's accounts of hospitals 'coping'. Luckily for them Florida has a well resourced healtcare system

This from July 2020 - shortly after many restrictions were removed oddly enough

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

Here's some more

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-flow/48-florida-hospitals-at-icu-capacity.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/24/florida-hospitals-coronavirus-outbreak-ron-desantis

And whatever you do don't mention one of the highest death rates in nursing homes in the states. That doesn't suit the story at all!

https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2021/02/12/10-000-residents-staff-florida-nursing-homes-dead-covid/6738545002/

And here is somewhere else that didn't pay attention to the importance of restrictions in helping keep infection rates down.

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1208099/

Cool. So at the peak of their covid crisis, 56 of Florida's 320 hospitals were at ICU capacity and they had people in temporary beds in hallways - a situation that happens in every hospital in Ireland every winter. Despite having the second highest population of elderly people in the US and the fewest restrictions.

OwenM · 07-04-2021 11:41AM

Boggles wrote: »

So you reckon if we didn't mitigate we would have had in and around the same level of mortality? I think most reasonable people who disagree with that assertion.

Again though if you are judging the pandemic solely on mortality, you haven't been paying attention.

The myth that this just makes old people sick is well and truly busted at this stage.

Approx 50% of hospital admissions and 70% of ICU admission were under 70.

Again you are avoiding the question.

Really, and your not so thinly vailed it's "just a flu" post was to do what exactly?

What's that percentage based on?

Mortality, Hospitalizations, Sickness, long term sickness?

Why do you assume I am afraid?

A very convenient truth, when you know that people older than that are not usually considered for ICU admission

Boggles · 07-04-2021 11:45AM

OwenM wrote: »

A very convenient truth, when you know that people older than that are not usually considered for ICU admission

Of course they are, over 70s require critical care everyday.

But the truth is during the pandemic the vast majority of people who died did not get near ICU.

Stormyteacup · 07-04-2021 11:53AM

Boggles wrote: »

Of course they are, over 70s require critical care everyday.

But the truth is during the pandemic the vast majority of people who died did not get near ICU.

And why was that? There was critical care available for anyone that needed and was medically approved for critical care.

Multipass · 07-04-2021 11:53AM

Boggles wrote: »

Of course they are, over 70s require critical care everyday.

But the truth is during the pandemic the vast majority of people who died did not get near ICU.

Because people who die in nursing homes of anything generally don’t get near ICU as it won’t benefit them.

gozunda · 07-04-2021 12:02PM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Cool. So at the peak of their covid crisis, 56 of Florida's 320 hospitals were at ICU capacity and they had people in temporary beds in hallways - a situation that happens in every hospital in Ireland every winter. Despite having the second highest population of elderly people in the US and the fewest restrictions.

So you think it's cool that they had restrictions which DeSantis ditched. With a resulting rise in cases causing many hospitals to run out of staff, resources and ICU beds and have to bring in emergency medical personnel from elsewhere. Btw you do understand that not all hospitals had critical care for covid patients right? Or is that just making stuff up like beaches 'not being closed' as claimed earlier?

But no that was just one of their peaks todate. Case numbers remained high and peaked even higher in December with much of the same with healthcare resources being pushed to and over capacity. Cases remain high at present and Florida is now experiencing the highest spread of the new B.1.1.7 variant in the US.

Oh and guess which age cohort was linked to the first surge? Hint it wasn't the elderly

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53357742

And you compare it to the "flu" ... in Ireland...

:cool:? More :rolleyes:

Windmill100000 · 07-04-2021 12:02PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Oh please.. Really?

Less than 5 thousand deaths from a population of 4.9 million people over a period of 12 months is a very very small number in that perspective, and less again when you consider that most of those deaths were among people with serious underlying/end stage conditions anyway.

That's the reality. It's sad, it's unfortunate most definitely, but people die. Covid restrictions are and were never going to somehow prevent death itself.

As for sick. Unless you actually have serious symptoms that can't be treated by rest and over the counter medication then you aren't particularly sick. You certainly aren't sick if you don't even realise you have Covid without a test telling you so.

I'd suggest you stop there.

Do you think if we had not locked down that that 5,000 would be higher?

shtpEdthePlum · 07-04-2021 12:18PM

growleaves wrote: »

Boris is attributing his political success to Johnson and Johnson.

If he were less modest he could attribute his political success to Johnson and Johnson and Johnson.

Not to mention the 19 or so additional Johnsons brought about by his Johnson.

FintanMcluskey · 07-04-2021 12:21PM

Boggles wrote: »

But the truth is during the pandemic the vast majority of people who died did not get near ICU.

That happens when people are approaching the end of their natural lives suffering form a variety of co-morbidities.

So are you saying the vast majority of those who died in Ireland anyway were near death regardless of the pandemic?

Kinda blurs the argument of died with/from even further, and it’s relevant because the deaths are still used when debating the response to Covid

I heard on news talk after Micheal McNamara was interviewed the interviewer said referring to the smoke and mirrors from Government as “project fear” was unfair as 4700 had died because of Covid

gozunda · 07-04-2021 12:45PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That happens when people are approaching the end of their natural lives suffering form a variety of co-morbidities....

Thats the thing . It's not just auld ones popping their clogs or whatever euphemism is being used to push covid denial.

Research in the UK shows that 1.5 million potential years of life lost to COVID-19 in the UK, with each life cut short by 10 years on average

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/1.5-million-potential-years-of-life-lost-to-covid-19

So tell me Fintan - Would you be ok losing 10 years?

ypres5 · 07-04-2021 12:49PM

Boggles wrote: »

Do you think that "very very small number" had any correlation with mitigation?

So when you are musing about sickness you are not referencing data just your opinion?

Why, because I asked you the simplest of questions and you cannot answer it?

It's a messaging board, if you are going to make broad sweeping statements, you will be challenged, especially when you claim "truth".

Maybe go on Twitter and turn comments off it you would prefer an echo chamber.

Speaking of answering the simplest of questions, what's the current state of the irish construction industry? Is it open like you claimed? You keep dodging the question for some reason which is very out of character...

Sobit1964 · 07-04-2021 12:53PM

gozunda wrote: »

Thats the thing . It's not just auld ones popping their clogs or whatever euphemism is being used to push covid denial.

Research in the UK shows that 1.5 million potential years of life lost to COVID-19 in the UK, with each life cut short by 10 years on average

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/1.5-million-potential-years-of-life-lost-to-covid-19

So tell me Fintan - Would you be ok losing 10 years?

Why is it that:

The most recent data from the ONS, published in September this year states that life expectancy at birth in the UK in 2017 to 2019 was 79.4 years for males and 83.1 years for females.

And your link rides with the assumption of:

For example, a man aged 80 in England in 2019 could expect to live 8.2 more years, a woman 9.7 years. If a man aged 80 died from COVID-19 we therefore assume he ‘lost’ 8.2 years of life.

Responder XY · 07-04-2021 12:55PM

Sobit1964 wrote: »

Why is it that:

And your link rides with the assumption of:

Life expectancy at birth and at 80 won't be the same thing. The 80 year old has survived everything that might have killed him/her younger and statistically now has another 8 years. Person at birth has to get through everything that might kill them before 80 first.

Sobit1964 · 07-04-2021 12:57PM

Responder XY wrote: »

Life expectancy at birth and at 80 won't be the same thing. The 80 year old has survived everything that might have killed him/her younger and statistically now has another 8 years. Person at birth has to get through everything that might kill them before 80 first.

Thanks so much - that clears that up nicely.

lawred2 · 07-04-2021 01:04PM

gozunda wrote: »

Thats the thing . It's not just auld ones popping their clogs or whatever euphemism is being used to push covid denial.

Research in the UK shows that 1.5 million potential years of life lost to COVID-19 in the UK, with each life cut short by 10 years on average

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/1.5-million-potential-years-of-life-lost-to-covid-19

So tell me Fintan - Would you be ok losing 10 years?

that's tenuous research really... we're barely a year into this thing and this is not much more than an attempt at modelling the future.

edit: nevermind I read that as some sort of attempt to aggregate the costs of 'long covid'...

francogarbanzo · 07-04-2021 01:05PM

gozunda wrote: »

So you think it's cool that they had restrictions which DeSantis ditched. With a resulting rise in cases causing many hospitals to run out of staff, resources and ICU beds and have to bring in emergency medical personnel from elsewhere. Btw you do understand that not all hospitals had critical care for covid patients right? Or is that just making stuff up like beaches 'not being closed' as claimed earlier?

But no that was just one of their peaks todate. Case numbers remained high and peaked even higher in December with much of the same with healthcare resources being pushed to and over capacity. Cases remain high at present and Florida is now experiencing the highest spread of the new B.1.1.7 variant in the US.

Oh and guess which age cohort was linked to the first surge? Hint it wasn't the elderly

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53357742

And you compare it to the "flu" ... in Ireland...

:cool:? More :rolleyes:

Man, you really hate that Florida has handled covid much better than basically anywhere else in the West.

showpony1 · 07-04-2021 01:07PM

Shelga wrote: »

There is no excuse now for still not having a clear plan of what can be opened with each 10% of the population that receives the vaccine. Zero. Zilch. Mehole could compete in fence sitting at the Olympics. It's a disgrace. Tick tock.

There will be absolute war once they stop the PUP so i would guess that is also in their current thinking in this "plan".

gozunda · 07-04-2021 01:11PM

Sobit1964 wrote: »

Why is it that:

The most recent data from the ONS, published in September this year states that life expectancy at birth in the UK in 2017 to 2019 was 79.4 years for males and 83.1 years for females.

And your link rides with the assumption of:

For example, a man aged 80 in England in 2019 could expect to live 8.2 more years, a woman 9.7 years. If a man aged 80 died from COVID-19 we therefore assume he ‘lost’ 8.2 years of life.

Well I guess because its not just predicted on estimates of life expectancy- which varies by region in the UK.

Nor does it soley focus on those at the "end of their life expectancy" ..

With 146,000 deaths due to COVID-19 in the UK, up to 1.5 million potential years of life have been lost, with those who died losing up to 10 years of life on average. Almost three quarters of those who died were aged over 75, with people in this age group losing an average 6.5 years of life.

More years of men's lives have been lost in the pandemic than women’s (825,000 years of life lost in total for men, compared with 670,000 for women). Each man lost on average 10.4 years; each woman 10 years. While women have higher life expectancy, men have been up to around twice as likely to die from COVID-19 than women of the same age.

The study details that

The analysis was carried out using data from ONS, NRS and NISRA on deaths in the UK, registered up to 5 March 2021

Maybe best contact them point out the error of their ways eh?

Sobit1964 · 07-04-2021 01:15PM

gozunda wrote: »

Maybe best contact them point out the error of their ways eh?

No need, a poster superior to you already explained.

Please keep the snark up though - it is so wonderfully helpful in turning people away from pretty much everything you say.

scamalert · 07-04-2021 01:16PM

showpony1 wrote: »

There will be absolute war once they stop the PUP so i would guess that is also in their current thinking in this "plan".

seems like it as if read correctly gov is choosing to keep wage supplement scheme for employers which tbf reaks of exploitation as some employers could add 0 and pay out of gov pockets, which since the start was a massive issue.

its really unclear how gov will tackle this so early given most are of work because of them to begin with, so imagine many getting pup simply will move to SW.

Penfailed · 07-04-2021 01:16PM

Responder XY wrote: »

Life expectancy at birth and at 80 won't be the same thing. The 80 year old has survived everything that might have killed him/her younger and statistically now has another 8 years. Person at birth has to get through everything that might kill them before 80 first.

That's an inconvenient truth that is ignored every time it is mentioned in this thread.

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

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part X Read OP For Mod Warnings