Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

1155615571559156115621580

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Utterly without foundation and dismissed as such.

    More misinformation I guess in your opinion. And you wonder why people are angry, it's incredible.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The level of anger is no indicator of the truth or justice of a cause. Very often the opposite in fact.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    Some wonderful news from the HSE, most people in the country have been vaccinated! Table below, p.7 of the following link!

    But Waterford is the BEST of all!

    In County & Cty of Waterford, over 99.9% of adults have been vaccinated.

    pic.png

    Hardly a single elderly bachelor farmer in the hills and the bogs refused to be vaccinated anywhere in Ireland!

    But Co & City of Waterford trumped everwhere else in the country: Nary a student, nary an alcoholic, nary a junkie nor a crusty nor a hippy refused to be vaccinated in Waterford. They sure do conform down there!

    And good and all as that might be, in some places it seems that more people than actually live in the county must have been vaccinated, because the HSE saw fit to add a disclaimer:

    Note: Where calculation of estimated uptake exceeds 100% due to unidentified data quality issues, the uptake will be rounded to 99.9%




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    If the stats are tracking number of vaccines given out since early 2021 then there is a very obvious explanation for the older demographics that some of the recipients have passed away.

    That would be one of the data quality issues.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    But isn't it great that all the 20-29 year olds in Waterford got vaccinated?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    If they did great.

    If they didnt...

    Maybe thats distorted by students.

    Or they had an mvc clinic that served another region and the figures need to be adjusted. And a nearby region has its figures too low.

    Or maybe they are using incorrect population stats.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,705 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    This study showing a very low IFR in the non elderly, which first came out in 2021 and was attacked then as 'misinformation' has now been peer reviewed and published. The 'we didn't know how dangerous it was (or wasn't) ' excuse for lockdowns doesn't really add up, when this info, and more besides, was out there. How many in the below age groups, who were at little risk from COVID, died due to the measures, directly or indirectly? We are still finding out but it's almost certainly way more than ever were 'saved'


    The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0–19 years, 0.002% at 20–29 years, 0.011% at 30–39 years, 0.035% at 40–49 years, 0.123% at 50–59 years, and 0.506% at 60–69 years. 

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512201982X



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    Why would they be using incorrect population stats? Surely the HSE can be trusted to tell the truth?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    It is a study from 2021. Lockdowns started in 2020. So how was the information out there? Some amount of deceptive revisionism going on.

    Why doesnt it include the IFR for the groups most vulnerable to covid?

    Where are the attacks on it for being misinformation?

    Was it actually attacked as misinformation or were people who cited at as the IFR for covid fullstop attacked for spreading misinformation?

    The study itself shows a wide range in IFR across countries which seem hard to explain ie should make anyone wary of citing this as actual IFR to be expected in a country.

    The IFR as I keep repeating is only one of the equation. The other being the infection rate.

    And to state the number of deaths almost certainly exceeds the number saved is entirely without foundation. This article on its own simply cannot prove what you are saying.

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Unidentified data quality issues.

    You answered the question yourself several posts back.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    One of the authors of that study, John Ioannidis, was publicly cautioning in March 2020 that lockdowns could be potentially more dangerous than the disease. At the time he gave an interview to Fox News:

    The surprise came in what Ioannidis had to say. As many public health experts and government officials were urging people to stay home to avoid infection, he speculated that the coronavirus might be less dangerous than assumed. News media were overhyping the disease. The greater risk lay not in covid-19 but in overzealous lockdowns to prevent its spread.

    The interview provoked quite a backlash.

    The video would be viewed more than a half-million times on YouTube before it disappeared. Six weeks after it was uploaded, the footage of Ioannidis was removed by YouTube, which said the interview with one of the world’s foremost epidemiologists had violated its policies on covid-19 misinformation.

    John Ioannidis was attacked for spreading misinformation. Much of what he said now appears to have been the truth. Or at least closer to the truth than the data used to justify the lockdowns in March 2020.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Do you want to post how many covid deaths he predicted?

    Go on.

    Why did your vague post leave that out?

    Well.

    He predicted 10000 covid deaths in the US. How was that not misinformation?

    Much of what he said was the truth?

    Pull the other one.

    He was deeply dangerously fundamentally wrong.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,705 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    I demand every study posted is peer reviewed and write off any that arent. Except when the peer reviewed ones don't align with my opinions, then they are dangerous misinformation.

    Lighthearted post btw, I do appreciate how for the most part we were able to debate civilly in here. The past 3 years were a wild ride for sure ✌️



  • Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    In the last few pages we have pro restrictions posters who have disagreed with a HSE expert, a scientist of infectious disease who specializes in COVID and peer reviewed studies.

    There is nothing you can do to reason with such people.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Countries all over the world advised by their respective bodies of experts and scientists recommended and undertook measures to tackle the pandemic. It was a pretty universal consensus. Even Sweden, which was famous for taking a different route, advised that people should wear masks, distance, restrict group sizes, and later started adopting mandates and measures. People may have disagreed with the nuances of the rules or specific details (I certainly did), but it's illogical to be against them on principle. Likewise certain individuals were against car seatbelts when they became law. Some individuals just conflate these things as "assaults on personal freedom" and as such attack them during and after the fact for no other reason.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 627 ✭✭✭DLink


    Again with the seat belt argument.... It's pretty obvious and easily proven that they stop you going through the windscreen, unlike the masks & restrictions which have many reports for and against, not to mention the fact that I and many others consider them as window dressing & ass covering tools only. It's all about votes and / or keeping the population pacified (depending on the country).

    It's perfectly logical to be against the rules and question them, never mind just on principle, things could quite easily taken a sinister turn during covid and we'd all be sunk.

    Blindly accepting whatever rules government introduce is a recipe for disaster, there needs to be accountability, "for the greater good" or "for us all" is not a good enough reason to go along with whatever they say.

    Restrictions were an assault on our personal freedoms, I mean, not being able to go too far from home, going to the wrong supermarket, permission letter to go to work... If that's not an assault on our personal freedoms I don't know what is. Like I said above, "for the greater good" doesn't cut it.

    However it's all over now, the Twitchers & Vulnerables have had their time in the limelight, thankfully normal life had resumed for the rest of us.... If someone could just pass that memo onto the unions, that'd be great.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Restrictions were an assault on our personal freedoms

    Measures against the pandemic weren't political.

    Unfortunately common sense guidelines aren't enough because there will always be individuals who refuse to follow them, hence we have mandates and laws. You point out that a seat-belt is a no-brainer and obvious and proven - yet if there's no law, certain people won't wear them, and they'll cause deaths and risk to others (not just themselves)

    If there were a pandemic of a rapidly spreading virus tomorrow with an unknown disease that was causing deaths worldwide, there would be a portion of individuals in society who would refuse to e.g. wear masks, for irrational reasons. We know this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 627 ✭✭✭DLink


    Of course the measures were political, the government threw the established pandemic action plan out the window at the first sign of trouble and they adopted the Chinese method instead... go straight to lockdown.

    Governments are the ones who introduced and enforced lockdowns.

    They couldn't be seen to have grannies dying in the street, they just cleared them all out of hospitals instead and let them die alone behind closed doors in nursing homes.

    That was also a political decision.

    As for the seat belts, so what if you don't wear one? You're the one who's going to die so the risk is on you. Seat belts have a proven positive effect, masks on the other hand........

    Speaking of masks, I'd rather take my chances in any pandemic and not wear one, I survived the last pandemic with a badly worn mask. And I know you're going to say that me wearing a mask was to protect you, well, tough luck buddy, best to give me a wide berth if you don't want to take the chance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    We didn't have a zero Covid policy, only China had that, it was controversial and they reversed it recently.

    Like us, most countries adopted normal measures against the pandemic. These were to reduce cases, reduce pressure on hospitals, reduce pressure on overworked healthcare staff and reduce deaths. There was nothing ideological about it. They were temporary measures.

    Likewise when somewhere experiences e.g. extreme weather, there can be measures, rules and restrictions to mitigate the effects and keep people safe.

    Some individuals perceive practical measures as "political persecution", "stripping of rights" and other assorted silliness.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 627 ✭✭✭DLink


    adopted normal measures

    If what the government did to us here is what you regard as normal, I don't want to know what you'd consider non-normal...... Thanks be to Jebus you're not in a position of authority.

    Of course they stripped our rights, needing to have a reason to venture further than 5km from your house is a stripping of rights in anyone's book, but thankfully Team Twitcher lost in the end and we got our freedom back, no more need to "visit a grave" to go to a beach or forest part for a walk.

    omicron and more importantly, economics, put the Twitchers back in their boxes.



  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,468 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    DLink threadbanned



  • Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There was nothing normal about it.

    Before we were gifted Omicron the world was panicking because vaccines weren't doing whatever it was that the experts wanted to move forward. Things started getting really scary when we were getting forced to show our papers to have a cup of tea and some countries were talking about mandatory vaccines.

    We are lucky that Omicron forced them to move forward.

    There has also never been restrictions due to weather. There are warnings. Nobody has an issue with advice.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Complete fact free revisionism.

    Omicron didnt help the unvaccinated in Hong Kong moved forward. It put them into hospital and the grave.

    We were moving forwards before Omicron, thanks to vaccines. Restrictions were being lifted. Any suggestion to the contrary is a falsehood based on ignorance or deception.

    And there have been people who died because they ignored storm warnings or only survived through the last minute intervention / appearance of emergency services.

    Does that count as having an issue??? Well?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    In late November 21 the government were tightening restrictions, and warning of further lockdowns unless things got better.

    Or did I imagine that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Was there something else happening in late november 2021?

    Hint: it starts with an O.

    Restrictions were being relaxed here anď abroad before Omicron. We were moving forwards. Due to uncertainty with Omicrons impact and rise in cases some restrictions were reimposed here. But for example Denmark did not.

    Once the impact of Omicron could be asssessed wrt hospitalisations restrictions were lifted.

    What would have been scary was facing Omicron with our vulnerable unvaccinated.

    Covid vaccines have saved millions of lives.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Ok I'll rephrase.

    Just before we'd ever heard anything about a new variant called Omicron the government were tightening restrictions, and warning of further lockdowns unless things got better.

    Or did I imagine that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Restrictions were being lifted before then.

    Dealing with the number of cases we had in November 2021 with very minor reinstatement of restrictions was moving forward. It would not have been possible without vaccines.

    Other countries could carry the case-hospitalisation rate without further restrictions - due to vaccinations.

    We could not have moved forwards without vaccines or handled Omicron without much higher loss of life.

    Covid vaccines have saved millions of lives.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,502 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    You did imagine that, go look back on my posting history from that time if you want the explanation of what happened.

    Trying to reduce the dynamics to such a simple form doesn't work, but it is something being tried over and over by a few revisionists.

    Dynamic complex situations have dynamic complex answers, if you truly want to know what happened, say so (high numbers of unvaccinated still clogging up hospitals and ICU, winter surges in infection numbers, Irish government dragging out reopening longer than was needed due to fears of a repeat of winter 2020/21).

    I understand the desire to simplify the argument as any critical thinking that goes below the surface rips apart the anti-vaxxer/no pandemic/no restrictions arguments.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    So some restrictions were being reinstated, with warnings of further lockdowns if these reinstated restrictions didn't work.

    And you consider that state of affairs to be moving forwards, with restrictions being lifted.

    Obviously that point of view is entirely up to you.

    But it seems reasonable that others might consider that same state of affairs to be moving backwards.

    It is a bit of a stretch to claim that is a falsehood based on ignorance or deception.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    It is ignorance or deception to not mention that restrictions were being lifted before that point; or that other countries who had previously locked down or imposed restrictions made it through without them.

    Especially if you are trying to make some essential / global point about vaccines and Omicron. Which they were with reference to 'the world' so the 'we' was not just about Irish reaction.

    So yes it is a falsehood to present it in such terms.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



Advertisement