Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings

Ginger n Lemon · 25-01-2021 11:02am

Boggles wrote: »

Go back and read the 2 articles and then read what your wrote.

It is amusing to be fair.

'Bloody google censoring us - oh right they actually are not'

Trust me, no one is obsessed with you.

Thats disingenuous of you.

You should encourage OP to read the actual study: A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).

Boggles thats the problem. You read rubbish. You dont read the actual study... :rolleyes:

SafeSurfer · 25-01-2021 11:08am

emeldc wrote: »

Nice.
Obviously not many belonging to you.

You could just be honest and admit you don’t know how many people died from Covid instead of deflecting.

Hector Savage · 25-01-2021 11:08am

Deleted User wrote: »

"Here's how to think about..." is surely the creepiest and most evil headline starter. Like we all need to be taught how to think about scientific studies by someone with a 2:2 in journalism. Sit down.

It's almost as if Science has become a new religion, and the worst preachers are the ones that don't have a ****ing clue about it, like those mickey mouse journalism graduates.

Boggles · 25-01-2021 11:08am

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Thats disingenuous of you.

You should encourage OP to read the actual study: A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).

Boggles thats the problem. You read rubbish. You dont read the actual study... :rolleyes:

The study has been read and discussed in depth all ready.

I understand you were away for a while, so I'll forgive your misguided hubris.

Boggles · 25-01-2021 11:11am

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's almost as if Science has become a new religion

Ahhhh. That's a good thing right?

Understanding something based on data rather than make believe?

25-01-2021 11:11am

paw patrol wrote: »

apologies for the late reply as I don't really post at weekends.
I say this to a large degree.

A few random points below - I hadn't planned on a televised declaration of intent so its not a prepared statement.

I don't think covid is a fake its real. But its' over hyped and has caused mass hysteria.
I am concerned myself with the loss of personal liberty and that's fine if people don't think that is important. But it is to me.
Your fear shouldn't give you the right to control me.
Sadly I seem to be almost alone on that view. Be a free thinker they told me as a kid in school but forgot to add except when public opinion is against you :pac:

We should have behaved like Sweden and protected the vulnerable in hospitals and nursing homes. Offered support in the community for those at risk.
Be a lot cheaper to do this and pascals current spending plan.

(apologies for repeating again!)
But that would place the onus on the government to do something and be seen to do it. Better to place the onus on the population and then find teenagers or pint drinkers are scapegoats in the media.

We could have health suggestions like japan and enforce basic hygiene rules and simple easy to implement measures that cost next to nothing.
Advise people to be less fat

distribute vitamin d and zinc

keep working from home if it means less crowds on public transport, if that is what you want.
tbh I like working from home but id give it up to scrap the levels.

a year into this -
we are confined to houses bar essential journeys. Gyms closed, Takeaways and supermarkets doing a roaring trade. People boozing and cocaine-ing like mad.
I'm a little bit guilty myself of over consumption and partying more than my norm- was 7kg up from Feb to July and had to take steps to address that.

The reports are clear....covid attacks those with "conditions" more than others. Yet we are implementing a lifestyle on the whole nation that only increases these "conditions" - any report will tell you that most cancers (and others) are caused by lifestyle.

That's bananas.

We've bet the house on vaccines we aren't sure of - plenty of "it's too early to say" answers to how effective they are against covid or is it just the symptoms.

this is no way to live for the 99.9% survival rate.

Or current approach is folly if the boarders are open.
Can you close the boarder for how long? What happens when you open back up?

I'll be back later to read the abuse.

99.9%? Given countries are already approaching 0.2% of the population dead with only a fraction of the populations impacted, it is understandable of most of the comment in this thread is treated with appropriate disdain. Cant get basic facts right, dont read articles you claim support your position, champion deliberate misrepresentation by contrarian polemicists ahead of real science. And then accuse anyone who actually engages is science as having a "religious" affiliation with covid. The only religious behaviour is from those who seek simplistic answers based on nothing

Ginger n Lemon · 25-01-2021 11:21am

Boggles wrote: »

The study has been read and discussed in depth all ready.

I understand you were away for a while, so I'll forgive your misguided hubris.

Read and discussed in depth? Boggles its below

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).

I see you havent changed a bit :rolleyes:

25-01-2021 11:25am

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Thats disingenuous of you.

You should encourage OP to read the actual study: A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).

Boggles thats the problem. You read rubbish. You dont read the actual study... :rolleyes:

Read and understand the study.

Study was designed to detect if mask wearing reduces infection by 50%.

Here is the actual conclusion

The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

average_runner · 25-01-2021 11:27am

Keyzer wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea or evidence this would have been the case.

New Zealand

CalamariFritti · 25-01-2021 11:27am

Deleted User wrote: »

Read and understand the study.

Study was designed to detect if mask wearing reduces infection by 50%.

Here is the actual conclusion

I read the actual publication. I dont know where you got this sentence from but its not from that. The sentence in bold is not true.

It doesnt even make sense. Why would anyone conduct a study and then set themselves up for a limited range of outcomes from the beginning. The study had a group of about 3000 people wearing masks for a period of time and another same size (or same enough) group not wearing them. In the end they counted the number of positives in each group. One group had 40 odd positives the other had 50 odd.

One may think this means masks had a 20% advantage but they decided its too small a margin to call it conclusive.

You're clearly not with the program.

The approved standard response is 'but we're wearing masks not to protect ourselves but the others.'

Ginger n Lemon · 25-01-2021 11:28am

Deleted User wrote: »

Read and understand the study.

Study was designed to detect if mask wearing reduces infection by 50%.

Here is the actual conclusion

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).

Yes. Read that above and understand it.

Hector Savage · 25-01-2021 11:29am

paw patrol wrote: »

apologies for the late reply as I don't really post at weekends.
I say this to a large degree.

A few random points below - I hadn't planned on a televised declaration of intent so its not a prepared statement.

I don't think covid is a fake its real. But its' over hyped and has caused mass hysteria.
I am concerned myself with the loss of personal liberty and that's fine if people don't think that is important. But it is to me.
Your fear shouldn't give you the right to control me.
Sadly I seem to be almost alone on that view. Be a free thinker they told me as a kid in school but forgot to add except when public opinion is against you :pac:

We should have behaved like Sweden and protected the vulnerable in hospitals and nursing homes. Offered support in the community for those at risk.
Be a lot cheaper to do this and pascals current spending plan.

(apologies for repeating again!)
But that would place the onus on the government to do something and be seen to do it. Better to place the onus on the population and then find teenagers or pint drinkers are scapegoats in the media.

We could have health suggestions like japan and enforce basic hygiene rules and simple easy to implement measures that cost next to nothing.
Advise people to be less fat

distribute vitamin d and zinc

keep working from home if it means less crowds on public transport, if that is what you want.
tbh I like working from home but id give it up to scrap the levels.

a year into this -
we are confined to houses bar essential journeys. Gyms closed, Takeaways and supermarkets doing a roaring trade. People boozing and cocaine-ing like mad.
I'm a little bit guilty myself of over consumption and partying more than my norm- was 7kg up from Feb to July and had to take steps to address that.

The reports are clear....covid attacks those with "conditions" more than others. Yet we are implementing a lifestyle on the whole nation that only increases these "conditions" - any report will tell you that most cancers (and others) are caused by lifestyle.

That's bananas.

We've bet the house on vaccines we aren't sure of - plenty of "it's too early to say" answers to how effective they are against covid or is it just the symptoms.

this is no way to live for the 99.9% survival rate.

Or current approach is folly if the boarders are open.
Can you close the boarder for how long? What happens when you open back up?

I'll be back later to read the abuse.

Spot on, anyone that abuses you over that rock of sense must have issues.

Ginger n Lemon · 25-01-2021 11:29am

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I read the actual publication. I dont know where you got this sentence from but its not from that. The sentence in bold is not true.

I wouldnt entertain OP too much.

Same lad was posting about business going bankrupt in summer last year "shure they were on the way out even before covid".

:rolleyes:

We are dealing with someone who has a very strong belief in lockdowns. VERY STRONG.

Baggly · 25-01-2021 11:31am

Deleted User wrote: »

"Here's how to think about..." is surely the creepiest and most evil headline starter. Like we all need to be taught how to think about scientific studies by someone with a 2:2 in journalism. Sit down.

Mod

A very quick glance at the article, having followed the instructions of 'Googling Danish mask study', reveals the author of that particular piece is an MD; he may also have a degree in journalism - but he certainly has a PHD in medicine.

Now that's besides the point, because the point is your posting is in bad faith and is deliberatively antagonistic. If you cannot remain civil in your posts, dont post them.

Last warning, or a threadban will follow.

Hector Savage · 25-01-2021 11:31am

average_runner wrote: »

New Zealand

NZ was in the middle of their summer when all this kicked off, as was Australia - makes a huge difference.

NZ is much more separated than Ireland and sparsely populated, you can't compare them.

25-01-2021 11:31am

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I read the actual publication. I dont know where you got this sentence from but its not from that. The sentence in bold is not true.

It doesnt even make sense. Why would anyone conduct a study and then set themselves up for a certain range of outcomes from the beginning.

Sample Size Calculations
The sample size was determined to provide adequate power for assessment of the combined composite primary outcome in the intention-to-treat analysis. Authorities estimated an incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection of at least 2% during the study period. Assuming that wearing a face mask halves risk for infection, we estimated that a sample of 4636 participants would provide the trial with 80% power at a significance level of 5% (2-sided α level). Anticipating 20% loss to follow-up in this community-based study, we aimed to assign at least 6000 participants.

.

Boggles · 25-01-2021 11:31am

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Read and discussed in depth?

Indeed.

But considering you clearly didn't read the 2 articles you are giving out about, I'm going to assume you haven't read the study either.

Get back to me when you have read all 3 and we can discuss further if you wish.

25-01-2021 11:33am

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).

Yes. Read that above and understand it.

You obviously didn't understand it, whatever about reading it

25-01-2021 11:36am

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

I wouldnt entertain OP too much.

Same lad was posting about business going bankrupt in summer last year "shure they were on the way out even before covid".

:rolleyes:

We are dealing with someone who has a very strong belief in lockdowns. VERY STRONG.

Pure nonsense again Ginger. I f**n hate lockdowns. I hate kids been off school. I hate not being able to see who I want when I want, etc etc, But it doesn't mean I don't understand what they do. And that when deliberate misrepresentations are being spread, that i wont challenge them

Boggles · 25-01-2021 11:37am

Hector Savage wrote: »

NZ was in the middle of their summer when all this kicked off, as was Australia - makes a huge difference.

NZ is much more separated than Ireland and sparsely populated, you can't compare them.

NZ and Australia were in Autumn, winter comes after Autumn.

They are currently in their summer months.

CalamariFritti · 25-01-2021 11:37am

Deleted User wrote: »

Sample Size Calculations
The sample size was determined to provide adequate power for assessment of the combined composite primary outcome in the intention-to-treat analysis. Authorities estimated an incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection of at least 2% during the study period. Assuming that wearing a face mask halves risk for infection, we estimated that a sample of 4636 participants would provide the trial with 80% power at a significance level of 5% (2-sided α level). Anticipating 20% loss to follow-up in this community-based study, we aimed to assign at least 6000 participants.

This does not say what you think it says.

This is not the premise of the study. It is their explanation of the chosen sample size. AKA the reasoning why they chose 3,000 people each. And not 1,000 or 20,000.

25-01-2021 11:39am

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

A very quick glance at the article, having followed the instructions of 'Googling Danish mask study', reveals the author of that particular piece is an MD; he may also have a degree in journalism - but he certainly has a PHD in medicine.

Now that's besides the point, because the point is your posting is in bad faith and is deliberatively antagonistic. If you cannot remain civil in your posts, dont post them.

Last warning, or a threadban will follow.

I wasn't referencing the article in my post. I was talking more generally about "here's how to think about..." as a headline starter.

T'was off topic though so fair enough.

average_runner · 25-01-2021 11:41am

Hector Savage wrote: »

NZ was in the middle of their summer when all this kicked off, as was Australia - makes a huge difference.

NZ is much more separated than Ireland and sparsely populated, you can't compare them.

They had a winter with it also.

Until we handled the airport and border issues, we be in lockdowns for awhile yet.

25-01-2021 11:48am

CalamariFritti wrote: »

This does not say what you think it says.

This is not the premise of the study. It is their explanation of the chosen sample size. AKA the reasoning why they chose 3,000 people each. And not 1,000 or 20,000.

I am sorry, but you fail to understand how sample size calculation works in experimental design. If the power of your experiment is setup to detect a 50% deifference, and you detect a lower than 50% difference you can only conclude that the difference is not greater than 50%. Which is exactly what they have done in the study report. If you look into the detail you will see that the statistical analysis on the results indicate the effect of wearing a mask was between a 46% reduction and a 23% increase. In other words, the study was under-powered to detect anything but a massive difference

25-01-2021 11:49am

Tuned into Éamon Ryan speaking to Claire Byrne to determine if there was anything left upstairs. Answer is a conclusive no, imagine saying this with a straight face: "we were one of the first countries in the EU to shut down air travel". As falsehoods go this is utterly brazen, if you don't believe me have a listen back later. This is the sort of hopeless case we're dealing with, how he landed the transport ministry I'll never know. This sham of a patchwork government doesn't give a solitary damn about introducing quarantine/closing borders to more infectious variants. And it's not just cowardice about paying lip service to Britain or wilful ignorance, I'm beginning to believe they want to extend the restrictions as long as possible. I haven't protested in many years but would join a cause to depose this useless shower in the Dáil. We've been under the thumb long enough by total incompetents, life only rolls around once and a year kept under lock & key is criminal.

Windmill100000 · 25-01-2021 11:54am

I personally wouldn't be advocating violence, but I think it would take a lot for the people of Ireland to rise up and try and force an end to lockdown. It would mean a lot of people here changing their views on the pandemic. There was a poll with journal.ie in December about going into lockdown level 5 at end of December. 75% supported the measures.

Of course frustration is building, but will we see people in mass numbers taking to the streets? Time will tell. If they were to protest in large numbers it would more likely be over the level 5 restrictions and not if we went down to level 3 again.

Idbatterim · 25-01-2021 11:58am

People wont protest in any meaningful numbers, sure look at the housing crisis here, hundreds of thousands of young fcuked to fulfil an agenda.

froog · 25-01-2021 12:01pm

Windmill100000 wrote: »

I personally wouldn't be advocating violence, but I think it would take a lot for the people of Ireland to rise up and try and force try enforce an end to lockdown. It would mean a lot of people here changing their views on the pandemic. There was a poll with journal.ie in December about going into lockdown level 5 at end of December. 75% supported the measures.

Of course frustration is building, but will we see people in mass numbers taking to the streets? Time will tell. If they were to protest in large numbers it would more likely be over the level 5 restrictions and not if we went down to level 3 again.

Most people support restrictions. Your mass protest fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

Hector Savage · 25-01-2021 12:03pm

Boggles wrote: »

NZ and Australia were in Autumn, winter comes after Autumn.

They are currently in their summer months.

This was spreading globally by December 2019, thats smack bang in the middle of their summer, just because the western world reacted in March 2020 doesn't mean it started then - imagine the difference between this virus quietly spreading through a cold wintry europe and a warm NZ...

Kermit.de.frog · 25-01-2021 12:04pm

froog wrote: »

Most people support restrictions.

Yes and they do so for all the right reasons.

There are no good choices at the moment, only bad. What we have is the least worst option.

froog · 25-01-2021 12:04pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tuned into Éamon Ryan speaking to Claire Byrne to determine if there was anything left upstairs. Answer is a conclusive no, imagine saying this with a straight face: "we were one of the first countries in the EU to shut down air travel". As falsehoods go this is utterly brazen, if you don't believe me have a listen back later. This is the sort of hopeless case we're dealing with, how he landed the transport ministry I'll never know. This sham of a patchwork government doesn't give a solitary damn about introducing quarantine/closing borders to more infectious variants. And it's not just cowardice about paying lip service to Britain or wilful ignorance, I'm beginning to believe they want to extend the restrictions as long as possible. I haven't protested in many years but would join a cause to depose this useless shower in the Dáil. We've been under the thumb long enough by total incompetents, life only rolls around once and a year kept under lock & key is criminal.

So you're just anti government really, be honest. Covid is just your latest thing to shriek about. The mask is slipping lads.

Russman · 25-01-2021 12:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Tuned into Éamon Ryan speaking to Claire Byrne to determine if there was anything left upstairs. Answer is a conclusive no, imagine saying this with a straight face: "we were one of the first countries in the EU to shut down air travel". As falsehoods go this is utterly brazen, if you don't believe me have a listen back later. This is the sort of hopeless case we're dealing with, how he landed the transport ministry I'll never know. This sham of a patchwork government doesn't give a solitary damn about introducing quarantine/closing borders to more infectious variants. And it's not just cowardice about paying lip service to Britain or wilful ignorance, I'm beginning to believe they want to extend the restrictions as long as possible. I haven't protested in many years but would join a cause to depose this useless shower in the Dáil. We've been under the thumb long enough by total incompetents, life only rolls around once and a year kept under lock & key is criminal.

I don't often agree with you BH, but you're right about Ryan in fairness. I suppose we're one of the first if you count being in the first 20

But, to get back to not agreeing with you

, why would any government actually want to extend restrictions ? C'mon, it makes no sense at all, on any level. Governments depend on popularity to get re-elected, none in their right mind would willingly do what has been done, just for the craic.
I'm sick to the back teeth of the whole thing as much as the next person, but I can't see a realistic or workable alternative. If we were doing something materially different to the rest of the western world, then fair enough we could look to change tack, but pretty much all our peer countries are in the same boat. Not liking our available options doesn't mean there are better ones.

Global pandemics don't rock around too often and we're unlucky to be the generation dealing with this one, but hopefully it'll be shorter than historical ones and we'll see some light come the summer.

Idbatterim · 25-01-2021 12:10pm

Most support restrictions. Of course they do. Hundreds of thousands on the same salary doing far less work. Hundreds of thousands on pup better off than when they were working. Then the old and at risk of covid support this. Wow what a shocker! Any way, the whole fun and games starts soon enough with the financial carnage!

I mean I get it humans are lazy and short sighted in general. But many support restrictions for their ian selfish reasons, not because they give a toss about covid...

CalamariFritti · 25-01-2021 12:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I am sorry, but you fail to understand how sample size calculation works in experimental design. If the power of your experiment is setup to detect a 50% deifference, and you detect a lower than 50% difference you can only conclude that the difference is not greater than 50%. Which is exactly what they have done in the study report. If you look into the detail you will see that the statistical analysis on the results indicate the effect of wearing a mask was between a 46% reduction and a 23% increase. In other words, the study was under-powered to detect anything but a massive difference

I will try to understand what you are saying. I admit right now I dont. I see where you are heading with it, but I cant 100% say I am following. Fair enough, food for thought. Maybe you could help me?

Idbatterim · 25-01-2021 12:12pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-billionaires-saw-their-fortunes-rise-by-3-28bn-last-year-in-worrying-trend-1.4466699?mode=amp

Irish billionaires wealth up hugely last year...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/double-dip-recession-in-europe-increasingly-inevitable-as-lockdowns-take-toll-1.4465296?mode=amp

Double dip recession also far more likely

FintanMcluskey · 25-01-2021 12:12pm

Russman wrote: »

I don't often agree with you BH, but you're right about Ryan in fairness. I suppose we're one of the first if you count being in the first 20

But, to get back to not agreeing with you , why would any government actually want to extend restrictions ? C'mon, it makes no sense at all, on any level. Governments depend on popularity to get re-elected, none in their right mind would willingly do what has been done, just for the craic.
I'm sick to the back teeth of the whole thing as much as the next person, but I can't see a realistic or workable alternative. If we were doing something materially different to the rest of the western world, then fair enough we could look to change tack, but pretty much all our peer countries are in the same boat. Not liking our available options doesn't mean there are better ones.

Global pandemics don't rock around too often and we're unlucky to be the generation dealing with this one, but hopefully it'll be shorter than historical ones and we'll see some light come the summer.

Ireland has had the longest strictest lockdown in the EU.

While still having comparable death rates to the worst hit nations, certainly up until November.

So Ireland isn’t really comparable to other countries, as it’s citizens have been suppressed twice as long as others

Loafing Oaf · 25-01-2021 12:15pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ireland has had the longest strictest lockdown in the EU.

While still having comparable death rates to the worst hit nations, certainly up until November.

So Ireland isn’t really comparable to other countries, as it’s citizens have been suppressed twice as long as others

You're forgetting our little respite in the run-up to Christmas...

25-01-2021 12:15pm

froog wrote: »

So you're just anti government really, be honest. Covid is just your latest thing to shriek about. The mask is slipping lads.

Deliberately twisting my words and moving the goalposts to suit your agenda, well done. Let me know if there are other strawmen you want to pull out of the drawer. You know exactly what I'm referring to but keep that head rooted, too many livelihoods have been sacrificed to protect a tiny minority. The government must be held to account for heavy-handed and clueless leadership, the public voted them in and are ultimately answerable to them.

Russman · 25-01-2021 12:17pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ireland has had the longest strictest lockdown in the EU.

While still having comparable death rates to the worst hit nations, certainly up until November.

So Ireland isn’t really comparable to other countries, as it’s citizens have been suppressed twice as long as others

And yet we're still amongst the worst.

Are you arguing that we should open up now or that we should have opened up a bit more last summer ?

Boggles · 25-01-2021 12:21pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

This was spreading globally by December 2019, thats smack bang in the middle of their summer, just because the western world reacted in March 2020 doesn't mean it started then - imagine the difference between this virus quietly spreading through a cold wintry europe and a warm NZ...

NZ confirmed their first case at the end of Feb, 2nd case In March.

They initiated their lock-down on the 25th of March.

None of that is height of summer as you claimed.

And as Florida proved in July, this virus will spread whatever the weather.

Kermit.de.frog · 25-01-2021 12:21pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You're forgetting our little respite in the run-up to Christmas...

The only country in the northern hemisphere to loosen restrictions specifically for the run up to and over Christmas despite ample warnings this wasn't the most astute move to make - as we are now learning.

Hold on while the rest of Europe plays the world's smallest violin for us.

froog · 25-01-2021 12:22pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Most support restrictions. Of course they do. Hundreds of thousands on the same salary doing far less work. Hundreds of thousands on pup better off than when they were working. Then the old and at risk of covid support this. Wow what a shocker! Any way, the whole fun and games starts soon enough with the financial carnage!

I mean I get it humans are lazy and short sighted in general. But many support restrictions for their ian selfish reasons, not because they give a toss about covid...

And you don't think anti-restrictions people hold their views for selfish reasons?

FintanMcluskey · 25-01-2021 12:24pm

Russman wrote: »

And yet we're still amongst the worst.

Are you arguing that we should open up now or that we should have opened up a bit more last summer ?

How is Europe’s youngest nation in such a mess now one has to ask?

Likely because unnecessary suppression last Summer I think.

Europe was back to normal for months as Dublin, Kildare and Offaly entered more unnecessary restrictions.

I have no doubt in my mind this Summer will be a repeat of last Summer

corcaigh07 · 25-01-2021 12:25pm

Boggles wrote: »

NZ confirmed their first case at the end of Feb, 2nd case In March.

They initiated their lock-down on the 25th of March.

None of that is height of summer as you claimed.

And as Florida proved in July, this virus will spread whatever the weather.

How exactly do you explain the tiny case numbers in ROI Summer 2020, even during level 2? Evidence suggests it's a seasonal virus, similar to the flu.

Kermit.de.frog · 25-01-2021 12:25pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Europe was back to normal for months

This is not true yet you keep saying it.

FintanMcluskey · 25-01-2021 12:27pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The only country in the northern hemisphere to loosen restrictions specifically for the run up to and over Christmas despite ample warnings this wasn't the most astute move to make - as we are now learning.

Hold on while the rest of Europe plays the world's smallest violin for us.

That’s impressive gymnastics Kermit.

Europes most suppressed country “slightly” relaxed its mitigation measures to brings its restrictions in line with Europe for a few days.

Boggles · 25-01-2021 12:28pm

corcaigh07 wrote: »

How exactly do you explain the tiny case numbers in ROI Summer 2020,

You mean when we just came out of our actual lockdown and suppressed the virus in the community?

You need me to explain that?

corcaigh07 wrote: »

even during level 2? Evidence suggests it's a seasonal virus, similar to the flu.

15,000 cases a day in Florida in July suggests it's absolutely nothing like the flu.

FintanMcluskey · 25-01-2021 12:28pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is not true yet you keep saying it.

It seems true according to this

Ireland’s first lockdown was by far the longest in Europe for bars, restaurants, cinemas and non-essential shops, according to a new report.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) health system policy tracker states that public spaces defined as parks, restaurants, bars, cinemas, non-essential shops and services were closed in Ireland for 120 days from March 12th.

The country with the next highest number of days where public spaces were shut was Finland (74 days) followed by Slovakia (66 days) and Bulgaria and Estonia (both 65 days).

Kermit.de.frog · 25-01-2021 12:31pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Europes most suppressed country “slightly” relaxed its mitigation measures to brings its restrictions in line with Europe for a few days.

Firstly you are incorrect. Curfews and far enhanced restrictions were being implemented right across the continent in the run up to Christmas. From Spain to France to the Netherlands to Germany to the Czech Republic etc - all bringing in enhanced measures.

We decided to go the opposite way.

However, since you seem to believe what you say - how has it worked out for us then?

Do you think it's worked out well?

Russman · 25-01-2021 12:32pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

How is Europe’s youngest nation in such a mess now one has to ask?

Likely because unnecessary suppression last Summer I think.

Europe was back to normal for months as Dublin, Kildare and Offaly entered more unnecessary restrictions.

I have no doubt in my mind this Summer will be a repeat of last Summer

There probably was an element of pent up demand alright, but I'd have no doubt that no matter what restrictions were in place or not in place prior to it, once the leash was off for Christmas people would have gone bananas no matter what, its just what we do in December.

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

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings