Dublin is NOT significantly more infected than any other county.

Ballso

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

The entire country is "locked down", so to speak. We're talking about trying to stop the spread from areas with higher infection rates to areas that are not as highly infected.

What you are effectively saying here is that urban dwellers with the option to go isolate in a property in an area with lower density should not have done this, and instead should have stayed in the higher risk area to protect you. Is that it?

Tea Shock

Ballso wrote: »

What you are effectively saying here is that urban dwellers with the option to go isolate in a property in an area with lower density should not have done this, and instead should have stayed in the higher risk area to protect you. Is that it?

What difference does the density make if you're isolated inside a property?

One eyed Jack

Ballso wrote: »

What you are effectively saying here is that urban dwellers with the option to go isolate in a property in an area with lower density should not have done this, and instead should have stayed in the higher risk area to protect you. Is that it?

It must take some doing to have wrung that interpretation out of the post you quoted :pac:

Charles Babbage

Ballso wrote: »

What you are effectively saying here is that urban dwellers with the option to go isolate in a property in an area with lower density should not have done this, and instead should have stayed in the higher risk area to protect you. Is that it?

No, the point is that they should not come and go between two places. If they want to isolate somewhere then stay there. The present debate is about people who want to go for the weekend and return on Monday or Tuesday.

JCX BXC

Ballso wrote: »

What you are effectively saying here is that urban dwellers with the option to go isolate in a property in an area with lower density should not have done this, and instead should have stayed in the higher risk area to protect you. Is that it?

Yes.

If you come to this area (west Clare) which doesn't seem to have any COVID19 cases at the moment and bring the disease, spread it and affect a large area, that is on you. The point is you stay where you are, you don't move and isolate where you like.

God it's like talking to primary school children. How are people really this slow?

Tea Shock

DeVore wrote: »

From a data science pov, removing a group of unusually acquired data points, which act in a different manner to the others, for real world reasons, would not make any data scientists eyebrow raise.

Except medical staff do not act in a different manner to others - they still go to the shop and live with (and likely infect) others who also go to the shops.....just the same as any other profession who gets the virus.

But where your point does have some validity is that probably most, if not all healthcare professionals have been tested (although I'm not sure that the 1,300 number that you say have tested positive has a proper source?)

Ballso

Charles Babbage wrote: »

No, the point is that they should not come and go between two places. If they want to isolate somewhere then stay there. The present debate is about people who want to go for the weekend and return on Monday or Tuesday.

That's fine so, we are all on the same page. Nobody should be traveling away for weekends, but anyone was entitled to isolate in which ever property they deemed most suitable prior to lockdown.

IAMAMORON

JCX BXC wrote: »

Yes.

If you come to this area (west Clare) which doesn't seem to have any COVID19 cases at the moment and bring the disease, spread it and affect a large area, that is on you. The point is you stay where you are, you don't move and isolate where you like.

God it's like talking to primary school children. How are people really this slow?

All well and good. But if you have your primary certificate you will be aware that inevitable 80% of the population of Loop Head will contract the virus. That is a fact. At some stage it is on its' way, believe. All it will take is one grandmother to go shopping in Kilrush after drinking on Sunday evening in Miltown Malby with the gang from Lissycasey and you will all be cramming for the lighthouse. You can be sure there will be cases in Ennis if there isn't already.

JCX BXC

IAMAMORON wrote: »

All well and good. But if you have your primary certificate you will be aware that inevitable 80% of the population of Loop Head will contract the virus. That is a fact. At some stage it is on its' way, believe. All it will take is one grandmother to go shopping in Kilrush after drinking on Sunday evening in Miltown Malby with the gang from Lissycasey and you will all be cramming for the lighthouse. You can be sure there will be cases in Ennis if there isn't already.

Playing it fast and loose with the word "fact" there.

While I'm not going to argue with your horrifically inaccurate facts, the whole point of this lockdown is to flatten the curve, not overwhelm healthcare systems, if you spread it to a new area you see an increase in cases, straining the health service.

Again, shocking that this still has to be explained to people.

IAMAMORON

JCX BXC wrote: »

Playing it fast and loose with the word "fact" there.

While I'm not going to argue with your horrifically inaccurate facts, the whole point of this lockdown is to flatten the curve, not overwhelm healthcare systems, if you spread it to a new area you see an increase in cases, straining the health service.

Again, shocking that this still has to be explained to people.

County Clare does not have any special immunity from a virus which has spread all over the world.

The sooner you learn that the better for you and the rest of the Banner. It won't be Dublin's fault either.

Ballso

JCX BXC wrote: »

Yes.

If you come to this area (west Clare) which doesn't seem to have any COVID19 cases at the moment and bring the disease, spread it and affect a large area,

Well that's not going to happen, the virus is coming to your area the same as everyone else's.

KyussB

If there's one thing this crisis should teach us, that nearly always gets missed in other crises, is that people need to have a lot more humility about their credentials.

The 'experts' fucked up with this crisis, and turned out to have given flawed recommendations due to the limits of their knowledge, when being aware about those limits should have led them to more precautionary recommendations.

A lot of people trade away proper critical thinking, on the way towards getting a slip of paper which makes them feel like an 'authority' on a subject - when the loss of the former (and arrogance of the latter) often creates blind spots which the 'expert' can't see past, yet which ironically the average joe with no credentials can often see past.

Ballso

KyussB wrote: »

If there's one thing this crisis should teach us, that nearly always gets missed in other crises, is that people need to have a lot more humility about their credentials.

The 'experts' fucked up with this crisis, and turned out to have given flawed recommendations due to the limits of their knowledge, when being aware about those limits should have led them to more precautionary recommendations.

A lot of people trade away proper critical thinking, on the way towards getting a slip of paper which makes them feel like an 'authority' on a subject - when the loss of the former (and arrogance of the latter) often creates blind spots which the 'expert' can't see past, yet which ironically the average joe with no credentials can often see past.

That's your takeaway? That because the experts didn't get everything right in this unprecedented global pandemic scenario we should listen to the layman more instead?

There are billions of lay voices continuously vomiting out their nonsense all day every day, plenty of them are bound to be right on any given point based purely on scale.

Nobody in their right mind would have expected the experts to get everything right here. People were always going to die en masse, there was no scenario where this didn't happen. It's a damage limitation exercise.

Beasty

It's easy to judge the acts of "experts" after the event (the initial event in this case). Maybe they feel their reaction was precautionary. Maybe we would have been in a much deeper hole in other circumstances

No one is perfect. There have been mistakes made all over the place, but mistakes that were made in a genuine belief/hope there would be net benefits. And who really knows. Maybe they were actually right

Loads of "maybe"s above - because we have very little idea as to how this would have developed if different actions had been taken. Think for example if lockdowns had happened earlier. With hindsight that would appear sensible. We cannot know for sure, but all the evidence points in that direction. Maybe we would have avoided thousands of deaths that way, but again we would not know that for certain if we had gone that way. What if the consequence of such a lockdown was even more economic gloom? Governments would then face claims of scaremongering and costing real people real money unnecessarily, lowering everyone's standards of living

Of course if we knew all of that we could justify those actions, but we do not and could not "know" that. Just expanding on that scenario though. What if we had successfully fended this all off through additional and earlier intervention. What would happen next time we had such a scenario? Maybe everyone would say "oh no, not all this again" and not put such protections in place. Maybe that could end in an even bigger disaster than we currently see

Ultimately no-one actually knows. All I do no is no-one would deliberately mismanage something like this. Everyone wants it beaten, and everyone does what they think best/appropriate in the circumstances, with an aim of minimising fallout. And everyone does make mistakes, but in this situation not deliberately so

backboiler

DeVore wrote: »

The latest population estimate (CSO Apr2019) for the normally resident population of the state is 4,921,500. As of yesterday, 08Apr, there were 6,074 confirmed cases. That's a national average of 0.123%.
Your numbers show that Dublin has an infection rate of very nearly twice that. It's not alone in being above that average, but it is significantly more infected than any other county according to those figures, and is in top place with a healthy 40% lead over the next county.

ShineOn7

How is this thread still going and how is it even being questioned that Dublin is Ireland's most infected county?

You can't just take HSE numbers out of the Dublin statistics!

I respected the intelligence of one or two posters a lot more before this thread started that's for sure

KyussB

Beasty wrote: »

It's easy to judge the acts of "experts" after the event (the initial event in this case). Maybe they feel their reaction was precautionary. Maybe we would have been in a much deeper hole in other circumstances

No one is perfect. There have been mistakes made all over the place, but mistakes that were made in a genuine belief/hope there would be net benefits. And who really knows. Maybe they were actually right

Loads of "maybe"s above - because we have very little idea as to how this would have developed if different actions had been taken. Think for example if lockdowns had happened earlier. With hindsight that would appear sensible. We cannot know for sure, but all the evidence points in that direction. Maybe we would have avoided thousands of deaths that way, but again we would not know that for certain if we had gone that way. What if the consequence of such a lockdown was even more economic gloom? Governments would then face claims of scaremongering and costing real people real money unnecessarily, lowering everyone's standards of living

Of course if we knew all of that we could justify those actions, but we do not and could not "know" that. Just expanding on that scenario though. What if we had successfully fended this all off through additional and earlier intervention. What would happen next time we had such a scenario? Maybe everyone would say "oh no, not all this again" and not put such protections in place. Maybe that could end in an even bigger disaster than we currently see

Ultimately no-one actually knows. All I do no is no-one would deliberately mismanage something like this. Everyone wants it beaten, and everyone does what they think best/appropriate in the circumstances, with an aim of minimising fallout. And everyone does make mistakes, but in this situation not deliberately so

I won't go into it further, since my point was tangential - there is no hindsight bias, though - all of the core mistakes were foreseeable and preventable - with many "wtf" moments, watching them unfold in realtime.

timsey tiger

Beasty wrote: »

All I do no is no-one would deliberately mismanage something like this.

This is naive in the extreme. There are plenty of people out there who would be perfectly fine with a large reduction in the dependent population, and would easily see this as a price to pay to protect the economy.

Any politician who previously supported austerity and now talks about the deaths caused by a recession is one of these.

One eyed Jack

timsey tiger wrote: »

This is naive in the extreme. There are plenty of people out there who would be perfectly fine with a large reduction in the dependent population, and would easily see this as a price to pay to protect the economy.

Any politician who previously supported austerity and now talks about the deaths caused by a recession is one of these.

Can you name an example of a public figure who fits your description? I’m asking because I can’t think of any.

I can think of a number of high profile public figures who made some awful blunders in hindsight, but any suggestion that they would have deliberately mismanaged events to bring about the current circumstances in which we find ourselves, requires compelling evidence to support that assertion.

Ballso

timsey tiger wrote: »

This is naive in the extreme. There are plenty of people out there who would be perfectly fine with a large reduction in the dependent population, and would easily see this as a price to pay to protect the economy.

Any politician who previously supported austerity and now talks about the deaths caused by a recession is one of these.

Would you ever **** off back to Twitter with that bull**** you gob****e

OscarMIlde

osarusan wrote: »

There's no justification for removing healthcare workers in a statistics-based argument.

It does skew the percentage positive for each county though since they are more likely to be tested than the general population. It would be easier to estimate the influence of this if we knew the test numbers and positives for each county.

froog

Dublin is the italy of ireland now. It should be completely quarantined and locked down while the rest of the country is opened up.

irishguy1983

ShineOn7 wrote: »

How is this thread still going and how is it even being questioned that Dublin is Ireland's most infected county?

You can't just take HSE numbers out of the Dublin statistics!

I respected the intelligence of one or two posters a lot more before this thread started that's for sure

I know - it seems like some of the Dublin folk have taken this quite personally....Look at all the cars trying to get out of Dublin....

I still think restrictions should be relaxed in certain areas in Ireland - having the same lockdown in Dublin and the same in some rural areas in Ireland is ludicrous....If it helps I live in Cork City and believe we should have same lockdown as Dublin....People turning this into Dublin V rest of country are missing the point - would love to see certain people/areas go back to work...

GreeBo

OscarMIlde wrote: »

It does skew the percentage positive for each county though since they are more likely to be tested than the general population. It would be easier to estimate the influence of this if we knew the test numbers and positives for each county.

In much the same way as if I remove all the coins showing heads I can demonstrate that 100% of my coins show tails.
(Clearly the ones showing heads are more likely to show a head, thus they can be removed as they are skewing the numbers...)

eddie73

Yes Dublin is a higher infected area.

Not only because more people have it there but because the population density is larger. Dublin county is small in area and almost exclusively urban.

Shops are more crowded. Those that still use public transport are running a bigger risk.

Thats just fact rather than fiction.

timsey tiger

GreeBo wrote: »

In much the same way as if I remove all the coins showing heads I can demonstrate that 100% of my coins show tails.
(Clearly the ones showing heads are more likely to show a head, thus they can be removed as they are skewing the numbers...)

I think you didn't understand the post you are replying to.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/AntiCorruptIre/status/1244394779028398081


Dublin will be fine now that Dee from Cabra has cracked 5g

timsey tiger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Can you name an example of a public figure who fits your description? I’m asking because I can’t think of any.

I can think of a number of high profile public figures who made some awful blunders in hindsight, but any suggestion that they would have deliberately mismanaged events to bring about the current circumstances in which we find ourselves, requires compelling evidence to support that assertion.

There are plenty, think of any that would promote a herd immunity approach to the pandemic.

One eyed Jack

timsey tiger wrote: »

There are plenty, think of any that would promote a herd immunity approach to the pandemic.

Yes that’s called an awful blunder in hindsight.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity.

timsey tiger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes that’s called an awful blunder in hindsight.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity.

I suppose, as I especially don't wish to get sued. However given the remove of 150 years or so from the famine, do we still consider the actions of the government at the time to be explained by incompetence or stupidity.

Or, do we consider, the whole indifference to the plight of the poor in the interests of the economy, to be something more sinister.