has covid 19 been blown out of all proportion?

Risteard81

Tell me how wrote: »

Not by the dictionary definition kid. Yourself and a few dozen people at the high court will just have to accept that.

dik·tat

noun
an order or decree imposed by someone in power without popular consent.

You obviously support the ruling by decree through television press conferences by an unelected junta. And yet you pretend that it's democracy.

Hitler was elected. His Enabling Act has been replicated here.

Tell me how

Risteard81 wrote: »

You obviously support the ruling by decree through television press conferences by an unelected junta. And yet you pretend that it's democracy.

Hitler was elected. His Enabling Act has been replicated here.

You must have missed the part where the elected representatives of the Dail and the Seanad acting under the constitution passed the emergency legislation.

Thank you for proving Godwin's Law once again.

Risteard81

Tell me how wrote: »

You must have missed the part where the elected representatives of the Dail and the Seanad acting under the constitution passed the emergency legislation.

Thank you for proving Godwin's Law once again.

YOU missed the part where the Enabling Act was passed by the German parliament.

boardise

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Either that or the "predictions" were wrong

But they weren't 'predictions' -more like warning alerts in a stated worst case scenario to get people to realise the possible scale of the threat posed.

If i see someone on a cliff edge on a windy day -I might say 'You could be blown off by a sudden gust and die on the rocks below'.
I am not predicting that it will happen.

WrigleysExtra

namloc1980 wrote: »

People over 60 and those who are sick need to be protected just as much as everyone else.

Yes, they need to isolate from the rest of society if that's what's needed, but the rest of us need to get back to work in the meantime.

Charles Babbage

sheepysheep wrote: »

Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.

So the people of Bergamo and New York were not scared by the morgues becoming overwhelmed, only the novelty of the disease?

sheepysheep wrote: »

The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 is the region of 0.1%
At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available

Various studies in hard hit places do not show 50% of people as having had the disease, so the true fatality rate is more like 0.5% than 0.1% and is an order of magnitude more than regular flu, to which we have some immunity. But don't let facts get in the way.

sheepysheep

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

But without measures to slow the rate of infection down, the hospitals would have been overrun. See Italy and Spain.

We won't know the overall death rate until long after the fact, and won't be able to compare to the rates of other countries unless and until an identical method of recording deaths is used in all countries.

Sweden hasn't been overrun by implementing a much less drastic response which is the point. Increasing ICU capacity would be seen as an appropriate response as would targeting the elderly. Roughly half of our deaths are related to nursing homes, much like the rest of Europe.

The Swedish government didn't just take a gamble. They used their own evidence based research to decide that initial predictions of a IFR of 2-5% was incorrect and that the correct IFR was well below 1%. Which is great for everyone. All current evidence seems to agree with an IFR between .5 to .1 and that's among the general population.

At this stage can it not reasonably be asked if the response has been incorrect and the damage to the economy is completely disproportionate when compared to the good it is achieving.

polesheep

WrigleysExtra wrote: »

Yes, they need to isolate from the rest of society if that's what's needed, but the rest of us need to get back to work in the meantime.

Where did you get over 60 from?

pwurple

WrigleysExtra wrote: »

Yes, they need to isolate from the rest of society if that's what's needed, but the rest of us need to get back to work in the meantime.

It's really not that simple. You're talking about a million people there.

The over 60's work too, in employment. loads of them.

The over 60's also often provide the childcare for grandchildren, or as childminders for the workforce.

This is our demographic profile:

0-14 years: 21.37% (male 554,110 /female 529,067)
15-24 years: 11.92% (male 306,052 /female 297,890)
25-54 years: 42.86% (male 1,091,495 /female 1,080,594)
55-64 years: 10.53% (male 267,255 /female 266,438)
65 years and over: 13.32% (male 312,694 /female 362,455) (2018 est.)

pwurple

sheepysheep wrote: »

Sweden hasn't been overrun by implementing a much less drastic response which is the point.

I wish people wouldn't use sweden as an example, because it's quite different to here.

Rural sweden has very few cases, they effectively have not been exposed, because stockhom changed behaviour very early. So they didn't need to isolate.

That's what happened.

But stockholm is affected.

"Those living within Sweden insist that the idea that life continues as normal in the country is far from the truth. In Stockholm, the amount of people moving around the city has been less than a third of its usual level since late March, according to statistics from transport app Citymapper. Residents describe traffic-free roads, quiet streets, and people careful to keep their distance.

“A lot of people think Sweden’s open for business and everything is open as usual, but Swedes are taking this very seriously,”"

Balf

is_that_so wrote: »

I think there are up to 45 of them on NEPHT, a figure I heard mentioned. From its remit it looks like they pull whoever they need into whatever emergency they are working on.

So, despite your earlier claim to the effect that NPHET had a broad membership, you actually don't know the membership and cannot identify a source that does.

And you cannot identify any comment when the CMO gives any weight to economic considerations. So your earlier comments are just makey-up.

As I suspected.

Boggles

A lot of myths being put forward as fact about Sweden.

People need to start reading more than just the headlines.

No excuse for it.

sheepysheep

pwurple wrote: »

I wish people wouldn't use sweden as an example, because it's quite different to here.

Rural sweden has very few cases, they effectively have not been exposed, because stockhom changed behaviour very early. So they didn't need to isolate.

That's what happened.

But stockholm is affected.

"Those living within Sweden insist that the idea that life continues as normal in the country is far from the truth. In Stockholm, the amount of people moving around the city has been less than a third of its usual level since late March, according to statistics from transport app Citymapper. Residents describe traffic-free roads, quiet streets, and people careful to keep their distance.

“A lot of people think Sweden’s open for business and everything is open as usual, but Swedes are taking this very seriously,”"

I used Sweden as an example because it is the only alternative to our our and Europe's default position of lockdown.

Is Sweden or Stockholm really that different to Dublin or Ireland? Do Swedish parents not hug their kids after coming home from primary school?

Rural Ireland has very few cases also.

I didn't claim that Sweden was taking the situation lightly. They are taking it very seriously. Just employing a different response.

Check out Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists on Youtube for a well argued explanation of why lockdown is a waste of time.

extra gravy

Risteard81 wrote: »

You obviously support the ruling by decree through television press conferences by an unelected junta. And yet you pretend that it's democracy.

Hitler was elected. His Enabling Act has been replicated here.

Junta: a military government that has taken power by force, and not through elections.

Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of.

Balf

Beasty wrote: »

But that 85,000 was described as "worst case". So maybe they fully expected it to be a lot less, but how much less? I guess their models would look at those who are vulnerable. 25,000+ in nursing homes. What if it was rampant in all rather than half those nursing homes? What if the hospitals had been overrun? What if as many outside nursing homes died of this as are in such homes?

Look, Leo lent his name to the 85,000 figure. You don't have an obligation to excuse it on his behalf.

At the time, the figure was explained in a fairly flat way. 60% of us, or something like that, would get it, and 2%, or whatever gives you 85,000, would die.

So, like, a country that typically has 30,000 deaths a year from all causes was going to see a multiple of that dying from this single virus.

And that's what's questionable. Like, the measures are supremely effective, although there's nowhere with the equivalent of 85,000 deaths pro rata. Or the estimate was far too high, and we've collapsed the economy, done god-knows-what to the social development of our children and mental health of young people facing State exams, and painted ourselves into a corner that can't easily be gotten out of. For what?

Because the cost isn't just 'ah, can you not just stay in'. And 'how many deaths do you want!' is just an evasive, grandstanding response.

No-one wants any deaths.

sheepysheep

Charles Babbage wrote: »

So the people of Bergamo and New York were not scared by the morgues becoming overwhelmed, only the novelty of the disease?






Various studies in hard hit places do not show 50% of people as having had the disease, so the true fatality rate is more like 0.5% than 0.1% and is an order of magnitude more than regular flu, to which we have some immunity. But don't let facts get in the way.

Your arguement is with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, not me.

He's probably in a better position to make some claims than you.

Even now, his claim that the IFR will be around .1% would probably be true for ages 0-65, and possibly lower if anyone wants to work it out for Ireland.

Long_Wave

I have a feeling that if this covid had broken out say 15 years ago that very few countries would have gone down the lockdown route.

cooperguy

sheepysheep wrote: »

Your arguement is with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, not me.

He's probably in a better position to make some claims than you.

Even now, his claim that the IFR will be around .1% would probably be true for ages 0-65, and possibly lower if anyone wants to work it out for Ireland.

That doesn't really matter. If your healthcare system is threatened with being overrun with cases and deaths and being ground to a halt then something has to be done about it. Arguing whether the number is .1 or .5, while interesting, is not really the main issue and won't be known for sure for quite a while

sheepysheep

cooperguy wrote: »

That doesn't really matter. If your healthcare system is threatened with being overrun with cases and deaths and being ground to a halt then something has to be done about it. Arguing whether the number is .1 or .5, while interesting, is not really the main issue and won't be known for sure for quite a while

Is it not the very essence of the issue?

At the start of the pandemic the fear was that the IFR would be around 2-5 % which is just a massive amount of deaths.For Ireland that would be 250k dead for 5%. For 0.1% its 5k.

Then you can ask if that number would overrun the health service and plan accordingly, which the Swedes did from pretty much the same starting position.

amadangomor

Balf wrote: »

Sorry to hear you had so much personal connection to the 0.02% of the population who have had their deaths ascribed to CV 19, and to some of the rare cases of healthy people aged under 60 who have seriously suffered from the virus.

Wow, what a dik post :rolleyes: Such edge :pac:

Pinch Flat

BloodBath wrote: »

No evidence for 20 significant mutations, the death rate is nowhere near as high as 1.7% and you are assuming 100% infection rate for that number.

The measures were still appropriate but what you're stating is nonsense as well.

Take 50% of the population an apply 1.7% and you still have huge number. We're talking about the potential of 10's of thousands of deaths, so whether it was 40,000 or 80,00 it would still have been an overwhelming number.

Scientists have recorded mutations of the virus. This is widely reported. Admittedly some of the research being cited as not being peer reviewed or published in academic journals, but I'm guessing the epidemiologists have a bit on their hands trying to figure our a virus that's proven to be a real challenge.

Long_Wave wrote: »

I have a feeling that if this covid had broken out say 15 years ago that very few countries would have gone down the lockdown route.

why?

FintanMcluskey

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Take 50% of the population an apply 1.7% and you still have huge number. We're talking about the potential of 10's of thousands of deaths, so whether it was 40,000 or 80,00 it would still have been an overwhelming number.

Scientists have recorded mutations of the virus. This is widely reported. Admittedly some of the research being cited as not being peer reviewed or published in academic journals, but I'm guessing the epidemiologists have a bit on their hands trying to figure our a virus that's proven to be a real challenge.



why?

Whats the 1.7%

Turtwig

sheepysheep wrote: »

At the start of the pandemic the fear was that the IFR would be around 2-5 % which is just a massive amount

This is just not true. The earliest epidemiological reports on this disease estimated between .4% to .8%. Heck, even the Wuhan lockdown assumed under 1% for justification for the reasoning to lockdown.

Every country wants to keep within health capacity. The closer they are to the precipice the more restrictive they'll be. This is as true for Sweden as it is anywhere.

sheepysheep

Turtwig wrote: »

This is just not true. The earliest epidemiological reports on this disease estimated between .4% to .8%. Heck, even the Wuhan lockdown assumed under 1% for justification for the reasoning to lockdown.

Every country wants to keep within health capacity. The closer they are to the precipice the more restrictive they'll be. This is as true for Sweden as it is anywhere.

In his opening remarks at the March 3 media briefing on Covid-19, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated:

“Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.”

wakka12

sheepysheep wrote: »

In his opening remarks at the March 3 media briefing on Covid-19, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated:

“Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.”

And he was right. 3.4% of reported COVID cases had died

cooperguy

sheepysheep wrote: »

Is it not the very essence of the issue?

At the start of the pandemic the fear was that the IFR would be around 2-5 % which is just a massive amount of deaths.For Ireland that would be 250k dead for 5%. For 0.1% its 5k.

Then you can ask if that number would overrun the health service and plan accordingly, which the Swedes did from pretty much the same starting position.

We have evidence from a number of countries (which have more capacity in their health system than we do) that a system can become overwhelmed. That is what we need to know and get in front of. Im not sure 5% was considered a realistic number when we went into lockdown but we didn't know (and still dont) exactly what that number is.

sheepysheep

wakka12 wrote: »

And he was right. 3.4% of reported COVID cases had died

Yep. The point being that the actual mortality rate was significantly lower and that explains why so much of the initial modelling was wrong, and how things got blown out of proportion, which is what the Professor of Epidemiology, Johan Giesecke, was saying.

Turtwig

I really don't understand the relevance of a media briefing quote from the director general of the WHO. Does that somehow disprove the fact that most public health professionals assumed the fatality rate was below 1%? If Tedros was asked what he believed the infection fatality rate to be, what would have been his answer?

sheepysheep wrote: »

Yep. The point being that the actual mortality rate was significantly lower and that explains why so much of the initial modelling was wrong, and how things got blown out of proportion, which is what the Professor of Epidemiology, Johan Giesecke, was saying.

Can you point to an initial model that assumed such a high fatality rate?

sheepysheep

cooperguy wrote: »

We have evidence from a number of countries (which have more capacity in their health system than we do) that a system can become overwhelmed. That is what we need to know and get in front of. Im not sure 5% was considered a realistic number when we went into lockdown but we didn't know (and still dont) exactly what that number is.

I don't think anyone is saying that the Healthcare Service getting overwhelmed is anything other than a disaster.

From what I'm aware of, Sweden actually had less ICU capacity than Ireland.

If Ireland had used Swedish numbers and precautions, we should be in a relatively similar position without the lockdown, which in itself now presents a huge problem worldwide as countries attempt to extradite themselves from it's paralysis.

In terms, of deaths, the Professor was making the point that either way, the numbers will eventually be very similar.

sheepysheep

Turtwig wrote: »

I really don't understand the relevance of a media briefing quote from the director general of the WHO. Does that somehow disprove the fact that most public health professionals assumed the fatality rate was below 1%? If Tedros was asked what he believed the infection fatality rate to be, what would have been his answer?


Can you point to an initial model that assumed such a high fatality rate?

He's the director general of the WHO. I doubt he took his info from Boards. Ask him where he sourced his material, I don't know.

He made a direct comparison with deaths caused by the seasonal flu. I think any reasonable person would conclude that he was saying that 3.4 in every 100 who contacts the virus will die as compared to every 1 in a 100 for flu.