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
has covid 19 been blown out of all proportion?
Options
Comments
-
sheepysheep wrote: »Politicians don't like to publicly accept responsibility for mistakes. They will never signal a change in direction if they can spin their way through it instead, regardless of party.
You said that Ireland was being hammered for being so transparent compared to other countries. The only logical conclusion here is that these other countries lack transparency, I guess for political purposes, in your mind. That could be termed underhand behaviour by the swedes as they were the topic of conversation. Its what you're implying, that they are just not as honest as us.
You know full well that the exact same situation exists for Ireland was was brought to prominence by the RIP guy who compared monthly averages.
There has been endless accusations of lack of transparency against the goverments handling of the crisis. From PPE equipment to the Private Hospitals contract, to meeting Minutes. And yes, for the very specific subject of nursing home deaths there were numerous requests for the detail. The RTE 6 o'clock news today addressed transparency today with Mary Lou and Alan Kelly piping up. I'm not sure if any of the criticism is warranted,however there's plenty of it.
Would anyone actually heed what these 2 have to say !
In sf case the pyjama/ tracksuit gang may listen to see any freebie going, a house or new kitchen old one is need of replacement . Free of course0 -
Actually, all I was doing was responding to the specific inaccurate statements you made in your post comparing Sweden to its near neighbours.
Your comment that I refuse to acknowledge etc. etc. is a complete non sequitur.
Actually, what you did was respond to a post by comparing Sweden to other Nordic countries alone as though there were no other countries in Europe.
Their was nothing inaccurate in my post. Denmark is doing better than Sweden but, again, not to the degree expected when comparing a country in lockdown to one which has less restrictions, which is the very essence of the issue.
As far as I am aware the nursing homes situation are a factor for the difference in figures between Norway and Sweden. That could probably said for a lot of countries as nursing home deaths seems to be a very high percentage everywhere and a reduction there will therefore have an effect.
It's not a non sequitur to conclude that you want to declare Sweden's policy a failure by limiting your comparison to a narrow data set to suit your argument.0 -
Millionaire only not wrote: »Would anyone actually heed what these 2 have to say !
In sf case the pyjama/ tracksuit gang may listen to see any freebie going, a house or new kitchen old one is need of replacement . Free of course
Yes. It's one of the problems of not having a national goverment in such a situation. It's disappointing to see political point scoring in these circumstances. I'm guessing everyone is fully briefed on what's happening.0 -
sheepysheep wrote: »Politicians don't like to publicly accept responsibility for mistakes. They will never signal a change in direction if they can spin their way through it instead, regardless of party.
Except it wouldnt be a change of direction. Nobody is planning to stay in lock down forever. I already explained how it could be presented as a huge success.You said that Ireland was being hammered for being so transparent compared to other countries. The only logical conclusion here is that these other countries lack transparency, I guess for political purposes, in your mind. That could be termed underhand behaviour by the swedes as they were the topic of conversation. Its what you're implying, that they are just not as honest as us.
You know full well that the exact same situation exists for Ireland was was brought to prominence by the RIP guy who compared monthly averages.
Except I have explicitly stated they were not being underhanded. Your're trying your hardest now to twist what Im saying. Even when I explain it quite clearly. There are many ways of reporting numbers. Ireland has chosen an approach that counts as much as possible. Other countries arent doing the same (the UK said they would add care home deaths to their count today for example)There has been endless accusations of lack of transparency against the goverments handling of the crisis. From PPE equipment to the Private Hospitals contract, to meeting Minutes. And yes, for the very specific subject of nursing home deaths there were numerous requests for the detail. The RTE 6 o'clock news today addressed transparency today with Mary Lou and Alan Kelly piping up. I'm not sure if any of the criticism is warranted,however there's plenty of it.
Ya, people have been looking for things to complain about. Especially when they information isnt instantly available (which is impossible in fast moving crisis response). They were complaining they didnt have detail on hospital contracts and it would cost a fortune - as it turns out it will be done on a not for profit basis and disagreements will be independently arbitrated. There was issues with ppe, which people wanted immediate answers on. They pulled the numbers together and let people know how much was good or not. (PPE in general, while it has issues is an Irish success story. some countries are really struggling)0 -
sheepysheep wrote: »Actually, what you did was respond to a post by comparing Sweden to other Nordic countries alone as though there were no other countries in Europe.
Their was nothing inaccurate in my post. Denmark is doing better than Sweden but, again, not to the degree expected when comparing a country in lockdown to one which has less restrictions, which is the very essence of the issue.
As far as I am aware the nursing homes situation are a factor for the difference in figures between Norway and Sweden. That could probably said for a lot of countries as nursing home deaths seems to be a very high percentage everywhere and a reduction there will therefore have an effect.
It's not a non sequitur to conclude that you want to declare Sweden's policy a failure by limiting your comparison to a narrow data set to suit your argument.
You keep attributing sweeping statements to me that I haven’t made. My post was a direct response to your post talking about comparative figures between Sweden and its near neighbours. Nothing more, nothing less. I disagreed with the points you were making and backed it up with relevant data.
You keep trying to obfuscate by broadening the discussion to matters that I never raised.0 -
Advertisement
-
No it has not been blown out of all proportion and we need to continue to do as we are told if we want to come out of this alive, and quit looking for ways out of breaking the rules by blaming the Govt. as an excuse for doing so.0
-
You keep attributing sweeping statements to me that I haven’t made. My post was a direct response to your post talking about comparative figures between Sweden and its near neighbours. Nothing more, nothing less. I disagreed with the points you were making and backed it up with relevant data.
You keep trying to obfuscate by broadening the discussion to matters that I never raised.
I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. You are. You never raised the 'other matters' because that's other data that you don't want to address.
You said that Sweden was not doing well and evidenced this opinion by making a comparison with its neighbours as though this ended the debate.
The essence of this debate has not been why Sweden is 3 times worse than Denmark rather than why it is not 300 times worse.
Again, a subject that you just don't address. You accuse me of broadening the debate, but in truth, you're just trying to narrow it.0 -
In an article published in the Indo yesterday (Tuesday, 28 April), Ian O'Doherty wrote:We're hearing a lot of the fatuous sentiment that if the lockdown 'saves one life then it will have been worth worth it'. Actually, that's just not true. You cannot sacrifice a million real jobs for a hypothetical one life. If you take that logic to its conclusion, none of us should ever drive a car again, because if staying off the roads 'saves one life it will be worth it'.0
-
Concretejungle wrote: »No it has not been blown out of all proportion and we need to continue to do as we are told if we want to come out of this alive, and quit looking for ways out of breaking the rules by blaming the Govt. as an excuse for doing so.
Sure - saves you having to engage your brain and think for yourself.0 -
facehugger99 wrote: »Sure - saves you having to engage your brain and think for yourself.
Pity you wouldn't engage yours and stop going against common sense.0 -
Advertisement
-
Swiss elderly told they can hug children who are under 10, as 'they're not spreaders'
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/swiss-elderly-told-they-can-hug-children-who-are-under-10-as-theyre-not-spreaders-39166432.html
Are the Swiss now likely to be demonised like the Swedish as being detached and uncaring?0 -
sheepysheep wrote: »I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. You are. You never raised the 'other matters' because that's other data that you don't want to address.
You said that Sweden was not doing well and evidenced this opinion by making a comparison with its neighbours as though this ended the debate.
The essence of this debate has not been why Sweden is 3 times worse than Denmark rather than why it is not 300 times worse.
Again, a subject that you just don't address. You accuse me of broadening the debate, but in truth, you're just trying to narrow it.
Can you read? Yet again, you’re attributing comments to me that I did not make. Please read back over the various posts I have made in response to your initial post comparing Sweden to its closest neighbours and the subsequent follow ups.
Never once did I make a general statement that Sweden was not doing well. All I did was comment on the specific points you made and the fact that the evidence did not back what you were saying.0 -
Have you actually looked at the latest figures? The death rate per million population is as follows:
Sweden 225
Denmark 74
Norway 38
Finland 35
So the death rate in Sweden is over 3 times that in Denmark, which you say is not better to a degree that would justify the lockdown?
And the death rate in Sweden is almost 6 times higher than Norway. Which you put down as being attributable to Norway having smaller nursing homes? Really?
I know you're against the lockdown, but comparing Sweden to its Scandinavian neighbours does not in any way, shape or form support your argument that lockdowns don't work.
This is your original quote. Denmark being 3 better does not justify the lockdown as being better. If it was 300 times better it would.
On your second point. Nursing homes are a significant issue and there are institutional differences between homes in Norway and Sweden. Norway's are smaller and more numerous so an outbreak is not so damaging in one as would be the case in Sweden. It's openly acknowledged. Really.
I never compared Sweden to its neighbours. You did. A non sequitur of your own. I compared Sweden to lockdown countries in general, which shows that they are doing just fine.
I never said i was against the Lockdown. The point that me and many others have been making is not that lockdowns don't work, just that Sweden's model works just as well from a deaths's point of view and in the long run likely to be much better from an economic one.
But sure keep banging on about Noway, Denmark and Finland if it makes you happy.0 -
sheepysheep wrote: »This is your original quote. Denmark being 3 better does not justify the lockdown as being better. If it was 300 times better it would.
On your second point. Nursing homes are a significant issue and there are institutional differences between homes in Norway and Sweden. Norway's are smaller and more numerous so an outbreak is not so damaging in one as would be the case in Sweden. It's openly acknowledged. Really.
I never compared Sweden to its neighbours. You did. A non sequitur of your own. I compared Sweden to lockdown countries in general, which shows that they are doing just fine.
I never said i was against the Lockdown. The point that me and many others have been making is not that lockdowns don't work, just that Sweden's model works just as well from a deaths's point of view and in the long run likely to be much better from an economic one.
But sure keep banging on about Noway, Denmark and Finland if it makes you happy.
Fair load of nonsense.0 -
Hmm very comparable countries in most respects. One is an outlier in policy on this one thing and has 300% higher death rates.
It must be the way their stir their coffee. Couldn’t possibly to do so with the MASSIVELY RADICALLY different policy they took on COVID-19.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »They are really talking sense? Their whole argument is based on extrapolated data from all over the place. Which may not be the full data, it might only be a certain cohort etc. You have to ask yourself the question why is it only these two doctors that are going against the majority of medical experts?
Fame notoriety? Free publicity?
The initial projections that forced us into lockdowns are also based on extraploated data from all over the place. No peer-reviewed science there either I'm afraid.
As every bit of new data comes to light, the initial projections are being proven woefully inaccurate.sheepysheep wrote: »But the 2 boys in the video get lamblasted for suggesting that its a waste of time to quarantine the healthy rather than quarantining the sick.
Their video got deleted. How dare they question the flip-flopping WHO.0 -
sheepysheep wrote: »This is your original quote. Denmark being 3 better does not justify the lockdown as being better. If it was 300 times better it would.
On your second point. Nursing homes are a significant issue and there are institutional differences between homes in Norway and Sweden. Norway's are smaller and more numerous so an outbreak is not so damaging in one as would be the case in Sweden. It's openly acknowledged. Really.
I never compared Sweden to its neighbours. You did. A non sequitur of your own. I compared Sweden to lockdown countries in general, which shows that they are doing just fine.
I never said i was against the Lockdown. The point that me and many others have been making is not that lockdowns don't work, just that Sweden's model works just as well from a deaths's point of view and in the long run likely to be much better from an economic one.
But sure keep banging on about Noway, Denmark and Finland if it makes you happy.
Actually, I've just read back over the various posts and I find that I've been guilty of the very thing I accused you of. That is, being selective in what issues I addressed. I genuinely didn't realise this until now and I apologise.
That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything you say, but I accept that I was being somewhat selective (albeit inadvertently) in responding to the points you made. So let's revisit with a fresh perspective.
I agree that the figures for Sweden stack up quite well against Ireland, considering the economic cost of the approach that has been (and continues to be) taken here. However, I think there are significant differences between Ireland and Sweden that almost certainly distort the comparison.
For one thing, we made a major error in allowing 5,000 Italian rugby fans to visit Dublin during the first weekend in March after the international rugby match was postponed because of the catastrophic outbreak in Italy. Secondly, a huge number of Irish racegoers went to Cheltenham (which should have been cancelled - shame on you Boris!) the following week.
Now, I've no idea to what extent the above two issues have impacted on the overall number of cases that we've had to date, but it certainly hasn't helped and the fact that Dublin is the epicentre for cases in Ireland would tend to support the conjecture that the visit of the Italian rugby fans may have been a contributing factor.
I still think that the most like for like comparison is between Sweden and its near neighbours. They are further away from the Italy/Spain epicentre and probably have less interaction with those countries. I agree that 300 times would be a lot more compelling than 3 times, but there was never going to be anything approaching that level of difference.
There are also many other factors to be taken into account. Not least of these is the ability of the health services within each country to cater for a surge in cases and perhaps Sweden is better placed than Ireland to deal with such a surge. I don't know the answer to this question, but I'm very happy to be enlightened if you do know.
Depending on these factors, it may well be that Sweden are right to take a relatively relaxed attitude to social distancing while Ireland are also correct to adopt a radically different approach, because of different underlying conditions and different resources in each country.
Having said all the above, I'm beginning to come around to the view that a more focused approach may be preferable to the current broad brush approach. Isolating those most at risk and those already displaying symptoms may achieve most of the benefits of a total lockdown at a fraction of the economic and social cost.
Unfortunately, I just don't know the answer to this question. But hopefully, those who make decisions on our behalf are in a better position than I am to assess what is the right approach to take going forward.0 -
Underlying the question of whether society is overreacting, are a couple of interesting questions about human psychology, and human risk-taking.
In our species' consciousness, "losses loom larger than gains". As a society we will always react more strongly to a possible loss than a possible gain. When something has the possibility of a high death rate, we will always "overreact" because dying (loss) seems far worse to us than the equivalent gain (healthy economy, etc).
That said there is a tipping point when every one of us will switch from favouring strong measures, to favouring a relaxation of those measures.
Consider: if you knew that a single loved one would die due to an extremely rare disease circulating in society, would you (given the power) lock down society to prevent the loved one from getting it? Even if it meant shutting down the economy, with all that entails in the long term, to save just one person? Would you do it for a week? A year? Forever?
I think some would answer "yes" but probably, the majority would say "no". They would recognize that the harm to that one person is outweighed by the harm to society as a whole.
At some point along the scale, starting at one person dying, to everyone in society dying, each of one us switches from a "no" to a "yes". Where on the scale you switch, measures your risk tolerance (and possibly some other things like empathy).
We shouldn't attack each other for differing views on whether the lockdown is necessary. Our individual orientation towards risk, and our ability to empathise with others, set our minds in one direction or the other. We need a broad range of people in society with a broad range of risk tolerances, otherwise some things would simply not work. (Imagine a society of people who refuse to risk the very real possibility of death from driving automobiles).
I am guessing that our societal risk tolerance has materially reduced in the last century. Making us react to this particular outbreak with more severe and wide-spread measures than we have reacted in the past. Relative to society's attitudes in the last 100 years, we are reacting more severely due to an increased belief that we as a group should do everything possible to reduce risk to near zero. We are "overreacting" in the historical sense, because we have moved down the scale in terms of our risk tolerance.
Even the most die-hard of the lockdown advocates would change their stance if the consequences of prolonged lockdown began to kill more people than COVID. However since that is a future, ill-defined scenario, we are bound to react as we are now, which is to minimise the current risk of death. In my view, we are unable to react in any other way due to our underlying orientation that "losses loom larger than gains". And tangible, immediate losses loom larger than future, ill-defined losses.
So be kind to each other - despite our differing views on risk, and our different levels of human empathy. And remember that there are some things far worse than the death of individuals. For instance, living a life full of hate and bitterness toward one's fellow creatures due to differences of opinion....0 -
Actually, I've just read back over the various posts and I find that I've been guilty of the very thing I accused you of. That is, being selective in what issues I addressed. I genuinely didn't realise this until now and I apologise.
That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything you say, but I accept that I was being somewhat selective (albeit inadvertently) in responding to the points you made. So let's revisit with a fresh perspective.
I agree that the figures for Sweden stack up quite well against Ireland, considering the economic cost of the approach that has been (and continues to be) taken here. However, I think there are significant differences between Ireland and Sweden that almost certainly distort the comparison.
For one thing, we made a major error in allowing 5,000 Italian rugby fans to visit Dublin during the first weekend in March after the international rugby match was postponed because of the catastrophic outbreak in Italy. Secondly, a huge number of Irish racegoers went to Cheltenham (which should have been cancelled - shame on you Boris!) the following week.
Now, I've no idea to what extent the above two issues have impacted on the overall number of cases that we've had to date, but it certainly hasn't helped and the fact that Dublin is the epicentre for cases in Ireland would tend to support the conjecture that the visit of the Italian rugby fans may have been a contributing factor.
I still think that the most like for like comparison is between Sweden and its near neighbours. They are further away from the Italy/Spain epicentre and probably have less interaction with those countries. I agree that 300 times would be a lot more compelling than 3 times, but there was never going to be anything approaching that level of difference.
There are also many other factors to be taken into account. Not least of these is the ability of the health services within each country to cater for a surge in cases and perhaps Sweden is better placed than Ireland to deal with such a surge. I don't know the answer to this question, but I'm very happy to be enlightened if you do know.
Depending on these factors, it may well be that Sweden are right to take a relatively relaxed attitude to social distancing while Ireland are also correct to adopt a radically different approach, because of different underlying conditions and different resources in each country.
Having said all the above, I'm beginning to come around to the view that a more focused approach may be preferable to the current broad brush approach. Isolating those most at risk and those already displaying symptoms may achieve most of the benefits of a total lockdown at a fraction of the economic and social cost.
Unfortunately, I just don't know the answer to this question. But hopefully, those who make decisions on our behalf are in a better position than I am to assess what is the right approach to take going forward.
I'm rooting for Sweden.
Their model spurts out an upper limit on the number of critical beds needed and yes it was within their capacity.
Ireland (I think) failed this test.
Five countries passed this critical bed test for herd immunity plan. I can't verify this, but I think I read something about it.0 -
Just to answer the question- in Ireland it has for sure been blown out of proportions.0
-
Advertisement
-
Underlying the question of whether society is overreacting, are a couple of interesting questions about human psychology, and human risk-taking.
In our species' consciousness, "losses loom larger than gains". As a society we will always react more strongly to a possible loss than a possible gain. When something has the possibility of a high death rate, we will always "overreact" because dying (loss) seems far worse to us than the equivalent gain (healthy economy, etc).
That said there is a tipping point when every one of us will switch from favouring strong measures, to favouring a relaxation of those measures.
Consider: if you knew that a single loved one would die due to an extremely rare disease circulating in society, would you (given the power) lock down society to prevent the loved one from getting it? Even if it meant shutting down the economy, with all that entails in the long term, to save just one person? Would you do it for a week? A year? Forever?
I think some would answer "yes" but probably, the majority would say "no". They would recognize that the harm to that one person is outweighed by the harm to society as a whole.
At some point along the scale, starting at one person dying, to everyone in society dying, each of one us switches from a "no" to a "yes". Where on the scale you switch, measures your risk tolerance (and possibly some other things like empathy).
We shouldn't attack each other for differing views on whether the lockdown is necessary. Our individual orientation towards risk, and our ability to empathise with others, set our minds in one direction or the other. We need a broad range of people in society with a broad range of risk tolerances, otherwise some things would simply not work. (Imagine a society of people who refuse to risk the very real possibility of death from driving automobiles).
I am guessing that our societal risk tolerance has materially reduced in the last century. Making us react to this particular outbreak with more severe and wide-spread measures than we have reacted in the past. Relative to society's attitudes in the last 100 years, we are reacting more severely due to an increased belief that we as a group should do everything possible to reduce risk to near zero. We are "overreacting" in the historical sense, because we have moved down the scale in terms of our risk tolerance.
Even the most die-hard of the lockdown advocates would change their stance if the consequences of prolonged lockdown began to kill more people than COVID. However since that is a future, ill-defined scenario, we are bound to react as we are now, which is to minimise the current risk of death. In my view, we are unable to react in any other way due to our underlying orientation that "losses loom larger than gains". And tangible, immediate losses loom larger than future, ill-defined losses.
So be kind to each other - despite our differing views on risk, and our different levels of human empathy. And remember that there are some things far worse than the death of individuals. For instance, living a life full of hate and bitterness toward one's fellow creatures due to differences of opinion....
TLDR: Society is more risk adverse than it once was.
You seem to be echoing a lot of Daniel Khaneman's book 'Thinking, Fast and Slow.'
However, if you look at it from another angle maybe society has become more attuned to the world around it? Plus there is more awareness of how to prevent disease and so. Technological advances and the global village we now live in, which paradoxically both caused this pandemic, have also slowed it down.
It does amuse me that people are STILL arguing that it is been blown out of all proportion. As it has been pointed out by numerous posters. It is precisely because of the measures taken that the figures have changed.
An idea would be to set up a test county in Ireland where there are no Covid-19 restrictions. A small one like Leitrim (That most would not miss). Let any of thier covid 19 cases into the general Leitrim population. Have the army set up up a 4km no mans land perimeter around the county. Shoot on sight policy for any unauthorised entry to/from Leitrim (bar food delivery trucks - drivers in full protective garb).
Then see how many people lived, died, from the 32k population at the end. And how the healthcare system coped.
Just as a matter of interest.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »
It does amuse me that people are STILL arguing that it is been blown out of all proportion. As it has been pointed out by numerous posters. It is precisely because of the measures taken that the figures have changed.
The measures have had the effect of reducing the transmission rate of this disease.
It does not detract from the fact that the original projections were blown out of proportions.what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence0 -
The measures have had the effect of reducing the transmission rate of this disease.
It does not detract from the fact that the original projections were blown out of proportions.
Hang on a minute what do expect a test case now for the next six weeks worldwide where there are Zero covid19 precautions. Just to see if the confirmed cases can hit some sort of target, and deaths can hit some sort of morbid target. So you can say ahah told you so!
Also whose target are you claiming had thier projections all out of proportion?
Xyz organsation, Abc organisation, or all of them? Also what context were such predictions stated in. Example if we do not take precautions the figures could be xyz etc.
Or do people just hear what they want to hear these days?
The irony for me is the what has been blown out of all proportion is people whinging after 6 weeks about mental health. I would hate to see how such people fare, after serious surgery or a physical health condition.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Hang on a minute what do expect a test case now for the next six weeks worldwide where there are Zero covid19 precautions. Just to see if the confirmed cases can hit some sort of target, and deaths can hit some sort of morbid target. So you can say ahah told you so!
Also whose target are you claiming had thier projections all out of proportion?
Xyz organsation, Abc organisation, or all of them? Also what context were such predictions stated in. Example if we do not take precautions the figures could be xyz etc.
Or do people just hear what they want to hear these days?
The irony for me is the what has been blown out of all proportion is people whinging after 6 weeks about mental health. I would hate to see how such people fare, after serious surgery or a physical health condition.
Well I guess those whingers see people in Spain/Italy begging for food, they see suicide rates skyrocketting, they see domestic abuse on the increase, they see people losing their jobs/livelihoods. They see businesses being shut possibly forever.
Or perhaps those whingers are thinking about the years of economic hardship and struggle to follow akin to 1930's depression. When theft, crime, war, everything starts to rise.
Maybe those whingers are considering our 'end-game' do we sit and wait for a vaccine that might not come out for 3-4 years and will we have to make vaccines mandatory just so people will take them?
Naw whingers the lot of them, can't handle a few days in at home.
It's funny that there was no talk of not shutting down at the beginning. Everyone was on board when we didn't know, those frightening projections of millions of deaths within a matter of weeks. Its also funny how things change and new data comes to light, there's no scripture in science.0 -
Well I guess those whingers see people in Spain/Italy begging for food, they see suicide rates skyrocketting, they see domestic abuse on the increase, they see people losing their jobs/livelihoods. They see businesses being shut possibly forever.
Or perhaps those whingers are thinking about the years of economic hardship and struggle to follow akin to 1930's depression. When theft, crime, war, everything starts to rise.
Maybe those whingers are considering our 'end-game' do we sit and wait for a vaccine that might not come out for 3-4 years and will we have to make vaccines mandatory just so people will take them?
Naw whingers the lot of them, can't handle a few days in at home.
It's funny that there was no talk of not shutting down at the beginning. Everyone was on board when we didn't know, those frightening projections of millions of deaths within a matter of weeks. Its also funny how things change and new data comes to light, there's no scripture in science.
If ever there was a post blowing things out of proportion this was it. By you deliberately misconstruing my previous post. I directly referred to people whinging over having to curtail thier movements for a few weeks. Nothing more.
Obviously those who are in the aviation industry and so on could lose thier jobs and many others.
But it does not negate the fact that all sorts of whingers with damn all to whinge about, have came out of the woodwork.
There are whackjobs with conspiracy theories as well. Plus there are the selfish who do not adhere to the restrictions and so on.
Some people just enjoy being miserable and this is thier chance to shine.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
-
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0501/1135934-behaviour/Professor Molly Byrne, Director of the Health Behaviour Change Research Group, NUIG, and a member of the NPHET Behaviour Change subgroup, said its members would be advising health authorities that they need to explain the rationale of any decisions to the public.
Yet interestingly any talk that goes against the lockdown measures of the WHO gets deleted and de-monetized on social media.0 -
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0501/1135934-behaviour/
Yet interestingly any talk that goes against the lockdown measures of the WHO gets deleted and de-monetized on social media.
You mean like the below?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/world-health-organization-praises-sweden-for-coronavirus-response-resisting-shutdowns0 -
Plumbthedepths wrote: »
I confused WHO with our local health authority, I assumed that's where they were getting their advice.
It does go on to say in that article:
He later described Swedens' public approach to the novel coronavirus as in "partnership with the population." Which is what I was getting at.“What it has done differently is it has very much relied on its relationship with its citizenry, and the ability and willingness of citizens to implement physical distancing and to self-regulate, if you want to use that word,”
Social media have decided that any discourse on the measures taken by local authorities is subject to being removed, in stark constrast to these recommendations.
source"We quickly remove flagged content that violate our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local healthy authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance,”
The problem is we live in a democracy where we are free to 'dispute the efficacy of local healthy authority recommended guidance".0 -
Advertisement
-
The measures have had the effect of reducing the transmission rate of this disease.
It does not detract from the fact that the original projections were blown out of proportions.
The projection of 85,000 was a worst case scenario possible, also over the course of at least a year. 1265 have died in 5 weeks with a massive lockdown, its also been the best case scenario scenario within that,given that its hardly that hard to imagine the worst case figure if cases were so many that health service collapsed. I'm sure by the end of the crisis, when a vaccine arrives in 18-24 months and we have experienced multiple waves, Ireland will have done very well if it keeps total deaths under 15,000-20,000
Anyway looks like Brazil will serve as a constant reminder to the world as an example of an urbanised society which didnt embrace any social distancing measures
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/30/brazil-manaus-coronavirus-mass-graves0
Advertisement