has covid 19 been blown out of all proportion?

Gamer Bhoy 89

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I think this thing has been blown out of proportion however I am not stupid.
Having a discussion and taking risks are two different things.

This is the kind of thing we can never know for sure.

Not going to play Russian Roulette just because I think a gun is not loaded.

Well then you have completely answered your own original question and contradicted your argument since.

If a psycho comes into a housing estate and threatens to kill all 200 people living in it if they come out of their homes, and every family stays inside, is it blown out of proportion to say that there were 0 deaths when originally there was supposed to be 200?

If you weren't taking the precautions and everyone else followed suit, you would be making a very different thread asking a very different question.

Bruthal

Risteard81 wrote: »

As a licensed skydiver I can assure you that the analogy is completely ridiculous and makes no sense. Complete nonsense by the lovers of totalitarianism to support the totalitarian state by the unelected junta.

Next they will stop qualified people working on items in their own homes.

cian68

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I wonder what the consensus will be in five years time?

What scares me is if we rush back and the number of deaths soars history will not look back kindly that we couldn't wait it out

VinLieger

Risteard81 wrote: »

As a licensed skydiver I can assure you that the analogy is completely ridiculous and makes no sense. Complete nonsense by the lovers of totalitarianism to support the totalitarian state by the unelected junta.

Whooosh, yes that's the sound of it going over your head

But also proving a big point of the analogy because you claim to have knowledge about skydiving so can understand enough to say why its stupid.

Can you tell us please are you equally as accredited in any scientific field specifically epidemiology to be able to say why social distancing should be allowed stop?

Also unelected junta.... lol i haven't laughed that hard in a while, can you tell me please by what force our currently elected representatives took power for them to be referred to as a junta?

Bruthal

VinLieger wrote: »

Can you tell us please are you equally as accredited in any scientific field specifically epidemiology to be able to say why social distancing should be allowed stop?

He probably does not support people being restricted by others. Except when there is a vested interest, in which case he takes every opportunity to point out such restrictions.

Tell me how

Bruthal wrote: »

He probably does not support people being restricted by others. Except when there is a vested interest, in which case he takes every opportunity to point out such restrictions.

Do you think there is a vested interest here?

What is it?

lozenges

facehugger99 wrote: »

You confusing correlation with causation - it's quite common.

There is no evidence to suggest the restrictions have reduced death numbers as you suggest. However, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest the original estimates were ridiculously over-estimated.

I understand perfectly well the difference between correlation and causation. Good luck getting ethical approval for your randomised controlled trial where half of Ireland is in lockdown and half is not though.

I wonder which arm will be closed early due to the excess mortality.

facehugger99

pjohnson wrote: »

You think its been blown out proportion because restrictions have stopped the worst case scenario.

What exactly did you expect restrictions to do?

No evidence of this whatsoever but taken as an article of faith among the bunker-brigade.

Balf

is_that_so wrote: »

That's the link to NEPHT members.

https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/4abdb7-minutes-of-national-public-health-emergency-team-nphet-meetings-2019/?referrer=/national-patient-safety-office/patient-safety-surveillance/antimicrobial-resistance-amr-2/public-health-emergency-plan-to-tackle-cpe/nphet-press-releases-minutes-of-meetings/

That CMO "statement" was during a briefing but don't ask me which one but it was very early on and I'd say he has repeated it. It was the along the lines of doing things at the right time and being aware of the economic cost. If I find a link I'll post it.

If you can't find a reference to the CMO stating that economic costs feature in his thinking, then can I suggest that demonstrates they haven't really featured to any real extent.

I don't see a clear membership list for NPHET, but notice the meetings seem to be attended only by DoH and HSE personnel and the 21 member expert group are mostly doctors, with a few nurses and other healthcare professionals.

And, anticipating comment from someone half reading the thread, the poster I am responding to was asserting that NPHET has a broad membership, taking account of wider whole economy impacts and not just health service issues. That poster is talking obvious nonsense.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's not possible to prove a negative.

You might as well argue that the restrictions have prevented an alien invasion because we haven't had one since they were introduced.

Northern ireland is belived to have had 500 deaths,by delaying their lockdown by 2 weeks,as opposed 800 here in free state.....the figures pretty much stack up in favour of lockdown

There may never be a vaccine for this. There almost certainly won't be one in the next 18 months. We need to get the country back to some form of normality or we face a economic crisis that will make the 1930's depression look like the Teddy Bear's picnic.

Oxford university tested vaccine on humans yesterday

Bruthal

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think there is a vested interest here?

What is it?

Not sure of the motivation here. But he opposes these public health based restrictions, claiming the people who brought them in are dictators.

But supports restrictions in his own field to a militaristic level, pointing out constantly the legal situation. No complaints with the representatives who brought that in though.

Beasty

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Hard to say that is why these things should be discussed.

How many people might a broke country with a failed economy kill?

I wonder what the consensus will be in five years time?

And that's exactly the point

If we had put in place no restrictions, what do you reckon? The only figure I've seen is that 85,000. We also had that 15,000 infected projection, which I believe was quite accurate looking at the official figures and examples elsewhere as to what was missed

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?

of course, we are not there yet. Maybe we have something like 1,000 deaths from this at present. By the time this is over it could easily be 2,000 or more. Then there is the likely second wave.

We are talking about a novel virus we have not experienced before. If it had been a flu pandemic we would have models we could reasonably trust. Even now we are far more informed about this virus than we were when the restrictions were put n place, but we've had centuries to get to understand flu. We've had months with Covid-19, and our knowledge will continue to grow as we exit this virus, and indeed probably enter wave 2 and maybe wave 3. How many deaths by the end of that 3rd wave? 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? We really do not know

Beasty

Every one of us has a vested interest here, so let's drop that line of discussion

Balf

Deleted User wrote: »

Oxford university tested vaccine on humans yesterday

Grand.

So we'll rush that into production, with a Government indemnity for the drugs company, and look surprised when there's more problems in a years time.

lozenges

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

My claim to being protected from bears by my anti bear rock is as valid as the claims that 10's of thousands of deaths have been prevented by the lockdown.

Can you provide a plausible biological mechanism by which your rock deters bears? We already have one for coronavirus transmission.

Kidchameleon

cian68 wrote: »

That is precisely BECAUSE of the precautions taken

Either that or the "predictions" were wrong

storker

facehugger99 wrote: »

No evidence of this whatsoever but taken as an article of faith among the bunker-brigade.

Hmmm...it's a medical fact that the virus spreads between humans in close proximity. It's a mathematical fact that if you reduce close human interactions, you reduce the spread. If you reduce the spread, you reduce the total number infected. If you reduce the total number infected, you reduce the number of deaths.

So, to support restrictions as a means of reducing deaths is not an article of faith. Far from it. The restrictions are preventing infections and saving lives.

As for the 85,000, the term "worst-case scenario" is pretty clear - to most people anyway. Obviously, we haven't hit the worst-case scenario and there is both mathematical and medical evidence that the restrictions have played a significant role in this, and that can't be gainsaid by something as facile as a handwave in the direction of correlation and causation.

We also shouldn't forget that this isn't just about deaths. Over three times as many people as have died have required hospitalisation; the restrictions are also in place to reduce the load on the hospitals so that they don't become overloaded, because that's when the real worst-case scenario starts to kick in: when people seriously ill from other causes and those who might have survived COVID-19 with medical help can't even get treatment at over-capacity hospitals.

Out of interest, how many deaths would be acceptable to you as a price worth paying for business as usual?

lbj666

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

So it's 100 times less because of the lockdown?

Sweden seems to be getting along ok without the lockdown.

Italy and Spain let this go uncontrolled for a while and look what happened there.

is_that_so

Balf wrote: »

If you can't find a reference to the CMO stating that economic costs feature in his thinking, then can I suggest that demonstrates they haven't really featured to any real extent.

I don't see a clear membership list for NPHET, but notice the meetings seem to be attended only by DoH and HSE personnel and the 21 member expert group are mostly doctors, with a few nurses and other healthcare professionals.

And, anticipating comment from someone half reading the thread, the poster I am responding to was asserting that NPHET has a broad membership, taking account of wider whole economy impacts and not just health service issues. That poster is talking obvious nonsense.

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.

0lddog

storker wrote: »

..... the restrictions are also in place to reduce the load on the hospitals so that they don't become overloaded, because that's when the real worst-case scenario starts to kick in......

Exactly this.


Everything else on this thread is just old guff or well meaning mission creep.

storker

Risteard81 wrote: »

As a licensed skydiver I can assure you that the analogy is completely ridiculous and makes no sense. Complete nonsense by the lovers of totalitarianism to support the totalitarian state by the unelected junta.

So as a licensed skydiver you think it's OK if on a 10,00 foot jump, you remove your parachute 2,000 feet from the ground? Where did you get your license, the Craggy Island School of Skydiving?

WrigleysExtra

Yes it has been massively blown out of proportion and it will take a long time for the economy and society to recover. The reality is, the majority of deaths have been in the 60+ age category and people with underlying illnesses, sure there's outliers, but people need to stop pushing the 1% case as if it applies to the whole of society.
Read this article from Dr. Marcus Debrun and see what an utter disaster this has been.

https://sway.office.com/PwTN7GCvJWDgn9yd

namloc1980

WrigleysExtra wrote: »

Yes it has been massively blown out of proportion and it will take a long time for the economy and society to recover. The reality is, the majority of deaths have been in the 60+ age category and people with underlying illnesses, sure there's outliers, but people need to stop pushing the 1% case as if it applies to the whole of society.
Read this article from Dr. Marcus Debrun and see what an utter disaster this has been.

https://sway.office.com/PwTN7GCvJWDgn9yd

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

storker

namloc1980 wrote: »

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

I think a lot of posters are happy to wave these away as acceptable economic collateral damage.

Plumbthedepths

storker wrote: »

So as a licensed skydiver you think it's OK if on a 10,00 foot jump, you remove your parachute 2,000 feet from the ground? Where did you get your license, the Craggy Island School of Skydiving?

Its a stupid analogy simply because contracting the virus does not guarantee death or very serious injury, whereas the removal of a parachute and a free fall to the ground from 2000 feet would almost certainly result in death or very serious life changing injuries.

storker

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Its a stupid analogy simply because contracting the virus does not guarantee death or very serious injury, whereas the removal of a parachute and a free fall to the ground from 2000 feet would almost certainly result in death or very serious life changing injuries.

(Whoosh)

The analogy doesn't refer to the status of an individual. It's saying that hitting the ground = reaching the worst case scenario.

Bruthal

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Its a stupid analogy simply because contracting the virus does not guarantee death or very serious injury, whereas the removal of a parachute and a free fall to the ground from 2000 feet would almost certainly result in death or very serious life changing injuries.

Its not about a single person though, the analogy.

HeidiHeidi

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Its a stupid analogy simply because contracting the virus does not guarantee death or very serious injury, whereas the removal of a parachute and a free fall to the ground from 2000 feet would almost certainly result in death or very serious life changing injuries.

Ah, now I understand your problem with the analogy.... you're taking it literally.

Plumbthedepths

storker wrote: »

(Whoosh)

The analogy doesn't refer to the status of an individual. It's saying that hitting the ground = reaching the worst case scenario.

Still stupid imo.

Plumbthedepths

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Ah, now I understand your problem with the analogy.... you're taking it literally.

I'm not.