Relaxation of Restrictions, Part III - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

facehugger99

growleaves wrote: »

"The usual argument in favor of lockdowns runs like this: We know lockdowns work because lockdowns work, which is why we locked down, because if we didn’t lock down it would have been worse." - W.M. Briggs

The blind faith in lockdowns is amusing. They have apparently stopped hundreds of thousands of deaths despite no evidence whatsoever.

Given we haven't been invaded by Martians since we introduced lockdowns, I'm presuming they're responsible for this too.

CruelSummer

CruelSummer wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0519/1139223-dail-covid-19-committee/

This kind of statement is absolute fear mongering of the highest order. Where is his evidence? All of the models were completely wrong to date.
Between this and Claire Byrne last night with her ‘new normal’ set up - RTÉ is just swamping the general public with propagandist rubbish with no facts. I hope people are waking up.
The figures don’t lie, the vast majority of people in Ireland are not sick with Covid 19. Why are they clutching at straws trying to keep us under severe restrictions?

I am all in favour of opening up at a faster pace than we are, but Christ almighty the crap that is posted does not do most arguing the point any favours. Why are the models wrong - we changed to whole way society was organised to avoid the projections in the models. Would they have been 100% correct, probably not, but would things have played out as they have had we not put restrictions in place, definitely not. And why are the figures low - because 90% of the opportunities for infection have been removed through stay at home and social distancing - look at the meat plants as to what happens where that's not maintained.

Wibbs

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Agree, it's very easy for Breslin or anyone else going into this committee today to say well look we could have had 39,000 deaths, likewise when the over 1 million infected figure was spread across the front page of the Sunday Business Post, anyone could say well this could happen if you manipulate data to show it could happen.

But said figures will be used as justification of everything that's been done to date and will be done going forward even though as you say they're pure nonsense

PLus they'll avoid comparisons except to say "ah well we could have gone like the UK". They won't compare our results with Asian nations or the Slovaks and Czechs etc, where we best case have ten times worse death figures. That's where their incompetent fence sitting and delays would show up all too clearly.

CruelSummer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am all in favour of opening up at a faster pace than we are, but Christ almighty the crap that is posted does not do most arguing the point any favours. Why are the models wrong - we changed to whole way society was organised to avoid the projections in the models. Would they have been 100% correct, probably not, but things would not have played out as they have had we not put restrictions in place, definitely not. And why are the figures low - because 90% of the opportunities for infection have been removed through stay at home and social distancing - look at the meat plants as to what happens where that's not maintained.

This is not true. Lockdown isn’t a ‘cure’, it was supposed to be a strategy to buy time and give authorities a chance to set up a structure for testing, tracing, etc. They failed miserably on all fronts, vilified the public for going for ‘walks’ in parks/seafronts, and threw the economy and our whole way of life into the gutter.
How do you think this looks to international investors that we are so slow to reopen and using ridiculous protocols if we do as displayed on Claire Byrne live.
It’s also come out since lockdown that the death rate is low, the risk for under 55’s is extremely low except for certain compromised groups. We should be using these facts and acting accordingly - not the incorrect model protections and doctors making wild predictions off the top of his head that it will be ‘years’ of a crisis. That’s called instilling fear.

RugbyLad11

CruelSummer wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0519/1139223-dail-covid-19-committee/

This kind of statement is absolute fear mongering of the highest order. Where is his evidence? All of the models were completely wrong to date.
Between this and Claire Byrne last night with her ‘new normal’ set up - RTÉ is just swamping the general public with propagandist rubbish with no facts. I hope people are waking up.
The figures don’t lie, the vast majority of people in Ireland are not sick with Covid 19. Why are they clutching at straws trying to keep us under severe restrictions?

It's obvious that they love the power and want to hang onto it for as long as possible

Hurrache

CruelSummer wrote: »

This is not true. Lockdown isn’t a ‘cure’, it was supposed to be a strategy to buy time and give authorities a chance to set up a structure for testing, tracing, etc. They failed miserably on all fronts, vilified the public for going for ‘walks’ in parks/seafronts, and threw the economy and our whole way of life into the gutter.
How do you think this looks to international investors that we are so slow to reopen and using ridiculous protocols if we do as displayed on Claire Byrne live.
It’s also come out since lockdown that the death rate is low, the risk for under 55’s is extremely low except for certain compromised groups. We should be using these facts and acting accordingly - not the incorrect model protections and doctors making wild predictions off the top of his head that it will be ‘years’ of a crisis. That’s called instilling fear.

Who said it was a cure? The poster you're quoting certainly didn't, so why are you misrepresenting them, other to argue against a point that hasn't been made?

You actually haven't touched upon any of the posters points.

LiquidZeb

Wibbs wrote: »

PLus they'll avoid comparisons except to say "ah well we could have gone like the UK". They won't compare our results with Asian nations or the Slovaks and Czechs etc, where we best case have ten times worse death figures. That's where their incompetent fence sitting and delays would show up all too clearly.

But all the comparisons between Ireland, Brazil, Iran, Belarus and the world 100 years ago during Spanish flu are all right on the money.

RugbyLad11

road_high wrote: »

Harris speaking like he is an eminent medical doctor- "I don't believe in herd immunity..." here is someone that couldn't/didn't pass an Arts Degree arguing with a pre eminent Swedish doctors approach!

The same fella who thinks this is the 19th coronavirus

ek motor

CruelSummer wrote: »

This is not true. Lockdown isn’t a ‘cure’, it was supposed to be a strategy to buy time and give authorities a chance to set up a structure for testing, tracing, etc. They failed miserably on all fronts, vilified the public for going for ‘walks’ in parks/seafronts, and threw the economy and our whole way of life into the gutter.
How to you think this looks to international investors that we are so slow to reopen and using ridiculous protocols if we do as displayed on Claire Byrne live.
It’s also come out since lockdown that the death rate is low, the risk for under 55’s is extremely low except for certain compromised groups. We should be using these facts and acting accordingly - not the incorrect model protections and doctors making wild predictions off the top of his head that it will be ‘years’ of a crisis. That’s called instilling fear.

You say the 'death rate' is low, what is the death rate in Ireland ?

RugbyLad11

uli84 wrote: »

And all that after the nonsense about previous 18 coronaviruses. This guy is beyond pathetic. Can’t stand him.

He reminds me of the kid in school who thinks.he knows everything and tells everyone what to do

CalamariFritti

When in a short space of time you try three different things to fix a problem and then the problem appears to be fixed you are always going to be in trouble knowing which of the three things you did actually fixed the problem. Was it the first, the second, the third or any combination of them?

There are strong indicators from other countries through R number developments and representative studies that lockdown wasn't the one that fixed the problem.

The Irish government's approach of finding out which it was appears to be a very cautious dialling back of the measures in reverse order. From a logical point of view there isn't really much wrong with that.

The problem with it is that the measures are so restrictive and damaging and the slow approach may cause more harm than necessary. Not even talking about political implications. We shouldn't really restrict civil liberties on hunches. There should be much more stringent criteria for it.

So I can see both sides of the argument.

What I really have a problem with is that in order to ensure compliance we seem to have left any kind of rational debate behind us and we seem to be scaring the population into compliance. That is going to cause an awful lot of problems in its own right. It also is very dishonest and stifles any debate or any attempt to get to a little more scientific based approach. The government does really treat the population like children that way. Which may be warranted too, I don't know.

What people advocating for longer and stricter lockdown must understand is that they're only hunching. They couldn't possibly know that its necessary. They are arguing from a position of fear which is not very good.

na1

facehugger99 wrote: »

The blind faith in lockdowns is amusing. They have apparently stopped hundreds of thousands of deaths despite no evidence whatsoever.

Given we haven't been invaded by Martians since we introduced lockdowns, I'm presuming they're responsible for this too.

The lockdown brings money into our economy! 350 euro a week free money. Our economy will be booming in a few months!

growleaves

CruelSummer wrote: »

This is not true. Lockdown isn’t a ‘cure’, it was supposed to be a strategy to buy time and give authorities a chance to set up a structure for testing, tracing, etc. They failed miserably on all fronts, vilified the public for going for ‘walks’ in parks/seafronts, and threw the economy and our whole way of life into the gutter.
How to you think this looks to international investors that we are so slow to reopen and using ridiculous protocols if we do as displayed on Claire Byrne live.
It’s also come out since lockdown that the death rate is low, the risk for under 55’s is extremely low except for certain compromised groups. We should be using these facts and acting accordingly - not the incorrect model protections and doctors making wild predictions off the top of his head that it will be ‘years’ of a crisis. That’s called instilling fear.

Surely, also, there is a qualitative moral difference between separating families and eliminating human interactions on a timescale of a few weeks or months, and enforcing it on a timescale of years?

There is a moral dimension to our actions. Science is neutral, but our deployment of science is not neutral.

Even the people who believe, without proof (by which I mean certainty), that lockdown worked should be asking themselves about this.

CruelSummer

Hurrache wrote: »

Who said it was a cure? The poster you're quoting certainly didn't, so why are you misrepresenting them, other to argue against a point that hasn't been made?

You actually haven't touched upon any of the posters points.

What’s your point of view on this instead of attacking mine. Here are a few questions I have:
1. When do you think restrictions should be lifted?
2. How long should we continue to pay the €350 per week and keep people out of work.
3. How should schools and childcare facilities reopen in September?
4. Do you think the current restrictions are justified with just 86 cases and 4 deaths yesterday?
5. Are you happy our EU counterparts and our neighbours in the U.K. are reopening before us
6. How should we deal with the massive backlog in cancer screening, surgeries and other medical issues that will now kill more people than the virus?

bb1234567

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Figured I'd post below before it surfaces as some sort of death and destruction warning

"CZECH STATE OF EMERGENCY ENDS AS R VALUE RISES

The Czech Republic ended its state of emergency midnight Sunday after 66 days, one week before the country will lift most of the remaining coronavirus restrictions.

That plan is set to go ahead even as the country's reproduction number, or R value — the average number of people that an infected person will transmit the virus to — climbed from 0.66-0.8 on May 2 to 0.84-1.04 on May 17. Once it hits above 1, the number of cases begins to spread exponentially.

Prime Minister Andrej Babiš has said that, in case of a second wave, regional governors could declare local states of emergency."

Just like in Denmark and Germany, the R value has increased once restrictions have been lifted.

But thats not actually critically important, whats important is what countries do then. So far Denmark is powering through, Czech republic hasnt announced any lockdown being re introduced neither did Germany (apart from the 1 town with 22,000 population and meat plant)

We will see cases increase this week here, but remember theres a lot of ICU capacity and a lot of hospital beds capacity, dont panic too much at what is to be expected. Hopefully nursing homes are better protected now as well.

That is surprising especially given face masks are compulsory there. Austria where face masks are also compulsory has also now reported the R0 has risen above 1

funnydoggy

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1262691071399735296

stephenjmcd

bb1234567 wrote: »

That is surprising especially given face masks are compulsory there. Austria where face masks are also compulsory has also now reported the R0 has risen above 1

Any source to Austria's R value ? just because they have this morning announced 52 new cases, no major increase being seen despite restrictions being lifted on a gradual basis over the past month.

SweetCaliber

Im totally for opening back up nearly all businesses but cant see how Smyths Toys are allowed open but not homeware stores? The more this goes on the stupider this reopening phase gets.

I know Smyths sell electronics but I see it as a loop hole really, just like DIY stores that are allowed sell from their Homeware section yet homeware stores cannot open. It's very unfair for businesses.

bb1234567

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Any source to Austria's R value ? just because they have this morning announced 52 new cases, no major increase being seen despite restrictions being lifted on a gradual basis over the past month.

https://www.ages.at/download/0/0/82788ef0983c86d244d42c716fc2a76c6e73bbd0/fileadmin/AGES2015/Wissen-Aktuell/COVID19/Update_Epidemiologische_Parameter_des_COVID19_Ausbruchs_2020-05-18.pdf

Cases may not have surfaced yet, but the R0 is above 1 in parts of Austria, so cases will be growing

Partial translation: Austria

Analyses by laboratory diagnosis date

Figure 1 shows the daily incident cases by laboratory diagnosis date, and the modelling of the

Development of case numbers between 03 May and 15 May (13 epidemic days) based on 576 cases in this

Time period. The estimated rate of increase is 8.3% per day (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.3 - 17.5)

(Table 1).

Figures 2 and 3 show the time courses of the estimated effective reproduction number and the

daily rate of increase. As above, 13 epidemic days are used for each of the 13 epidemic days and

Data after 15 May excluded from the model calculation.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Discussion

The model used provides an estimated daily growth rate of 8.3% for the period 03 May

until 15 May concerning the Austrian population.

The estimated daily effective reproduction rate for Austria was less than 1 since 04 April and is

15 May with 1.07 (0.99 - 1.16) again greater than 1.

The increase of the effective reproduction number above 1 and the daily rate of increase above 0 is, at the current

State of knowledge at least on one COVID19 cluster in each postal distribution centre in Lower Austria

and Vienna.

Interpretations must always be made in conjunction with the epidemiological curve. A

Approximation of the effective reproduction number to 1 means a constant number of occidental cases

per day, but gives no information on the level of the incidence of Covid-19 cases.

In some federal states the number of incidences is very low, which is why fluctuations in

effective reproduction number must be interpreted with great caution. Since we are now offering a minimum

12 cases for the estimation of the effective reproduction number may require estimators for some days in

Comparison with the previous publication is missing.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

growleaves

Unscientific and nonsensical: Top scientist slams government’s lockdown strategy

The government's phased exit from the lockdown is nonsensical and unscientific, says one of the top scientists advising it.

Dr Glenda Gray, a member of the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) and chairperson of the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), said the lockdown should be eradicated completely, and that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), such as handwashing, wearing masks, social distancing and prohibitions on gatherings, should be put in place.

According to Gray:

• Malnutrition cases were being seen in hospitals.

• The month-to-month phasing-out of the lockdown has no basis in science.

• Many lockdown regulations were seemingly thumb sucks.

The government needed to reflect on its decisions and admit it had made mistakes because the nature of the pandemic was always changing, she said.

"You also have to be nimble enough … you have to either balance saving your face, or saving your country, and which is more important?"

growleaves

Link

In the US, eight states never locked down. They were, with deaths per million (as of 17 May, using the COVID Tracking Project’s numbers): Iowa (111), Oklahoma (73), Nebraska (64), North Dakota (56), South Dakota (50), Arkansas (32), Utah (25), and Wyoming (14). Be careful with these numbers, as they are stated in relative terms. Wyoming, for example, has about 580 thousand souls, and had only 8 coronavirus deaths.

The states with the harshest lockdowns were California (83), Illinois (330), Michigan (490), New York (1162), New Jersey (1166).

Other journalists had to be satisfied with noting cases increased in Texas after they “relaxed” their anti-liberty measures. Well, cases can go to 0 if no tests are made, or they can rocket if testing increases. This is why what counts are deaths and hospitalizations and the like. These did not increase in Texas.

The most hysterical predictions were saved for Georgia, because they were one of the first states to restore stolen liberties. Experts and pundits were sure this was the end. This is why some of them took to reporting, not new deaths, but total deaths. Total deaths can only increase, even as rates drop to zero. But publicizing that increase is a good way to boost fear. A model touted by CNN at the end of April said deaths could double! Sadly for the doomsayers, Georgia’s death rate continued to fall.

tobefrank321

SweetCaliber wrote: »

Im totally for opening back up nearly all businesses but cant see how Smyths Toys are allowed open but not homeware stores? The more this goes on the stupider this reopening phase gets.

I know Smyths sell electronics but I see it as a loop hole really, just like DIY stores that are allowed sell from their Homeware section yet homeware stores cannot open. It's very unfair for businesses.

Smyths sell a lot of stuff essential for babies such as cots, prams, bottle making machines, car seats and so on. They would be more essential than homewares and garden centres for this reason alone. Regards their toys, not essential except for the mental health of stressed parents with bored kids.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

Surely, also, there is a qualitative moral difference between separating families and eliminating human interactions on a timescale of a few weeks or months, and enforcing it on a timescale of years?

There is a moral dimension to our actions. Science is neutral, but our deployment of science is not neutral.

Even the people who believe, without proof (by which I mean certainty), that lockdown worked should be asking themselves about this.

What do you think would have been better - wait 6 weeks and see the impact of social distancing while cases and deaths were growing at 30% per day? Hindsight is always great, and even so, in Sweden where only social distancing was put in place, the R0 has remained at about 1 following the initial surge. For us this would have resulted in a sustained 40 deaths per day continuing, with no evidence as yet as to when that would taper off.

I do believe however that we can accelerate the restart, especially in relation to childminding, small businesses etc (probably less risk opening a small shop with social distancing and low footfall than Woodies), however I have not seen any data to suggest we took the wrong step to begin with.

storker

facehugger99 wrote: »

The blind faith in lockdowns is amusing. They have apparently stopped hundreds of thousands of deaths despite no evidence whatsoever.

It's not blind if it's supported by mathematical reasoning. If the virus spreads by close contact with someone who's infected, then reducing close contact is going to reduce the number of infections. Are you seriously suggesting that we wouldn't be looking at many more cases currently if everyone had continued as normal?

One can dispute the exact predictions, sure, but it's a bigger jump to say there was no need to get people to separate. And to say that it didn't need some form of compulsion behind social distancing its to attribute a degree of obedience that the Irish nation has not been in the habit of showing historically. Forty years ago if it had been preached from the pulpit, maybe...

growleaves

What do you think would have been better - wait 6 weeks and see the impact of social distancing while cases and deaths were growing at 30% per day?

But raind in the post you replied to specifically I'm talking about the future, not hindight - in response to claims that we would need restrictions for years ahead.

Say (for argument's sake) that we have followed the correct policy up to now. But what I'm saying is that the moral aspect of separating physical contact of families, preventing new family formation etc. begins to change in character the longer it goes on.

Three years of not allowing people to live their lives is different to three weeks, not just numerically but morally.

facehugger99

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

He reminds me of the kid in school who thinks.he knows everything and tells everyone what to do

You've pretty much described every politician.

Hurrache

CruelSummer wrote: »

What’s your point of view on this instead of attacking mine.

I have made it clear from the outset, over and over, that the problem I have is the dumb argument people are using that because our numbers are so low, we basically didn't need to have bothered with a lock down.

Nobody who has put that argument forward has been able to deal with or understand it, including you. Your tactic, obvious with your most recent post, and the one previous, is to ignore it and retort with a wall of irrelevant questions and points.

facehugger99

storker wrote: »

It's not blind if it's supported by mathematical reasoning. If the virus spreads by close contact with someone who's infected, then reducing close contact is going to reduce the number of infections. Are you seriously suggesting that we wouldn't be looking at many more cases currently if everyone had continued as normal?

One can dispute the exact predictions, sure, but it's a bigger jump to say there was no need to get people to separate. And to say that it didn't need some form of compulsion behind social distancing its to attribute a degree of obedience that the Irish nation has not been in the habit of showing historically. Forty years ago if it had been preached from the pulpit, maybe...

Logic Fail alert.

These weren't the only two options available.

We could have implemented reasonable precautions, implemented social distancing where possible, stressed improved hand hygiene, facilitated work from home where possible, identified the vulnerable demographics and protected them, etc, etc.

Fcuking our economy into the gutter, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs and adding billions to our debt burden shouldn't have been the No. 1 go-to option.

Wibbs

bb1234567 wrote: »

That is surprising especially given face masks are compulsory there. Austria where face masks are also compulsory has also now reported the R0 has risen above 1

Because they're another one of the risk reducers, not a risk removers. Just like hand hygiene and distancing and border controls and quarantine and contact tracing and testing. The more risk reducers you have in place the lower the overall risk. Compare the countries with the most risk reducers in place to those who don't. Austria with nearly double our population has had just over 600 deaths, the Czechs with double our population have had just under 300. What's our ah sure aren't we doin grand "score" now? just over 1500 dead. With half the above populations and lower population densities and far fewer apartment dwellers.

tobefrank321

Hurrache wrote: »

I have made it clear from the outset, over and over, that the problem I have is the dumb argument people are using that because our numbers are so low, we basically didn't need to have bothered with a lock down.

Nobody who has put that argument forward has been able to deal with or understand it, including you. Your tactic, obvious with your most recent post, and the one previous, is to ignore it and retort with a wall of irrelevant questions and points.

I think the majority who are in favour of relaxing restrictions were in favour of the lockdown as a temporary measure, but it cannot be sustained longterm for many reasons. A lockdown is something you go for as a last resort, when all other measures have failed.

The high risk areas appear to be nursing homes, hospitals and factories where people are close together for 8 hours a day. And they will always be the high risk areas lockdown or no lockdown.