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

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

You are not making any sense Fintan.

What the graphs show is the huge increase in the rate of excess deaths in different countries in Europe at the start of this year, in comparison to other preceding years.

We all knew there would be deaths during a pandemic...

Only 665000 worldwide so far.

Very small figure considering the hysteria.

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

No I dont have a terrible obsession with over 65's, Covid does.

Where are you getting data of 40% of deaths under 65?

The faries?

From your own figures when compared to those of John Hopkins. Just simple mathematics.

facehugger99

Deleted User wrote: »

We all knew there would be deaths during a pandemic...

Only 665000 worldwide so far.

Very small figure considering the hysteria.

1.35 million die every year in road accidents.

It's a wonder the hysteria brigade ever leave their houses.

I'm beginning to suspect many of them don't.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

No Im going to use that graph.

It proves restrictions had no impact on death rate.

Really good data in that graph

It’s not a graph, it’s a fully interactive dashboard for all of Europe, and if you care to look at it, does the opposite of what you believed

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But where's the correlation that restrictions have any effect on death rate?

Thats my argument, Covid kills high number's of vulnerable in a short space of time.

Restrictions dont make any difference

Lockdowns and restrictions clearly work in halting the spread of the disease, which in turn helps to prevent excess mortality due to the virus.

When we were in the midst of the first lockdown that line of thinking of restrictions being useless didn't have much creditibilty, but subsequent events, like resurging numbers of cases and deaths in places like the US show it up for the complete nonsense that it clearly is. It's frankly embarrassing that you're still sticking to that argument

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A tiny percentage of their population.

Harmless to the under 80’s, only a flu
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

fr336

facehugger99 wrote: »

1.35 million die every year in road accidents.

It's a wonder the hysteria brigade ever leave their houses.

I'm beginning to suspect many of them don't.

It'd be far more if there were no seatbelts, airbags or people weren't taught to drive. Such a crap comparison.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

1.35 million die every year in road accidents.

It's a wonder the hysteria brigade ever leave their houses.

I'm beginning to suspect many of them don't.

It goes to show how easily people are manipulated and controlled by hysteria and the media.

If the media started doing daily reporting on car crashes and deaths, most of the country would give up driving based on the response to Covid.

fr336

Deleted User wrote: »

It goes to show how easily people are manipulated and controlled by hysteria and the media.

If the media started doing daily reporting on car crashes and deaths, most of the country would give up driving based on the response to Covid.

Living in England I often turn on the RTE News and see them reporting car deaths at the weekend.

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We all knew there would be deaths during a pandemic...

Only 665000 worldwide so far.

Very small figure considering the hysteria.

You do know there was giant measures put in place across the globe in order to contain the virus and prevent excess deaths. That's why we didn't have so many deaths?

How can some of you consistently fail to get this?

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It goes to show how easily people are manipulated and controlled by hysteria and the media.

If the media started doing daily reporting on car crashes and deaths, most of the country would give up driving based on the response to Covid.

The media does do daily reporting on car crashes. Now, to be fair, maybe you don't watch the news all that much

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

You do know there was giant measures put in place across the globe in order to contain the virus and prevent excess deaths. That's why we didn't have so many deaths?

How can some of you consistently fail to get this?

Sweden proved that restrictions didn't do much but inconvenience the majority of the population.

Restrictions were only helpful for getting testing, tracing etc up and running.

fr336

Arghus wrote: »

How can some of you consistently fail to get this?

I'm not sure they do fail to get it. Many people here in March wouldn't hear of a lockdown despite cases surging across the globe and hospitals struggling to cope already.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

You do know there was giant measures put in place across the globe in order to contain the virus and prevent excess deaths. That's why we didn't have so many deaths?

How can some of you consistently fail to get this?

Luckily we have one European country that performed quite well with no lockdown.

Of course they had a lockdown, or so you said when the numbers didnt correlate to that part of your argument.

Then Charlie said they had a lockdown and excess deaths while trying to prove a point that lockdowns prevent excess deaths.

I honestly think drinking heavily on a Wednesday afternoon isnt the answer

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

The media does do daily reporting on car crashes. Now, to be fair, maybe you don't watch the news all that much

They mention if a death occurs. And sometimes local radio stations might mention crashes.

But I never see a daily countrywide summary of crashes reported in the last 24 hours and deaths.

People are used to car crashes and have accepted they are part of life.

Possibly they will have to eventually accept Covid is another thing that kill you.
For now, its all hysteria.

fr336

Deleted User wrote: »

Possibly they will have to eventually accept Covid is another thing that kill you.
For now, its all hysteria.

You can call it hysteria because the lockdown and restrictions stopped it from being more serious. Plenty of other stories on the news these days, back to silly showbiz stories etc. But of course a rare pandemic which has had severe social and economic implications is still going to produce headlines.

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sweden proved that restrictions didn't do much but inconvenience the majority of the population.

Restrictions were only helpful for getting testing, tracing etc up and running.

Sweden did have restrictions though.

People worked from home
Social distancing was practiced.
Public buildings closed
Colleges closed
Limits on outdoor gatherings
Advice not to travel within the country
Businesses that flouted restrictions on social distancing and capacity were closed.

There was plenty of restrictions on the lives of Swedish people, it wasn't as restrictive as other countries but it wasn't normal life. Life was different in Sweden too.

You're wrong to say restrictions were only useful for getting tracing, testing up and running. That was secondary, the primary aim was to control the outbreak and to stop the loss of life.

Spanish Eyes

fr336 wrote: »

I'm not sure they do fail to get it. Many people here in March wouldn't hear of a lockdown despite cases surging across the globe and hospitals struggling to cope already.

Most on this thread still think that way. Gawd help us.

We are where we are because of the actions taken to suppress the virus. But once the warriors on here get things opened up to THEIR satisfaction, it could be a different story going forward (hate that phrase but can't think of another one lol).

I accept the impact on the economy, but from what I can see the areas most impacted are drink only pubs, theatres, gatherings of more than 50, and spectator sports. What have I forgotten? I am sure I will be told soon enough.

Cautious approach is what most people want, the demographic on here is not in any way representative of the wider view IMO.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Luckily we have one European country that performed quite well with no lockdown.

Of course they had a lockdown, or so you said when the numbers didnt correlate to that part of your argument.

Then Charlie said they had a lockdown and excess deaths while trying to prove a point that lockdowns prevent excess deaths.

I honestly think drinking heavily on a Wednesday afternoon isnt the answer

Fintan why can't you be honest when you're debating?

I never said they had a lockdown.

I said they had restrictions, which they had.

You were saying they had none at all, which isn't true.

FintanMcluskey

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Most on this thread still think that way. Gawd help us.

We are where we are because of the actions taken to suppress the virus. But once the warriors on here get things opened up to THEIR satisfaction, it could be a different story going forward (hate that phrase but can't think of another one lol).

I accept the impact on the economy, but from what I can see the areas most impacted are drink only pubs, theatres, gatherings of more than 50, and spectator sports. What have I forgotten? I am sure I will be told soon enough.

Cautious approach is what most people want, the demographic on here is not in any way representative of the wider view IMO.

Anyone I have spoken to, at work or outside, that shares your views, also has a complete misunderstanding of what restrictions can achieve regarding the virus.

The same colleagues were incensed a fortnight ago when they heard Apple wouldnt have to "pay" the 12 bn they "owed" Ireland.

You’re making it up as yous go now folks. At least pick and argument and stick with it.

fr336

Deleted User wrote: »

You’re making it up as yous go now folks. At least pick and argument and stick with it.

What is your argument and where do you think the government has been wrong since March?

fr336

fr336 wrote: »

What is your argument and where do you think the government has been wrong since March?

8 people in hospital in the whole country.
We should be fully open with just 1M social distancing, advise for elders to take care if going out and proper controls on the airport to prevent flights from US and other countries doing really bad.

Nothing else is needed right now IMO.

We are well able to fight this disease a lot harder than we are.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Anyone I have spoken to, at work or outside, that shares your views, also has a complete misunderstanding of what restrictions can achieve regarding the virus.

The same colleagues were incensed a fortnight ago when they heard Apple wouldnt have to "pay" the 12 bn they "owed" Ireland.

Fintan you're basing your opinions on absolutely nothing.

is_that_so

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The same colleagues were incensed a fortnight ago when they heard Apple wouldnt have to "pay" the 12 bn they "owed" Ireland.

That's people incensed at the Apple decision. How exactly is that opinion linked to this?

Arghus

is_that_so wrote: »

That's people incensed at the Apple decision. How exactly is that opinion linked to this?

It's not, it's just random noise thrown in for good measure.

polesheep

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Most on this thread still think that way. Gawd help us.

We are where we are because of the actions taken to suppress the virus. But once the warriors on here get things opened up to THEIR satisfaction, it could be a different story going forward (hate that phrase but can't think of another one lol).

I accept the impact on the economy, but from what I can see the areas most impacted are drink only pubs, theatres, gatherings of more than 50, and spectator sports. What have I forgotten? I am sure I will be told soon enough.

Cautious approach is what most people want, the demographic on here is not in any way representative of the wider view IMO.

We are where we are because they finally got to grips with the situation in the nursing/care homes and the elderly/vulnerable took care of themselves. For all others it's not such a big deal. Hence the low numbers in the hospitals.

FintanMcluskey

is_that_so wrote: »

That's people incensed at the Apple decision. How exactly is that opinion linked to this?

I was making the point many people are strongly opinionated on things with little evidence or understanding.

Try and keep up

FintanMcluskey

polesheep wrote: »

We are where we are because they finally got to grips with the situation in the nursing/care homes and the elderly/vulnerable took care of themselves. For all others it's not such a big deal. Hence the low numbers in the hospitals.

Completely.

An easily identifable group of citizen's are vulnerable to Covid.

Outside of that the hysterical nonsence needs to stop.

polesheep

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Completely.

An easily identifable group of citizen's are vulnerable to Covid.

Outside of that the hysterical nonsence needs to stop.

Indeed. And this was known right from the start, but suggesting restrictions around this group only was greeted with outrage. No, it had to be restrictions for all.