Lockdown for Kildare (Aug 8th-31st)

nthclare

gabeeg wrote: »

You're completely ignoring the potential long term consequences of getting covid, and you clearly have zero appreciation of what "mild" means in a medical context.

Ah well. Denial is a hell of a thing to witness. Weird that some of you are too scared to do the required reading.

Obviously from reading your post you more than likely won't be effected socially or financially if there's another lockdown.

Some people are doing ok whether they're public sector worker's or can work from home.
Others love to be able to enjoy their independence and freedom and are abiding by the suggestions by the government and medical experts.

There's no point in punishing everyone because of someone else's lack of responsibility.

We've all different personalities and some of us can handle being stuck in home, more of us need to be able to roam the country side and headland's etc

Village life,city life, country life, maritime life isn't discriminated by Covid, but ignorance and stupidity is.

No doubt people have caught covid and didn't intentionally go out of their way to contract it, but more than likely it's some knob who passed it on... due to a lack of lustre for common sense.

hmmm

polesheep wrote: »

People who called for this tactic from day one were vilified, however, in the absence of a vaccine it will eventually become the only tactic that works.

We are not locking everyone over 50 or with a medical condition into pens, or where-ever it is you think they should be. Grow up.

polesheep

hmmm wrote: »

We are not locking everyone over 50 or with a medical condition into pens, or where-ever it is you think they should be. Grow up.

Where did I say that? Answer, I didn't. You just made that up. You make up lies because you can't handle the truth.

saabsaab

Nermal wrote: »

Gabeeg, by this stage literally hundreds of millions of people all over the world have had this disease.

If it's causing serious problems for anything other a tiny fraction of them, it would be very obvious.

It's quite telling that since inflated fatality rates cannot seriously be advanced by alarmists any longer, they have now moved on to far more nebulous 'post-viral fatigue' angle.

Frankly, the explanation for most of these cases is simple. Hypochondria.

Heading for 2,000 dead herein the 26 counties and it's due to 'Hypochondria'!

Thierry12

hmmm wrote: »

We are not locking everyone over 50 or with a medical condition into pens, or where-ever it is you think they should be. Grow up.

Why not?

We do it when it suits?

We tell people over 65 they must retire, even though they can work
We tell people under 18 they can't drink, even though they can drink
We tell people under 5ft 1 they can't join the army

What's the difference?

Old and sick are being killed by the virus, young and healthy seem to be doing ok.

Do we ban everyone from a swimming pool because a few can't swim?

facehugger99

hmmm wrote: »

We are not locking everyone over 50 or with a medical condition into pens, or where-ever it is you think they should be. Grow up.

The fact you have to invent such bollox to rail against kinda exposes the inadequacies of your own arguments TBH,

Sardonicat

polesheep wrote: »

Where did I say that? Answer, I didn't. You just made that up. You make up lies because you can't handle the truth.

What do you suggest then? From someone who's been cocooning since March with an 88 year old, with no day services anymore and no break of any kind - tell me how long do suggest I continue 'living' like this? Indefinitely? Just so long as you can live your life unaffected,like? Why don't you just start posting out cyanide capsules then you won't have to worry about the vulnerable at all.

polesheep

Sardonicat wrote: »

What do you suggest then? From someone who's been cocooning since March with an 88 year old, with no day services anymore and no break of any kind - tell me how long do suggest I continue 'living' like this? Indefinitely? Just so long as you can live your life unaffected,like? Why don't you just start posting out cyanide capsules then you won't have to worry about the vulnerable at all.

Why are you railing against me? I didn't introduce the virus. I'm hoping for a safe vaccine that will be effective for everyone, so that everyone can get back to normality. You are actually proving what I said; you are cocooning because there is little else that you can do. If we don't get a vaccine you will have to continue cocooning until we reach the point whereby enough people have had the virus to give a herd immunity. There will be no other game in town. All the authorities are doing at the moment is attempting to limit the spread, they are not and cannot do much else to assist people in your position other than consider letting it rip in that section of the population that isn't vulnerable. BTW I think it's disgraceful that you are being denied services or an opportunity for a break. In a sense the government is taking advantage of you. I feel you reacted to Hmmm's reply rather than my post.

facehugger99

Sardonicat wrote: »

What do you suggest then? From someone who's been cocooning since March with an 88 year old, with no day services anymore and no break of any kind - tell me how long do suggest I continue 'living' like this? Indefinitely? Just so long as you can live your life unaffected,like? Why don't you just start posting out cyanide capsules then you won't have to worry about the vulnerable at all.

How is everyone else going into lock down going to be of any help to you whatsoever?

The State requires money to provide things like day services - that money comes from taxing the working population.

At the moment we are spending €30bn a year more than we're taking in - that is unsustainable - you can be sure things like days services will be first on the chopping black before any public servant faces a pay-cut in the coming recession.

tobefrank321

gabeeg wrote: »

You're completely ignoring the potential long term consequences of getting covid, and you clearly have zero appreciation of what "mild" means in a medical context.

Ah well. Denial is a hell of a thing to witness. Weird that some of you are too scared to do the required reading.

Long term consequences? Not me ignoring them. Do you understand mild affects?

We've been told 80% will have mild effects. This is likely a massive understatement. In countries where antibody testing has been carried out, the average is about 5% of the population have had covid 19. Lets be cautious and assume its 2.5% in Ireland. That's 125,000 people who probably had it. Of that only a couple thousand ended up in hospital and only a few hundred ended up in ICU.

So about 98% likely had no long term consequences from covid.

And the vast majority who ended up in hospital also eg Boris Johnson in the UK.

Its very likely those who had long term consequences were already suffering from an underlying condition that suffered because of lack of activity associated with covid.

I'm personally sick of people trying to imply covid is up there with ebola or even Sars1 which I believe had a fatality rate of 10%.

Its likely for 98% of people based on anti body tests had little or mild short, medium and long term side effects.

But of course the 98% with no long term effects does not sell newspapers. You have to put someone on the frontpage who already had an underlying condition such as obesity (despite their denials) to say they had long term effects. They usually claim to have lost a couple of stone as well, without telling you they weren't on a proper diet for the last couple of months.

And every day some bullsh*t myth has been shown to be false - children with long term effects, no long term immunity etc. What will the sensationalists come up with next you wonder?

Graham

Sardonicat wrote: »

What do you suggest then? From someone who's been cocooning since March with an 88 year old, with no day services anymore and no break of any kind - tell me how long do suggest I continue 'living' like this? Indefinitely? Just so long as you can live your life unaffected,like? Why don't you just start posting out cyanide capsules then you won't have to worry about the vulnerable at all.

I wouldn't worry Sardonicat, outside of the vocal fringe there's nothing to suggest such a policy is under consideration.

votecounts

I see they closed boylesports in graiguecullen, technically it is in Carlow.

tobefrank321

Sardonicat wrote: »

What do you suggest then? From someone who's been cocooning since March with an 88 year old, with no day services anymore and no break of any kind - tell me how long do suggest I continue 'living' like this? Indefinitely? Just so long as you can live your life unaffected,like? Why don't you just start posting out cyanide capsules then you won't have to worry about the vulnerable at all.

The virus is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Zero covid is pie in the sky from people whose salary doesn't depend on being locked down or not - usually university professors. No 350 euro a week for them, more like 2000 a week.
We also can't shut airports, the border, etc. If a couple of Brazilians want to go to Brazil and return here to work in a meat factory there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done.

And lockdowns are not a long term cure.

Realistically some form of herd immunity or else a vaccine is the way out, and neither of these are in sight.

polesheep

hmmm wrote: »

We are not locking everyone over 50 or with a medical condition into pens, or where-ever it is you think they should be. Grow up.

Graham wrote: »

I wouldn't worry Sardonicat, outside of the vocal fringe there's nothing to suggest such a policy is under consideration.

Indeed, the above quote from hmmm is the only time I've ever seen it even mentioned.

nw1dqsv7amx026

Sardonicat wrote: »

What do you suggest then? From someone who's been cocooning since March with an 88 year old, with no day services anymore and no break of any kind - tell me how long do suggest I continue 'living' like this? Indefinitely? Just so long as you can live your life unaffected,like? Why don't you just start posting out cyanide capsules then you won't have to worry about the vulnerable at all.

That sounds intolerable.

What do you see as the medium term solution to this situation?

1. Vaccine could be years, if ever.
2. Herd immunity via infection of the non - vulnerable. No proof of immunity.
3. Getting the Republic to zero covid. But you know it could and will most likely reappear.
4. Take your chances but with precautions?
5. Continuous lockdowns. The money will eventually run out?

Sardonicat

facehugger99 wrote: »

How is everyone else going into lock down going to be of any help to you whatsoever?

The State requires money to provide things like day services - that money comes from taxing the working population.

At the moment we are spending €30bn a year more than we're taking in - that is unsustainable - you can be sure things like days services will be first on the chopping black before any public servant faces a pay-cut in the coming recession.

I never suggested that everyone else going into lock down is a solution. And I don't require an Economics 101 lecture - I attended that already. I'm just getting a little sick of the repeated calls 'to isovate the vulnerable ' on here. The vulnerable, and their carers are isolated already. I think if there was actual compliance and enforcement we might get to a stage where a limited re-opening of services and supports can begin. Isolating an entire cohort of the population and abandoning those responsible for their care for a sustained period is not feasible. It also immoral.

hmmm

facehugger99 wrote: »

The fact you have to invent such bollox to rail against kinda exposes the inadequacies of your own arguments TBH,

You and your friends can't simply say "isolate the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with our lives", and then walk away as if you've solved everything.

Tell us what you will do. The death rate starts to spike at 50 for people with no co-morbidities, and is sharply higher for people over 65 and those of all ages with specific conditions. These people have jobs, live in families, need to access healthcare, and in general don't want to be locked away.

So how are you proposing to take all these people out of society to allow you to get on with the uninterrupted life you are looking for?

nw1dqsv7amx026

hmmm wrote: »

You and your friends can't simply say "isolate the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with our lives", and then walk away as if you've solved everything.

Tell us what you will do. The death rate starts to spike at 50 for people with no co-morbidities, and is sharply higher for people over 65 and those of all ages with specific conditions. These people have jobs, live in families, need to access healthcare, and in general don't want to be locked away.

So how are you proposing to take all these people out of society to allow you to get on with the uninterrupted life you are looking for?

I'm in my mid fifties and prepared to take my chances.

I think you're being disingenuous about the actual figures. The people who are most at risk are in their 80s and 90s and many of these are not out in society on a regular basis.

facehugger99

hmmm wrote: »

You and your friends can't simply say "isolate the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with our lives", and then walk away as if you've solved everything.

Tell us what you will do. The death rate starts to spike at 50 for people with no co-morbidities, and is sharply higher for people over 65 and those of all ages with specific conditions. These people have jobs, live in families, need to access healthcare, and in general don't want to be locked away.

So how are you proposing to take all these people out of society to allow you to get on with the uninterrupted life you are looking for?

There is no ideal solutions - there's a choice of sh;te solutions.

I'm suggesting we go with the least sh;te solution - so why don't you stop putting words in my mouth because there's no fcuking happy ending to this.

The irony is, after another 6-12 months of this, with no vaccine in sight, we will be going with my solution - the economies ensure that no other choice is feasible - if course we'll be 10's of billions of euros down by then but sure isn't it great that the politicians and the 'granny-saviour' lads like yourself will be able to say they tried everything else first?

tobefrank321

Without any proper enforcement of travel quarantines, the meat factory issue will keep happening particularly among migrant workers who are paid poorly and with poor English.

Anyone who returned here and went to work without quarantine and any employer who encouraged them should face serious consequences up to and including imprisonment.

hmmm

Patricia Helpful Self-improvement wrote: »

I think you're being disingenuous about the actual figures. The people who are most at risk are in their 80s and 90s and many of these are not out in society on a regular basis.

Plenty of statistics on IFR estimates by age (by reputable researchers, not quack sources). Overall IFR coming in as about 0.65%, but skews sharply above the age of 50.

In the Swiss study, the IFR is similar to the Flu for the 0-49 years group (but bear in mind this is much more infectious than the Flu and limited pre-existing immunity). Above 49 years it starts to climb.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3.pdf

This is a more recent Swiss paper
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.31.20118554v4

French studies
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6500/208

China
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

Spain
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext

nw1dqsv7amx026

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Without any proper enforcement of travel quarantines, the meat factory issue will keep happening particularly among migrant workers who are paid poorly and with poor English.

Anyone who returned here and went to work without quarantine and any employer who encouraged them should face serious consequences up to and including imprisonment.

There was and is no law on quarantine to enforce here?

The only legislation is that it is mandatory to fill in a locator form.

Let's pretend there was a law. Will the workers be paid enough so that they don't have to share houses or will the state provide accommodation free of charge while they isolate?

Or are they banned from seeing their families in Brazil?

hmmm

facehugger99 wrote: »

There is no ideal solutions - there's a choice of sh;te solutions.

I'm suggesting we go with the least sh;te solution - so why don't you stop putting words in my mouth because there's no fcuking happy ending to this.

I'm giving you the opportunity to put it in your own words (your "least ****e solution" - for you perhaps, ****e for those affected). How do you intend to "isolate the vulnerable"?

tobefrank321

Anyone who doesn't believe in lockdown fatigue should take note of the reaction of many in these three counties.

I didn't believe it was a thing before but now I do.

There is only so much decent law abiding citizens can put up with when it comes to lockdown, especially when they see political incompetence - failure to legislate for travel quarantines. Without compelling people to quarantine you are wasting your time and punishing the innocent and letting the guilty off. Lockdown fatigue takes over at this stage.

nw1dqsv7amx026

hmmm wrote: »

Plenty of statistics on IFR estimates by age (by reputable researchers, not quack sources). Overall IFR coming in as about 0.65%, but skews sharply above the age of 50.

In the Swiss study, the IFR is similar to the Flu for the 0-49 years group (but bear in mind this is much more infectious than the Flu and limited pre-existing immunity). Above 49 years it starts to climb.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3.pdf

This is a more recent Swiss paper
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.31.20118554v4

French studies
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6500/208

China
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

Spain
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext

I'll have a read on these estimates.
Meanwhile could you have a look at the actual figures released by NPHET and tell me who you think is at risk.

hmmm

Patricia Helpful Self-improvement wrote: »

I'll have a read on these estimates.
Meanwhile could you have a look at the actual figures released by NPHET and tell me who you think is at risk.

Are you talking about the Irish figures for deaths?

We had very limited community spread thanks to the lockdown, and most of our cases occurred in vulnerable populations. Our death rates are naturally going to show only the very elderly were most affected, because that's where the infection got a foothold.

In countries which had wider spread (China, Italy, Spain) we get a much more accurate figure of risk for the wider population.

tobefrank321

Patricia Helpful Self-improvement wrote: »

There was and is no law on quarantine to enforce here?

The only legislation is that it is mandatory to fill in a locator form.

Let's pretend there was a law. Will the workers be paid enough so that they don't have to share houses or will the state provide accommodation free of charge while they isolate?

Or are they banned from seeing their families in Brazil?

Correct. I probably should have said "without a law to enforce travel quarantines"..

Without that law, we get meat factory situations and following on from that county lockdowns.

It all goes back to a failure to bring in that law. Remember Harris said they were looking at it.

Ideally we should ban and turn back visitors from certain countries with high infection rates.

polesheep

hmmm wrote: »

Plenty of statistics on IFR estimates by age (by reputable researchers, not quack sources). Overall IFR coming in as about 0.65%, but skews sharply above the age of 50.

In the Swiss study, the IFR is similar to the Flu for the 0-49 years group (but bear in mind this is much more infectious than the Flu and limited pre-existing immunity). Above 49 years it starts to climb.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3.pdf

This is a more recent Swiss paper
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.31.20118554v4

French studies
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6500/208

China
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

Spain
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext

So, going by your own links:
20-49 death rate = .0092
50-64 = .14
64 up = 5.6

Yet you claim it 'spikes' and 'skews sharply' above 50. Not even up to age 64 does it spike. In fact, spreading all of the figures it is around .15 at 50. And those in the .15 would be accounted for by the highly vulnerable under 50s.

juno10353

Isolate those with virus. Sanitise effected work sites and accommodations. Enforce work distancing etc.
Deal with individual clusters as they develop.
Use Hydrochloricquine and zinc etc as a prophylactic where appropriate. School teachers, medical staff etc.
Everyone else, wear masks when out of home, or in indoor public spaces. Open up bars etc with social distancing structures, and allow people to socialise. Pubs are for being social and relaxed and not isolated. Stress longterm lowers immune systems. Isolation causes depression and lowers immunity to illness.
Allow children back to school, it's important for their mental health, social growth, confidence building, safety in some cases from home abuse or neglect.
Get the world back on track. Stop publishing the negative only and let's have balanced journalism and governance

gabeeg

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Long term consequences? Not me ignoring them. Do you understand mild affects?

We've been told 80% will have mild effects. This is likely a massive understatement. In countries where antibody testing has been carried out, the average is about 5% of the population have had covid 19. Lets be cautious and assume its 2.5% in Ireland. That's 125,000 people who probably had it. Of that only a couple thousand ended up in hospital and only a few hundred ended up in ICU.

So about 98% likely had no long term consequences from covid.

And the vast majority who ended up in hospital also eg Boris Johnson in the UK.

Its very likely those who had long term consequences were already suffering from an underlying condition that suffered because of lack of activity associated with covid.

I'm personally sick of people trying to imply covid is up there with ebola or even Sars1 which I believe had a fatality rate of 10%.

Its likely for 98% of people based on anti body tests had little or mild short, medium and long term side effects.

But of course the 98% with no long term effects does not sell newspapers. You have to put someone on the frontpage who already had an underlying condition such as obesity (despite their denials) to say they had long term effects. They usually claim to have lost a couple of stone as well, without telling you they weren't on a proper diet for the last couple of months.

And every day some bullsh*t myth has been shown to be false - children with long term effects, no long term immunity etc. What will the sensationalists come up with next you wonder?

As I said, you haven't done the required reading.
You're speaking (loudly) from a position of profound ignorance.

You don't seem overly stupid. So why don't you go do your research?
What are you scared of?