Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Paddygreen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ74m28I3E

weldoninhio

Thats me wrote: »

Can you refer particular document?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/patient-transfers-into-nursing-homes-may-have-been-as-high-as-2-300-1.4280915

The HSE are currently trying to cover their arse on it. It’s hardly a state secret that it happened.

Boggles

The thread is hilarious.

Hospitalizations are so low, we don't need restrictions.

But, but, but...

Forget it.

Happydays2020

weldoninhio wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/patient-transfers-into-nursing-homes-may-have-been-as-high-as-2-300-1.4280915

The HSE are currently trying to cover their arse on it. It’s hardly a state secret that it happened.

1000 people died in nursing homes. There should be a inquiry but Tony does not want one.....

is_that_so

Happydays2020 wrote: »

1000 people died in nursing homes. There should be a inquiry but Tony does not want one.....

It's nothing to do with him, it would be HIQA. They already knew that at least 20% were not up to standards on infection control. Their own levels of oversight of the sector are little more than cursory. What's there to inquire about? The virus was rampant in March and the far smaller number of deaths since August shows we've now addressed those issues.

Happydays2020

is_that_so wrote: »

It's nothing to do with him, it would be HIQA. They already knew that at least 20% were not up to standards on infection control. Their own levels of oversight of the sector are little more than cursory. What's there to inquire about? The virus was rampant in March and the far smaller number of deaths since August shows we've now addressed those issues.

It is clear from this that public health advice was king - https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2020/0528/1143221-how-covid-19-hit-irelands-nursing-homes/

We will have an inquiry on this and NPHET will be front and centre.

BryanMartin21

Boggles wrote: »

The thread is hilarious.

Hospitalizations are so low, we don't need restrictions.

But, but, but...

Forget it.

But what? They are incredibly low for the severe social and economic restrictions apparently needed. You probably think that the recorded positive cases is quite close to the actual number infected in Ireland too. That would explain your failure to add anything to the statement that hospitalisations because of covid are low.

Boggles

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

But what? They are incredibly low for the severe social and economic restrictions apparently needed. You probably think that the recorded positive cases is quite close to the actual number infected in Ireland too. That would explain your failure to add anything to the statement that hospitalisations because of covid are low.

I seldom engage with "new members" as a personal rule, but you seem to struggling with cause and effect mixed in with a healthy dollop of false information.

It's never a good starting point.

paw patrol

Boggles wrote: »

I seldom engage with "new members" as a personal rule, but you seem to struggling with cause and effect mixed in with a healthy dollop of false information.

It's never a good starting point.

im sure he appreciates your kind indulgence in accommodating him

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I seldom engage with "new members" as a personal rule, but you seem to struggling with cause and effect mixed in with a healthy dollop of false information.

It's never a good starting point.

you sound like the organizer of a swingers club FFS. The poster has to earn your interest or response by posting a 2000 word or more prose on the subject of your choice then?

I'm all for positive discourse to iron out the kinks in any debate but you sound like an ubermensch snob throwing out that tripe of a cold wet December morning Boggles

BeefeaterHat

paw patrol wrote: »

im sure he appreciates your kind indulgence in accommodating him

It's ridiculous how he gets away with talking to people like that.

Boggles

rusty cole wrote: »

you sound like the organizer of a swingers club FFS. The poster has to earn your interest or response by posting a 2000 word or more prose on the subject of your choice then?

I'm all for positive discourse to iron out the kinks in any debate but you sound like an ubermensch snob throwing out that tripe of a cold wet December morning Boggles

Yes, juvenile name calling is far more healthy for debate. :rolleyes:

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Yes, juvenile name calling is far more healthy for debate. :rolleyes:

you see the difference in my post is what you see is what you get, whereas yours was condescending to a newcomer with a dollop of passive aggression.

Don't get me wrong, the thread would be less without you, nobody wants a thread full of yes men/women but id say if you could take that one back in earnest you would. The poster is new and not weathered to your recalcitrance

where's as I love it, I'm like a microbe that feeds off the Sulphur you see from those underwater caverns, I eat it up

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The low death rate has less to do with lockdowns and more to do with the undeniable fact that Covid is only really serious to the 80+ year olds in very poor health.

Ah, well then lets throw them to the wolves, so, and we'll all carry on as normal.......forget about the elderly, sure they're circling the drain anyway.

FFS.

I can never understand this mentality. "It's only old people who are dying"......Do they not count, or what? Never mind that there are other negative consequences other than dying, or that your figures are all out of whack*, or that the stats for elderly folk perishing would skyrocket without restrictions........."it's only really serious to the 80+ year olds in very poor health and I'm not in that category, so open it all back up, lads".

I mean, what's the proposal here? Locking everything down is too restrictive and damaging to the economy and impinges on my rights, so we should *checks notes* lock up the elderly for their own good?


*56% of all deaths are under the age of 85

Boggles

rusty cole wrote: »

you see the difference in my post is what you see is what you get, whereas yours was condescending to a newcomer with a dollop of passive aggression.

Don't get me wrong, the thread would be less without you, nobody wants a thread full of yes men/women but id say if you could take that one back in earnest you would. The poster is new and not weathered to your recalcitrance

where's as I love it, I'm like a microbe that feeds off the Sulphur you see from those underwater caverns, I eat it up

Cool.

Maybe start a thread on me, fill your boots.

VonLuck

BryanMartin21 wrote: »

600 deaths with covid in a year is hardly the most dangerous virus. Double what suicides are and around triple road deaths.

How hard is it to understand that social and economic restrictions are way OTT for this virus? Do you have any arguments to justify anything more than a public awareness campaign? I await data on how harmful covid is.

How is this argument still being thrown about?

The deaths are so low because of the restrictions! Everyone here seems to expect deaths to be high in order to justify the restrictions. Where's the logic in that?!

Sure what's the point in seatbelts either. Figures show that deaths decreased when they were introduced to cars, negating the need for them. :rolleyes:

Hammer89

r fast food places open to sit in in dublin guys?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, well then lets throw them to the wolves, so, and we'll all carry on as normal.......forget about the elderly, sure they're circling the drain anyway.

FFS.

I can never understand this mentality. "It's only old people who are dying"......Do they not count, or what? Never mind that there are other negative consequences other than dying, or that your figures are all out of whack*, or that the stats for elderly folk perishing would skyrocket without restrictions........."it's only really serious to the 80+ year olds in very poor health and I'm not in that category, so open it all back up, lads".

I mean, what's the proposal here? Locking everything down is too restrictive and damaging to the economy and impinges on my rights, so we should *checks notes* lock up the elderly for their own good?


*56% of all deaths are under the age of 85

ah come on nobody said that at all, you make it sound like we're all wearing dignitas badges and white coats. Can I ask of that 56% below 85, what percentage of them are very overweight? have chronic underlying conditions and would have otherwise died from heart disease, heart failure, respiratory failure, cancer or of the myriad of chronic illnesses that kill the under 85's any other year? It was on the cards anyway but once they tested positive and died WITH the disease, Like I said, in the UK once you test positive for Covid, NO MATTER how you die, it's marked as covid. Below the daily tally on sky news it reads as follows..Deaths for ANY reason within 28 days of a positive test..
That includes car crashes, muggings, homicides...EVERYTHING!

I get your point, we don't all think the over 85's are heading off Cocoon style to a higher plane but those figures are inaccurate and you dont need to be Rene Decartes to see the charts are bogus

Boggles

rusty cole wrote: »

Deaths for ANY reason within 28 days of a positive test..[/B]
That includes car crashes, muggings, homicides...EVERYTHING!

How many homicides / deaths from car crashes or muggings in the reported cases in the UK?

Stormyteacup

VonLuck wrote: »

How is this argument still being thrown about?

The deaths are so low because of the restrictions! Everyone here seems to expect deaths to be high in order to justify the restrictions. Where's the logic in that?!

Sure what's the point in seatbelts either. Figures show that deaths decreased when they were introduced to cars, negating the need for them. :rolleyes:

You know, we could have lower deaths had we not eased any restrictions at all back in May.

We haven’t been careful enough. Could have got to zero deaths.

questionmark?

rusty cole wrote: »

ah come on nobody said that at all, you make it sound like we're all wearing dignitas badges and white coats. Can I ask of that 56% below 85, what percentage of them are very overweight? have chronic underlying conditions and would have otherwise died from heart disease, heart failure, respiratory failure, cancer or of the myriad of chronic illnesses that kill the under 85's any other year? It was on the cards anyway but once they tested positive and died WITH the disease, Like I said, in the UK once you test positive for Covid, NO MATTER how you die, it's marked as covid. Below the daily tally on sky news it reads as follows..Deaths for ANY reason within 28 days of a positive test..
That includes car crashes, muggings, homicides...EVERYTHING!

I get your point, we don't all think the over 85's are heading off Cocoon style to a higher plane but those figures are inaccurate and you dont need to be Rene Decartes to see the charts are bogus

So if the sole cause of death was covid but you died on the 29th day it doesn't get counted? Is that what your saying.....

bb1234567

rusty cole wrote: »

ah come on nobody said that at all, you make it sound like we're all wearing dignitas badges and white coats. Can I ask of that 56% below 85, what percentage of them are very overweight? have chronic underlying conditions and would have otherwise died from heart disease, heart failure, respiratory failure, cancer or of the myriad of chronic illnesses that kill the under 85's any other year? It was on the cards anyway but once they tested positive and died WITH the disease, Like I said, in the UK once you test positive for Covid, NO MATTER how you die, it's marked as covid. Below the daily tally on sky news it reads as follows..Deaths for ANY reason within 28 days of a positive test..
That includes car crashes, muggings, homicides...EVERYTHING!

I get your point, we don't all think the over 85's are heading off Cocoon style to a higher plane but those figures are inaccurate and you dont need to be Rene Decartes to see the charts are bogus

It is a notifiable disease, but it is later clarified whether COVID was an underlying COD or not. The ONS in the UK releases weekly statistics stating what percentage of COVID notified deaths had COVID as an underlying cause of death, this is generally int he region of 85-90%. The official COVID death toll of the UK only includes those reported by the ONS to have died because of COVID. The number of people who died in the UK after testing positive is 75,000. Meanwhile the official number of COVID related deaths is only 60,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-75000
See how in this article includes two different death tolls for the UK and clarifies why there are two?

bb1234567

If anything it looks like UK is missing deaths. Excess deaths in the UK in 2020 are 75,000. And the number of people who have died after testing positive for COVID in the UK over the last 9 months is, you guessed it, 75,000.

Seems like a pretty massive coincidence

Captain_Crash

questionmark? wrote: »

So if the sole cause of death was covid but you died on the 29th day it doesn't get counted? Is that what your saying.....

This was discussed on BBC a good while ago. If covid is the sole cause then the 28 days doesn't apply and a post mortem will conclude covid as the leading cause of death.

Stormyteacup

bb1234567 wrote: »

It is a notifiable disease, but it is later clarified whether COVID was an underlying COD or not. The ONS in the UK releases weekly statistics stating what percentage of COVID notified deaths had COVID as an underlying cause of death, this is generally int he region of 85-90%. The official COVID death toll of the UK only includes those reported by the ONS to have died because of COVID. The number of people who died in the UK after testing positive is 75,000. Meanwhile the official number of COVID related deaths is only 60,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-75000
See how in this article includes two different death tolls for the UK and clarifies why there are two?

The only reason given in that article for the different totals was whether death occurred within 28 days of a positive Covid diagnosis.

rusty cole

rusty cole wrote: »

ah come on nobody said that at all, you make it sound like we're all wearing dignitas badges and white coats.

That's exactly what people are saying. Not even implying it in some cases, just outright saying it.

How many times have we heard the line "It only affects the old and sick with underlying conditions" in this thread alone? I mean, your very next sentence after the one above is :

Can I ask of that 56% below 85, what percentage of them are very overweight? have chronic underlying conditions and would have otherwise died from heart disease, heart failure, respiratory failure, cancer or of the myriad of chronic illnesses that kill the under 85's any other year?

That is a disgraceful attitude to have. "they were gonna die anyway, so we shouldn't be worrying about their deaths".

Thats me

weldoninhio wrote: »

Thats me wrote: »

weldoninhio wrote: »

Most of our deaths were in nursing homes. Tony publicly shamed nursing homes into re-allowing visitors in back in March. They then advised hospitals to move anyone who didn’t need critical care, to convalesce in nursing homes, without Covid testing them. So yes, their actions caused them.

Can you refer particular document?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/patient-transfers-into-nursing-homes-may-have-been-as-high-as-2-300-1.4280915

The HSE are currently trying to cover their arse on it. It’s hardly a state secret that it happened.

Thank you, i wrongly decided it is NPHET is being blamed for this.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That's exactly what people are saying. Not even implying it in some cases, just outright saying it.

How many times have we heard the line "It only affects the old and sick with underlying conditions" in this thread alone? I mean, your very next sentence after the one above is :



That is a disgraceful attitude to have. "they were gonna die anyway, so we shouldn't be worrying about their deaths".

eh I didn't say that, I said those that were overweight, had heart or chronic respiratory disease BUT were below 85 (as in even 45, 55, 65, 75 ) and running a high risk of dying from those very issues, not old people beyond 85 were on the way out FFS.. I don't take that attitude at all, it affects everyone just more so in an asymptomatic sense than the minority in which it's deadly.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Cool.

Maybe start a thread on me, fill your boots.

aw come on, like you, I'll plead the 5th on the grounds that some posters are only as worthy as I deem them to be in relation to a reply to their questions.

start a thread on you , straight into personal issues for that one I'd imagine!

Like I said, good or bad, they're only posts, don't believe for one second your submissions are that note worthy as to have a thread named in their honour
Boggles.

Boggles

rusty cole wrote: »

aw come on, like you, I'll plead the 5th on the grounds that some posters are only as worthy as I deem them to be in relation to a reply to their questions.

start a thread on you , straight into personal issue for that one I'd imagine!

It certainly does seem like a personal issue for you alright.

Maybe go unreg'd and change the names.