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

oldtimeyfella

theballz wrote: »

Abit extreme here, relax.

WHO Special Envoy on COVID-19 Dr David Nabarro said national lockdowns should only be used in “really extreme circumstances when things are very bad.”

Hospitals numbers are relatively okay at the moment so I can understand why people might question it. Lockdowns are an incredible burden on people (some moreso than others.)

Just because you are okay with it doesn’t mean others feel the same way.

Will you be losing her job come 24th of December?

Nah, I have a frontline essential job. Have to deal with people ignoring mask/social distancing rules pretty much every minute of every day and get into arguments with people over them wanting to be the exception to the various rules.

I go to work, go to the supermarket maybe once a fortnight and only visited my elderly parents when case numbers were low.

Sick of my ****e listening to people pretend to care about restaurant/bar workers when all they are really worried about is not being able to go for pints or a feed of dinner.

MOH

Deleted User wrote: »

That is the actual HSE Data - it is the rate of change in the 5 day average compared to 5 days earlier. 0 Means No Growth over 5 Days, +1 is 100% growth over 5 days. Crossing the Zero line is moving form Growth to decline and visa versa.

So dont try to accuse me of manipulation of data when every piece of data I post is straight from the source. You can try and recreate the chart if you wish, but it is bang on.

Given you dont seem to comprehend the difference between growth and raw numbers, it may prove beyond you however

Yes, of course I'm the one at fault because you're incapable of presenting data in any kind of context? Given you don't seem to understand the difference between falsifying figures and manipulating data, I can understand why you'd be reluctant.

I probably could recreate the chart but I'm not sure why I'd bother since you're still deliberately manipulating the data to try to show a desired result. (I'm assuming this is your own work, since you didn't provide any attribution?)

I'm curious, how long did you have to spend picking various metrics before you decided "rate of change of the five day average compared to five days earlier" would give you the desired results, so you could get a couple of large spikes in there after hospiality (sic) reopened? It doesn't seem to be a widely cited statistic, so marks for inventiveness.

I'm also curious what you think it shows, since you didn't bother adding any commentary (which makes me wonder if it is yours since you don't seem to understand it).

Let's have a look. I've taken the liberty of annotating your graph to illustrate the points below, but I have given you attribution. (Apologies for my handwriting, I'm a bit rubbish in Paint, and the calligraphy pen really didn't help like I thought it would)



- there's the re-opening of hospitality followed an immediate brief spike which is too soon to have been the results of that, followed by a second spike. Then it actually drops below what it was at when hospitality re-opened. It then pretty much stays around zero or below. So with the negatives cancelling out the spike end up with a 5-day average pretty much back where we started before hospitality reopened, although I think it was actually about 10% higher despite the increase of 250% in tests performed
- then there's the August bank holiday which predictably leads to a massive spike, after which things mostly stop getting worse except for a couple of brief lapses.
- then schools open and things are pretty much constantly bad after that. It's nearly a constant 50% increase or worse.
- There is something interesting though - there's actually a dip at the end of September. Bizarrely, it looks like according to your graph the situation actually improved briefly when pubs outside Dublin opened on Sept 21st (or at least stopped getting worse). Unfortunately it doesn't last too long and we're back to where we were, climbing since the schools opened
- Then L3 kicks in, takes a while to have an effect, but then shows a marked improvement, cases stop rising as quickly, and actually start dropping as L5 is implemented, with most of the improvement being before L5 has time to take effect
- L5 does briefly help, but then after mid term ends and the decrease slows and there's another spike. (Possibly kids going back to schools after a week off with greater contact with a wider group of people than normal, then bringing it back into school. Possibly not). Still, L5 prevails and things start improving again.
- Then we're back to around stable, and everything re-opens. Restaurants, food pubs, Christmas shopping, and it's legal to buy socks again. So with a wide range of factors things just get worse from there.


So well done on getting a couple of nice spikes in the right place so anyone briefly looking at your graph would see "ooh no, hospitality had horrible effects". But I'm afraid that still counts as manipulation.

And any kind of in-depth analysis of it shows exactly the same story as the straightforward graph of the 5-day average: negligible impact of June hospitality re-opening; large impact of schools re-opening only eventually mitigated by widespread restrictions. And L3 did most of the works before L5 kicked in.

Thanks for backing up my points. I'd ask to borrow your graph but I think it's needlessly confusing, I'll stick with the straightforward one.

quartz1

Nobody want this lockdown but what realistic option is there. In honesty the Gastropubs and Hotels were opened but again some and I admit not all failed to safely manage contacts . How many Hotels Rooms were occupied by work parties on a night out ....it's human nature to become complacent but from the beginning the Government have failed to strictly enforce legislation on rogue operators and now this again is the price ....honest sincere business been closed again. 30 k people have returned from the UK and absolutely no system in place to regulate them . Be honest how many of the 30 k are in self quarantine for 14 days arriving from a country with the mutant strain ..

ceadaoin.

Poorside wrote: »

Might need to check your maths, 80 million cases with 1.7 million deaths, that a hell of a lot more than .02%.
I know, facts are a terrible thing when you're trying to push an agenda.

From the WHO

Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was
0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.

Ginger n Lemon

MOH wrote: »

Yes, of course I'm the one at fault because you're incapable of presenting data in any kind of context? Given you don't seem to understand the difference between falsifying figures and manipulating data, I can understand why you'd be reluctant.

I probably could recreate the chart but I'm not sure why I'd bother since you're still deliberately manipulating the data to try to show a desired result. (I'm assuming this is your own work, since you didn't provide any attribution?)

I'm curious, how long did you have to spend picking various metrics before you decided "rate of change of the five day average compared to five days earlier" would give you the desired results, so you could get a couple of large spikes in there after hospiality (sic) reopened? It doesn't seem to be a widely cited statistic, so marks for inventiveness.

I'm also curious what you think it shows, since you didn't bother adding any commentary (which makes me wonder if it is yours since you don't seem to understand it).

Let's have a look. I've taken the liberty of annotating your graph to illustrate the points below, but I have given you attribution. (Apologies for my handwriting, I'm a bit rubbish in Paint, and the calligraphy pen really didn't help like I thought it would)



- there's the re-opening of hospitality followed an immediate brief spike which is too soon to have been the results of that, followed by a second spike. Then it actually drops below what it was at when hospitality re-opened. It then pretty much stays around zero or below. So with the negatives cancelling out the spike end up with a 5-day average pretty much back where we started before hospitality reopened, although I think it was actually about 10% higher despite the increase of 250% in tests performed
- then there's the August bank holiday which predictably leads to a massive spike, after which things mostly stop getting worse except for a couple of brief lapses.
- then schools open and things are pretty much constantly bad after that. It's nearly a constant 50% increase or worse.
- There is something interesting though - there's actually a dip at the end of September. Bizarrely, it looks like according to your graph the situation actually improved briefly when pubs outside Dublin opened on Sept 21st (or at least stopped getting worse). Unfortunately it doesn't last too long and we're back to where we were, climbing since the schools opened
- Then L3 kicks in, takes a while to have an effect, but then shows a marked improvement, cases stop rising as quickly, and actually start dropping as L5 is implemented, with most of the improvement being before L5 has time to take effect
- L5 does briefly help, but then after mid term ends and the decrease slows and there's another spike. (Possibly kids going back to schools after a week off with greater contact with a wider group of people than normal, then bringing it back into school. Possibly not). Still, L5 prevails and things start improving again.
- Then we're back to around stable, and everything re-opens. Restaurants, food pubs, Christmas shopping, and it's legal to buy socks again. So with a wide range of factors things just get worse from there.


So well done on getting a couple of nice spikes in the right place so anyone briefly looking at your graph would see "ooh no, hospitality had horrible effects". But I'm afraid that still counts as manipulation.

And any kind of in-depth analysis of it shows exactly the same story as the straightforward graph of the 5-day average: negligible impact of June hospitality re-opening; large impact of schools re-opening only eventually mitigated by widespread restrictions. And L3 did most of the works before L5 kicked in.

Thanks for backing up my points. I'd ask to borrow your graph but I think it's needlessly confusing, I'll stick with the straightforward one.

Absolutely brilliant

10/10 for the pic

PTH2009

This really should be the very very last lockdown esp with the Vaccine roll out but we all know it won't be

Itssoeasy

Necro wrote: »

Tbf, it's pretty much the only weapon any government the world over is using.

Yes as a last resort they are the only way forward but we in Ireland are supposed to have a system of levels but we seem to be skipping from 3 to 5 recently. Why is there five levels ? Just make it four because the level 4 we have now is like the midfielders in the Irish team when jack Charlton was in charge, bypassed.

I think the way pubs and the like have been painted is ridiculous. They should have stayed closed because this opening and then closing and the opening is just not fair on them as businesses. And in cases where business are closed because of the government restrictions then its on the government to support them because they are closed through no fault of their own.

Pitch n Putt

gmisk wrote: »

Restaurants to shut at 3pm on Christmas eve....I have a booking at 2...

The virus must have gotten a watch for Christmas

oldtimeyfella

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yes as a last resort they are the only way forward but we in Ireland are supposed to have a system of levels but we seem to be skipping from 3 to 5 recently. Why is there five levels ? Just make it four because the level 4 we have now is like the midfielders in the Irish team when jack Charlton was in charge, bypassed.

I think the way pubs and the like have been painted is ridiculous. They should have stayed closed because this opening and then closing and the opening is just not fair on them as businesses. And in cases where business are closed because of the government restrictions then its on the government to support them because they are closed through no fault of their own.

Honestly, the level system was pointless from the beginning because it was always "level X with the following exceptions....." any time it changed.

If you aren't going to stick to your suite of restrictions then why even bother having them in the first place?

MOH

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but at the very least if you are going to use data to support that belief, you better make sure it does actually support that belief

Deleted User wrote: »

So testing has increased 30% and cases 200%+.

The lack of critical thinking here is frightening

Says the chancer with the bizarro graph trying to prove something about the June hospitality reopening based on the 5-day averages. And failing to do so despite deliberately ignoring the fact that the number of tests increased 250% during the first month, while the number of cases only increase by maybe 10%.

I genuinely can't work out if you're deliberately trying to mislead people for some reason, are totally self-deluded, or just trolling.

Penfailed

quartz1 wrote: »

Nobody want this lockdown but what realistic option is there. In honesty the Gastropubs and Hotels were opened but again some and I admit not all failed to safely manage contacts . How many Hotels Rooms were occupied by work parties on a night out ....it's human nature to become complacent but from the beginning the Government have failed to strictly enforce legislation on rogue operators and now this again is the price ....honest sincere business been closed again. 30 k people have returned from the UK and absolutely no system in place to regulate them . Be honest how many of the 30 k are in self quarantine for 14 days arriving from a country with the mutant strain ..

I only know one fella coming home from London (Tier 4). He already has a photo up of pints in a gastropub in the north enroute to the south. There will be zero self-quarantining from that cohort. I know I only have one example...but I don't think anyone that's coming home for a two week holiday is likely to quarantine for two weeks...

Penfailed

PTH2009 wrote: »

This really should be the very very last lockdown esp with the Vaccine roll out but we all know it won't be

Always with the doom and gloom. It really depends on the numbers. Restrictions eased when the numbers go down, restrictions tightened when the numbers go up. The whole country won't be vaccinated until the second half of the year so the chances are that, yes, there will be further lockdowns/increased restrictions.

oldtimeyfella

oldtimeyfella wrote: »

People asking why we need another lockdown when the last ones "didn't work" because cases started rising again when the lockdowns were lifted have to be taking the piss.

No one could be that monumentally unintelligent. I refuse to believe it.

The government are ultimately to blame here. They are the ones that told us that lockdown wouldn’t be needed once we got testing and tracing up to speed and flattened the curve. They are the ones who constantly said that we need to learn to live with the virus.

If you have to permanently stay in lockdown while the country burns to the ground, well for me it’s not a success.

Close to half a million are going to be unemployed this Christmas, wondering how they’ll keep a roof over their heads in 2021.

All in some bizarre effort to keep “cases” down. And still people think 700 cases = 700 sick people...

I refuse to believe that people are so monumentally unintelligent that they fail to see that 695+ of those 700 cases will be just fine.

weldoninhio

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

You are supporting my point.

Tony Holohan, he is an expert? we know what he is an expert at but if I say it I ll probably be banned so, pass.

Which one of the individuals had input in dealing with pandemic of 1968? If the answer is none then all you've provided is a list of individuals with college degrees who have worked in their field. But none of them have experience at dealing with a very mild pandemic.

Your logic is akin to calling a pilot who has completed his training and done some training flights on a simulator an "expert" when he pilots his first flight with real people.



Your experts have ordered transfer of covid patients from hospitals to nursing homes in March. You should be ashamed of that rather than keep linking their names as some sort of "I am so proud these experts are looking after us"

Those very same “experts” are responsible for the crumbling thing we call a health service in this country. Yet are now held up as unquestionable saviours!!

Kermit.de.frog

Good to see the government laying out the stall now at least until March. Gives people some certainty.

They could have tightened things up starting today but let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.

We will regain some control next month and that's the main thing. Hopefully not too much damage done before then.

Every day not taking action is a day wasted.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I refuse to believe that people are so monumentally unintelligent that they fail to see that 695+ of those 700 cases will be just fine.

Well no statistically 28 out of 700 confirmed cases will end up in hospital.

3-4 will end up in ICU.

A portion then will have to go on steroids for weeks even months or experience long after effects which can't be treated.

That will fluctuate depending on age profile.

That's before we even tackle the fact that it's a highly transmissible disease and those 700 will have infected others and so on.

Like I keep saying you can't ignore your way through a once in a generation pandemic even with erroneous numbers.

weldoninhio

Poorside wrote: »

Might need to check your maths, 80 million cases with 1.7 million deaths, that a hell of a lot more than .02%.
I know, facts are a terrible thing when you're trying to push an agenda.

WHO and CDC have both said that their best estimate is that over ten times as many people who have been tested have had Covid. So pop another 0 onto your 80m cases and it’ll work for you.

Mad how the experts are right about masks, lockdown etc, but ignored on the things people don’t want to believe.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Well no statistically 28 out of 700 confirmed cases will end up in hospital.

3-4 will end up in ICU.

A portion then will have to go on steroids for weeks even months or experience long after effects which can't be treated.

That will fluctuate depending on age profile.

That's before we even tackle the fact that it's a highly transmissible disease and those 700 will have infected others and so on.

Like I keep saying you can't ignore your way through a once in a generation pandemic even with erroneous numbers.

Which confirms that 695+ will be fine.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Good to see the government laying out the stall now at least until March. Gives people some certainty.

They could have tightened things up starting today but let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.

We will regain some control next month and that's the main thing. Hopefully not too much damage done before then.

Every day not taking action is a day wasted.

By certainty you mean at least people know their business/careers/social lives etc are doomed.

And the economy is doomed.

But at least the mild illness will less prevalent once people are vaccinated, so that’s a tiny bit of comfort... for someone I guess.

Itssoeasy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Good to see the government laying out the stall now at least until March. Gives people some certainty.

They could have tightened things up starting today but let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.

We will regain some control next month and that's the main thing. Hopefully not too much damage done before then.

Every day not taking action is a day wasted.

Certainly until they extend it again.

The damage already done kermit. Many people haven’t seen their families in any proper way since last March. If this rumbles on past March then I think we can say the government have made a balls of this whole thing.

Penfailed

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which confirms that 695+ will be fine.

That just glosses over the hospitalization numbers which puts strain on the health service.

Remember all that nonsense about the economy bouncing right back in 2021...

Already looks like lockdown and huge unemployment for all of Q1.

How many billions will be spent on PUP and business supports by the time we are happy to move forward?

Ginger n Lemon

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Your logic is akin to calling a pilot who has completed his training and done some training flights on a simulator an "expert"

Your logic is akin to disregarding the global airline industry because you once downloaded a flight simulator and flyboy69 on the simulator forum said he could land a 747 on the m50

Penfailed

Penfailed wrote: »

That just glosses over the hospitalization numbers which puts strain on the health service.

Hospital figures are hard to predict because we include people that just happened to test positive while already in hospital.

Unless I could see the real figures I won’t comment much on that.

Paddygreen

Grim evening guys. Getting the last few bits done for Christmas. Just put Mr Yagodas presents under the tree, might be his last Christmas, who knows. Relaxing now with an ice cold can of Galahad and a few seasonal tunes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHuXSvbC91g

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Which confirms that 695+ will be fine.

If you consider that level of hospitalization "just fine".

But you need to consider the scale if you are advocating for 'sure lets just ignore it method of pandemic control'.

Ginger n Lemon

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Coronavirus: WHO estimates 10% of global population infected with COVID-19

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-who-estimates-10-of-global-population-infected-with-covid-19/a-55162783

A conservative estimate. way, way back on 5th of October. Fast forward 2.5 months it can be safely said that 1 billion people + already had covid. You put your death figure beside that figure and you ll soon realize that this is a very mild disease.

Have 80% of the population of Belgium had the virus? Because 0.16% of the population has died. And if so why are they getting cases because that is hers immunity?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

If you consider that level of hospitalization "just fine".

But you need to consider the scale if you are advocating for 'sure lets just ignore it method of pandemic control'.

Hospital figures are completely skewed by the many outbreaks in hospitals and testing all patients.

We have no idea how many are actually in there getting treated for Covid.

Although some data suggested as little as 40% actually went into hospital because of Covid.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Hospital figures are completely skewed by the many outbreaks in hospitals and testing all patients.

We have no idea how many are actually in there getting treated for Covid.

Although some data suggested as little as 40% actually went into hospital because of Covid.

Can I see this "some data"?

MOH

MOH wrote: »

Yes, of course I'm the one at fault because you're incapable of presenting data in any kind of context? Given you don't seem to understand the difference between falsifying figures and manipulating data, I can understand why you'd be reluctant.

I probably could recreate the chart but I'm not sure why I'd bother since you're still deliberately manipulating the data to try to show a desired result. (I'm assuming this is your own work, since you didn't provide any attribution?)

I'm curious, how long did you have to spend picking various metrics before you decided "rate of change of the five day average compared to five days earlier" would give you the desired results, so you could get a couple of large spikes in there after hospiality (sic) reopened? It doesn't seem to be a widely cited statistic, so marks for inventiveness.

I'm also curious what you think it shows, since you didn't bother adding any commentary (which makes me wonder if it is yours since you don't seem to understand it).

Let's have a look. I've taken the liberty of annotating your graph to illustrate the points below, but I have given you attribution. (Apologies for my handwriting, I'm a bit rubbish in Paint, and the calligraphy pen really didn't help like I thought it would)



- there's the re-opening of hospitality followed an immediate brief spike which is too soon to have been the results of that, followed by a second spike. Then it actually drops below what it was at when hospitality re-opened. It then pretty much stays around zero or below. So with the negatives cancelling out the spike end up with a 5-day average pretty much back where we started before hospitality reopened, although I think it was actually about 10% higher despite the increase of 250% in tests performed
- then there's the August bank holiday which predictably leads to a massive spike, after which things mostly stop getting worse except for a couple of brief lapses.
- then schools open and things are pretty much constantly bad after that. It's nearly a constant 50% increase or worse.
- There is something interesting though - there's actually a dip at the end of September. Bizarrely, it looks like according to your graph the situation actually improved briefly when pubs outside Dublin opened on Sept 21st (or at least stopped getting worse). Unfortunately it doesn't last too long and we're back to where we were, climbing since the schools opened
- Then L3 kicks in, takes a while to have an effect, but then shows a marked improvement, cases stop rising as quickly, and actually start dropping as L5 is implemented, with most of the improvement being before L5 has time to take effect
- L5 does briefly help, but then after mid term ends and the decrease slows and there's another spike. (Possibly kids going back to schools after a week off with greater contact with a wider group of people than normal, then bringing it back into school. Possibly not). Still, L5 prevails and things start improving again.
- Then we're back to around stable, and everything re-opens. Restaurants, food pubs, Christmas shopping, and it's legal to buy socks again. So with a wide range of factors things just get worse from there.


So well done on getting a couple of nice spikes in the right place so anyone briefly looking at your graph would see "ooh no, hospitality had horrible effects". But I'm afraid that still counts as manipulation.

And any kind of in-depth analysis of it shows exactly the same story as the straightforward graph of the 5-day average: negligible impact of June hospitality re-opening; large impact of schools re-opening only eventually mitigated by widespread restrictions. And L3 did most of the works before L5 kicked in.

Thanks for backing up my points. I'd ask to borrow your graph but I think it's needlessly confusing, I'll stick with the straightforward one.

I understand comprehension can be difficult. I took me all of 3 minutes to make the chart and it is relevant as 5 days is the mean incubation time and picking the single day rate is subject to massive fluctuations

There was absolutely no manipulation, if I had wanted to do that I would have picked the 3 day as the spike would have been much sharper.

Don’t argue stats with me when all you have are glib observations without any effort to understand what you are looking at