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

froog

Boggles wrote: »

Sure.

Tenzor07

rusty cole wrote: »

what's up with this man and his reluctance to move on the obvious FFS...
Tony was having his arse handed to him and all of a sudden the line breaks mid interview...toys out of pram.

People should know by now that you don't try and challenge Holohan on whatever he says, don't question what he's saying, for he is "The Holohan" and is completely Infallible....

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

PCR will only detect virus if it is present. This line has migrated from being a talking point to an outright lie at this stage

I posted a link a while back of a paper put together by a group of scientist where they outline some issues with the PCR test. It was from November so I'm not sure if the test or SOPs around the test procedure have been updates since. To be perfectly honest, a lot of the more technical details were hard to grasp but they did a good job is not only highlighting issues but also explaining why they were highlighting them. I'll try did up the link again.

uli84

I am very CONCERNED that once more they won’t stick to their plans and Level 5 and close Primary schools

JRant

JRant wrote: »

I posted a link a while back of a paper put together by a group of scientist where they outline some issues with the PCR test. It was from November so I'm not sure if the test or SOPs around the test procedure have been updates since. To be perfectly honest, a lot of the more technical details were hard to grasp but they did a good job is not only highlighting issues but also explaining why they were highlighting them. I'll try did up the link again.

It was horseh*t where potential problems if there were unlimited cycles were used was treated as fact even though there are controls inplace. The ultimate data that disproves the theory is that we have gone from 0.3% positivity to 25% positive over the course of this pandemic. What does that tell about the potential for false positives? If they exist they are a tiny proportion

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It was horseh*t where potential problems if there were unlimited cycles were used was treated as fact even though there are controls inplace. The ultimate data that disproves the theory is that we have gone from 0.3% positivity to 25% positive over the course of this pandemic. What does that tell about the potential for false positives? If they exist they are a tiny proportion

yes I know but it can be lying there and present over 90 days and that's the point, you're keeping somebody at home for something that's not transmissible.
PCR is used for genetic finger printing and it's the gold standard for that reason, the question is, are they infectious and this is why even fauci says set the bar bar at A point advised or you'll detect something alright, from maybe even last September.

Sure Andrew Wakefield used PCR to test for M,M , R in the bowels of children which was the basis of his whole MMR vaccines causes autism hysteria, such. it was very hard to find but he used and often misdiagnosed its presence by using PCR. PCR is brilliant but there's more to testing positive than meets the eye.
It's like taking a hair sample from a one time drug user and telling them, they smoked crack 12 weeks ago, which you can.
If it was just once and they are no longer high, 12 weeks later, should we stop them driving?? working??

uli84

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Wish we could see the data for the total deaths in Ireland for 2020 as opposed to 2019. I can’t find it, can anyone else?

Looking forward to seeing those figures too, might be interesting

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Sure.

well done on your research Boggles and thanks for that..... you were on it pronto and I'm impressed. Impressed too as I had forgotten I said that or when I said it.

I will stand over my post that I am not afraid of Covid and I am not afraid of living. There is risk in everything. I am also adhering to most restrictions but I use my cop on and manage to enjoy my life too


There was too much force used for far too long back in Summer last year when we could have given people far more freedom. Now when we need serious cooperation the resolve of people has slacked off and spirits are low.

I haven't seen one Garda checkpoint this time which is absolutely brilliant. Its like the Government, while going along with NPHET in general are also very aware of the shift in the public mood and are not going to use checkpoints, curfews, water hoses or the army.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was horseh*t where potential problems if there were unlimited cycles were used was treated as fact even though there are controls inplace. The ultimate data that disproves the theory is that we have gone from 0.3% positivity to 25% positive over the course of this pandemic. What does that tell about the potential for false positives? If they exist they are a tiny proportion

They mentioned a lot lot more that just the number of cycles. The reaction temperature, amount of reagent required for amplification, the fact that they didn't use the dna from a strain of Sars-Covi2, the specific marker genes selected for comparing a positive result. The fact a sequence wasn't used, instead only one half of the sequence (hence it's difficult to tell if it's active virus or just partial). But for me was the lack of a control with proper validation carried out.

It may well be horseshït but to me it seemed like a reasonable paper. Maybe it's been clarified elsewhere and would be interested in reading up on it if it has.

uli84

uli84 wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing those figures too, might be interesting

Deaths in quarter 2 2017 : 7315
Deaths in quarter 2 2018 : 7592
Deaths in quarter 2 2019 : 7519
Deaths in quarter 2 2020 : 8582

Now consider below which explains why 92% of deaths were in this age bracket too.

from the CSO in 2016.



https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2017pressreleases/presssta

"65 years and over

This age group saw the largest increase in population since 2011, rising by 102,174 to 637,567, a rise of 19.1%. The census recorded 456 centenarians, an increase of 17.2% on 2011. Over half a million or 577,171 in this older age group lived in private households, an increase of 19.6%, while those in nursing homes increased by 1,960 to 22,762.

I'm no doctor but I'd have gone straight there when Harris got that memo on risk to the elderly population.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ah. He mustn’t be entitled to a voice so.

Time we started getting the younger guys opinions, they will pay for this mess longer than overpaid public servants mandating lockdown at every opportunity

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if hes anything like most 22/23 year olds, they'll probably still be living with Mammy and Daddy rent free for the next ten years "saving" while those at work now (across both sectors) will in reality be the ones paying for this.

Don't know where this notion that its 20 somethings who will be paying for this, while those currently at work, will not. I'm 51, I've another 16-17 years of work ahead of me. I will be paying for this.

rusty cole

rusty cole wrote: »

yes I know but it can be lying there and present over 90 days and that's the point, you're keeping somebody at home for something that's not transmissible.
PCR is used for genetic finger printing and it's the gold standard for that reason, the question is, are they infectious and this is why even fauci says set the bar bar at A point advised or you'll detect something alright, from maybe even last September.

Sure Andrew Wakefield used PCR to test for M,M , R in the bowels of children which was the basis of his whole MMR vaccines causes autism hysteria, such. it was very hard to find but he used and often misdiagnosed its presence by using PCR. PCR is brilliant but there's more to testing positive than meets the eye.
It's like taking a hair sample from a one time drug user and telling them, they smoked crack 12 weeks ago, which you can.
If it was just once and they are no longer high, 12 weeks later, should we stop them driving?? working??

There is a lot of confusion over that fact that something does happen. People can return a positive test up to 90 days after recovery. It does not mean the always do. 90 days is the tail of the distribution representing a small fraction of individuals

zerosugarbuzz

rusty cole wrote: »

Deaths in quarter 2 2017 : 7315
Deaths in quarter 2 2018 : 7592
Deaths in quarter 2 2019 : 7519
Deaths in quarter 2 2020 : 8582

Now consider below which explains why 92% of deaths were in this age bracket too.

from the CSO in 2016.



https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2017pressreleases/presssta

"65 years and over

This age group saw the largest increase in population since 2011, rising by 102,174 to 637,567, a rise of 19.1%. The census recorded 456 centenarians, an increase of 17.2% on 2011. Over half a million or 577,171 in this older age group lived in private households, an increase of 19.6%, while those in nursing homes increased by 1,960 to 22,762.

I'm no doctor but I'd have gone straight there when Harris got that memo on risk to the elderly population.

What I actually want to know is how many excess people died in 2020 due to COVID compared to deaths in 2019. Yes I know there were excess deaths in the first half of the year, but did this balance out in the second half of the year or not? Did many more actually die in 2020 than previous years?

How Soon Is Now

Crazy difference in Dublin city centre now compared to when I was last there just after Christmas. Streets are pretty much empty and Jervis shopping centre was dead compared to it being packed before.

Hopefully if this continues and hopefully other areas are the same the cases cant keep going up so high.

SusieBlue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if hes anything like most 22/23 year olds, they'll probably still be living with Mammy and Daddy rent free for the next ten years "saving" while those at work now (across both sectors) will in reality be the ones paying for this.

Don't know where this notion that its 20 somethings who will be paying for this, while those currently at work, will not. I'm 51, I've another 16-17 years of work ahead of me. I will be paying for this.

This is among one of the most ignorant things I’ve seen posted on this thread. Unbelievable.

The housing crisis effects young people’s ability to access secure accommodation on a monumental scale compared to people of your age group, you hardly think the vast majority of the younger generation are stuck living at home well into their 20’s just for the lols.
They are also newer to the workforce in comparison to people of your age, so when cuts are made they will be among the first to lose their jobs.
If they haven’t lost their jobs already, that is. I believe the level of youth unemployment is now at a record all time high.
You clearly have no idea what you’re even talking about. What a horrible attitude.

sprucemoose

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if hes anything like most 22/23 year olds, they'll probably still be living with Mammy and Daddy rent free for the next ten years "saving" while those at work now (across both sectors) will in reality be the ones paying for this.

Don't know where this notion that its 20 somethings who will be paying for this, while those currently at work, will not. I'm 51, I've another 16-17 years of work ahead of me. I will be paying for this.

off topic but seeing as you brought this up:
most adults i know are paying some sort of rent to their parents, not as much as they would be in private accommodation but seeing as rents have increased massively in the last number of years its the only option alot of the time. in fairness, what 20-something really wants to live at home and have the limited freedoms that come with living with parents

also, yes you may have 17 more working years, by that logic a 23 year old will have 45 more working years so yes will be paying for it more than you

zerosugarbuzz

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

What I actually want to know is how many excess people died in 2020 due to COVID compared to deaths in 2019. Yes I know there were excess deaths in the first half of the year, but did this balance out in the second half of the year or not? Did many more actually die in 2020 than previous years?

yes I know, I was just trying to give an idea but I don't nor does anyone know, depends how you spin it. For example, long Covid seems to have the exact same symptoms and profile as long influenza...no such thing?? here's a mild article on it, the first to hand.

https://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/flu-long-term-effects

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if hes anything like most 22/23 year olds, they'll probably still be living with Mammy and Daddy rent free for the next ten years "saving" while those at work now (across both sectors) will in reality be the ones paying for this.

Don't know where this notion that its 20 somethings who will be paying for this, while those currently at work, will not. I'm 51, I've another 16-17 years of work ahead of me. I will be paying for this.

Disgraceful post. But not surprising.

Most of the younger generations have already suffered a global recession and a global pandemic that will be likely be followed by yet another global recession.

People are living at home with their parents because rent is insanely expensive and houses are as well.

The days of 100% mortgages are long gone. The days of 2 low income workers buying a house are also gone.

At 51, you would have had ample opportunities during the Celtic tiger that simply are not available anymore. But you don’t care because the ladder was pulled up long ago.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Disgraceful post. But not surprising.

Most of the younger generations have already suffered a global recession and a global pandemic that will be likely be followed by yet another global recession.

People are living at home with their parents because rent is insanely expensive and houses are as well.

The days of 100% mortgages are long gone. The days of 2 low income workers buying a house are also gone.

At 51, you would have had ample opportunities during the Celtic tiger that simply are not available anymore. But you don’t care because the ladder was pulled up long ago.

I know it's off topic but the state in how they hand out houses and DCC in how they buy up even nice houses in middle class areas, for scroungers..also plays a role.. I feel really sorry for people in this age bracket, what a horrible existence they're having and it's nothing like suckling at "mammys teet"...they all want to grow and experience life but Govt greed first and now shocking circumstance second has put a nail in their coffin.. This is an absolute shyte state of affairs for EVERYONE!

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I will stand over my post that I am not afraid of Covid and I am not afraid of living. There is risk in everything.

Good for you.

Do you stand over your claim that the flu is more dangerous than Covid and Covid is only an issue because someone named it and if they hadn't we would be none the wiser?

FintanMcluskey

Boggles wrote: »

Good for you.

Do you stand over your claim that the flu is more dangerous than Covid and Covid is only an issue because someone named it and if they hadn't we would be none the wiser?

That’s a really good question Boggles

A news article from Jan 2020

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/first-week-of-2020-worst-ever-for-hospital-overcrowding-1.4135852%3fmode=amp

We will have to stop isolating asymptotic healthcare workers

Surely PPE and proper policy will protect the patients

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Good for you.

Do you stand over your claim that the flu is more dangerous than Covid and Covid is only an issue because someone named it and if they hadn't we would be none the wiser?

I'm actually off just now for my daily swim in the sea, I am not getting into any discussion on Covid versus flu, I am sure there are enough people here who are happy too. I dont spend all day here either..... there is a life to be lived out there! Enjoy your day

paw patrol

Deleted User wrote: »

PCR will only detect virus if it is present. This line has migrated from being a talking point to an outright lie at this stage

this statement is not accurate.

I posted on this in Sept or oct on this forum.
None of the pro lockdown people challenged my assertions . odd that

The PCR machine is run to 40 or more cycles as per the Dept of Health FOI letter (which I posted here) .
Normally in pre covid times this 25 would be the norm to 30 max. The difference between 25 cycles and and 45 is exponential it's not just 15 times.
At levels over 30 the results are not accurate because of the massively increasing risk of detecting fragments of the virus or back ground interference.

In fact the WHO issued a statement on this in dec on their website - strangely ignored by the media and their NPHET allies.

https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users

please note the quote

when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.

this is a decent article on the matter (includes references and links which is what makes it good)
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

This is among one of the most ignorant things I’ve seen posted on this thread. Unbelievable.

The housing crisis effects young people’s ability to access secure accommodation on a monumental scale compared to people of your age group, you hardly think the vast majority of the younger generation are stuck living at home well into their 20’s just for the lols.
They are also newer to the workforce in comparison to people of your age, so when cuts are made they will be among the first to lose their jobs.
If they haven’t lost their jobs already, that is. I believe the level of youth unemployment is now at a record all time high.
You clearly have no idea what you’re even talking about. What a horrible attitude.

I have a 24 year old daughter, and am very familiar with the issues facing her age group. The accommodation issues existed pre-covid, and they are also the age group who are most likely to bounce back and pick up another job quickly, after a job loss.

Try getting another job at 50, when you probably have kids still in childcare or worse, going to college in the next five years, and have another 15-20 years of a mortgage ahead of you.

But that doesn't mean the point I made, which you ignored, isn't valid. It won't be "the youth of today who who will be left paying for this". It will impact on every person of working age. Sick of listening about how this will only affect the young.

The vast majority of "the youth of today" will only be leaving their parentally subsidised nest in ten years times, while their parents will have paid for it in the interim.

Tough **** if you don't like my attitude - I don't like yours.

paw patrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Tough **** if you don't like my attitude - I don't like yours.

heroic talk.:pac:

paw patrol

I believe it will become clear in years to come when this is investigated that the PCR tests are picking up all manner of corona virus and other illnesses and labeling everything as "positive".



the notion that Ireland and Europe is dying from an illness with the most vague symptoms that puts (in Ireland) 69 in ICU out of 82000 active cases is just stupid. current numbers.



They call this flu season but tbh it's a **** show for all manner of respiratory illness and the rest...anybody with long term asthma will tell you that . yet the flu just took a break for the year :rolleyes:

CruelSummer

A headline has caught my eye in the Independent today:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/nphet-shake-up-as-government-to-add-more-scientists-and-medics-to-refresh-tony-holohans-team-39933969.html

"A senior government source said Mr Holohan’s group needs to be “refreshed and strengthened” to deal with the ongoing challenges posed by the pandemic.

“We want fewer civil servants and more medical specialists who are knowledgeable and have strong personalities,” the source said."

Hard to interpret what this means...

Also DeGascun singled out for his tweet re U.K. variant. Turns out he based this tweet and information on a sample size of only 169....when cases are averaging 4000-6000 per day.

Also states Stephen Donnelly was particularly keen on this appointment to the Department of Health:

"The news comes as it also emerged Department of Public Expenditure and Reform secretary general Robert Watt is to move to the Department of Health.

Mr Watt, who pushed for the economy to be reopened during the Covid-19 pandemic, will now be the secretary general in the department tasked with managing the public health crisis."

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have a 24 year old daughter, and am very familiar with the issues facing her age group. The accommodation issues existed pre-covid, and they are also the age group who are most likely to bounce back and pick up another job quickly, after a job loss.

Try getting another job at 50, when you probably have kids still in childcare or worse, going to college in the next five years, and have another 15-20 years of a mortgage ahead of you.

But that doesn't mean the point I made, which you ignored, isn't valid. It won't be "the youth of today who who will be left paying for this". It will impact on every person of working age. Sick of listening about how this will only affect the young.

The vast majority of "the youth of today" will only be leaving their parentally subsidised nest in ten years times, while their parents will have paid for it in the interim.

Tough **** if you don't like my attitude - I don't like yours.

Try getting another job at 50 when you probably have kids....

That highlights your knowledge of the current situation.

Lots of responsible people won’t be having kids or buying houses as they are priced out.

Living with parents is not an option for many

sprucemoose

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a 24 year old daughter, and am very familiar with the issues facing her age group. The accommodation issues existed pre-covid, and they are also the age group who are most likely to bounce back and pick up another job quickly, after a job loss.

except when we are continually moving to a gig economy this is less likely to be a well-paying job. even forgetting that, wages for graduate positions are not increasing relative to cost of living

Deleted User wrote: »

Try getting another job at 50, when you probably have kids still in childcare or worse, going to college in the next five years, and have another 15-20 years of a mortgage ahead of you.

try being 22/23 and getting a mortage in the next 20 years

Deleted User wrote: »

But that doesn't mean the point I made, which you ignored, isn't valid. It won't be "the youth of today who who will be left paying for this". It will impact on every person of working age. Sick of listening about how this will only affect the young.

i'm yet to hear anyone say this is only affecting the young, as you illustrated yourself, younger people are going to be footing the bill longer than you are

Deleted User wrote: »

The vast majority of "the youth of today" will only be leaving their parentally subsidised nest in ten years times, while their parents will have paid for it in the interim.

because even on a decent wage, most will still not have the financial means to do so

Deleted User wrote: »

Tough **** if you don't like my attitude - I don't like yours.

that's a fantastic attitude to take when you've been clearly proved wrong

sprucemoose

sprucemoose wrote: »

also, yes you may have 17 more working years, by that logic a 23 year old will have 45 more working years so yes will be paying for it more than you

You think they'll drag out paying for this for 45 years? Okay then.