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

bb1234567

bb1234567 wrote: »

Well going by this thread it was clearly not result of the pandemic spreading uncontrolled in the UK but much more likely to have been cancer deaths and suicide increase that account for that increase.

It is VERY odd that Ireland with the longest lockdowns in Europe experienced no increase in mortality rates under the same circumstances as has been pointed out many times. But we'll use these two completely contradictory arguments to suit our biased and unsupported belief that COVID is clearly a very mild illness that is not causing any premature death anywhere.

I don’t think anybody is claiming that Covid isn’t causing deaths. It mainly kills those that are already in very poor health and likely to die soon with or without Covid.

But it also can kill the elderly that may have several years remaining. And it can kill younger people a tiny percentage of the time.

Excess deaths during a pandemic is not unusual to see. But we are very lucky that Covid was nowhere near as deadly as we once thought. Remember early on when people were suggesting there could be 50 - 100 million deaths... Yeah that was very wrong.

People that made those kind of predictions are now desperately trying to prove that there are at least some excess deaths. Goalposts shifting and all that.

Reality is, we still haven’t even hit 2M deaths with over 90M known cases. KNOWN a key word. Thankfully it’s been very mild.

darconio

I know, how did he manage to even stand up with the deadly virus running rampant in his body

Australian Open hopeful Denis Kudla disqualified after testing positive for Covid during match he eventually won

AndrewJRenko

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

This happens every winter, this one is no different.

Lots of front line staff speaking in the media and online seem to disagree with you.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Your solution is to stop covid at all costs with no regard for anything else. Posters think there should be a bit more balance in thinking. For instance do you think the government were wrong for letting non essential retail open in December.

I reckon non essential retail could be open now provided social distancing and mask wearing was adhered to by the 99% vast majority.

Opening restaurants in Dec wasn't a great idea IMO, restaurants don't make cash unless the bums are on the seats and they were allowed to have 1m between groups once the 1 hr 45 min thing was adhered to....... total recipe for disaster in an indoor setting IMO. didn't go near a restaurant in Dec as I didn't feel comfortable with the idea........ went to more than a few retail outlets.

Tork

I think the non-essential retail closures are down to people treating a shopping trip as a leisure experience and something to do. They might slip on the mask when they go into the shops themselves but they're not necessarily doing it elsewhere. With Level 5 back in force, there are far fewer people just hanging around in the centre of the town where I live. I know the bad weather is playing its part too but things are definitely a lot quieter.

PTH2009

This month has been grim and moving at a snails pace. Can't imagine how hard it is for families/friends who have lost love ones. Then we have the mother and babies report too

Been 1000s of times now but the government need to live with this virus and make a new Living with covid plan. Going in and out if lockdowns is not worth it

walus

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t think anybody is claiming that Covid isn’t causing deaths. It mainly kills those that are already in very poor health and likely to die soon with or without Covid.

But it also can kill the elderly that may have several years remaining. And it can kill younger people a tiny percentage of the time.

Excess deaths during a pandemic is not unusual to see. But we are very lucky that Covid was nowhere near as deadly as we once thought. Remember early on when people were suggesting there could be 50 - 100 million deaths... Yeah that was very wrong.

People that made those kind of predictions are now desperately trying to prove that there are at least some excess deaths. Goalposts shifting and all that.

Reality is, we still haven’t even hit 2M deaths with over 90M known cases. KNOWN a key word. Thankfully it’s been very mild.

The average life years lost number in Germany was lower than 1 year in 2020 for those deaths with Covid. I would not be surprised if the same figure for Ireland was actually lower or even negative. My bet is on latter.

walus

Tork wrote: »

I think the non-essential retail closures are down to people treating a shopping trip as a leisure experience and something to do. They might slip on the mask when they go into the shops themselves but they're not necessarily doing it elsewhere. With Level 5 back in force, there are far fewer people just hanging around in the centre of the town where I live. I know the bad weather is playing its part too but things are definitely a lot quieter.

The thing is that closing the retail fir any other reason that it a core culprit responsible for large percentage of cases is plain and simple idiocy, with possible life long repercussions to the owners of those businesses.

How is closing retail making any difference is beyond my understanding.

emeldc

walus wrote: »

The thing is that closing the retail fir any other reason that it a core culprit responsible for large percentage of cases is plain and simple idiocy, with possible life long repercussions to the owners of those businesses.

How is closing retail making any difference is beyond my understanding.

You obviously weren't in Dundrum S/C the week before Xmas on the same day as me so. It was chaotic and downright dangerous. I left after 10 mins.

walus

emeldc wrote: »

You obviously weren't in Dundrum S/C the week before Xmas on the same day as me so. It was chaotic and downright dangerous. I left after 10 mins.

No, I wasn’t. I get though why after not being able to shop for weeks prior to that, people were doing their shopping and why there was so many of them.

Action is directly proportional to reaction, and thus the crowds. That was to be expected.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

How is closing retail making any difference is beyond my understanding.

They want people to stay at home, including the 10s of 1000s of retail staff and all the millions of contacts that come with that.

emeldc

walus wrote: »

No, I wasn’t. I get though why after not being able to shop for weeks prior to that, people were doing their shopping and why there was so many of them.

Action is directly proportional to reaction, and thus the crowds. That was to be expected.

Yea, and if it's non essential shopping they want people to stop so that we might the numbers down. Jeez, can't believe I'm explaining this.

walus

Boggles wrote: »

They want people to stay at home, including the 10s of 1000s of retail staff and all the millions of contacts that come with that.

emeldc wrote: »

Yea, and if it's non essential shopping they want people to stop so that we might the numbers down. Jeez, can't believe I'm explaining this.

And I don’t believe I’m explaining this. COVID outbreaks:
1. Private housing: 6374
...
16. Retail: 26

Right, closing retail makes massive difference. Wow. Just wow.

Edit: in fact one might say that going shopping is far, far more safer than inviting friends over.

Tork

walus wrote: »

The thing is that closing the retail for any other reason that it a core culprit responsible for a large percentage of cases is plain and simple idiocy, with possible life long repercussions to the owners of those businesses.

How is closing retail making any difference is beyond my understanding?

The point I was making obviously flew right over your head. When non-essential shops are open, they draw large numbers of people into shopping centres and towns. A good many people see a shopping trip as a leisure activity, possibly a social activity and somewhere to go.

This isn't about how many retail workers might have caught Covid while doing their jobs. It is about deterring people from gathering in groups and throwing anti-Covid measures out the window. I saw plenty of people with my own eyes hanging around in groups, far too close together, no masks etc. They might pull their masks on when they go into the shops but once they're outside the masks are off and they're physically too close to their pals.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

And I don’t believe I’m explaining this. COVID outbreaks:
1. Private housing: 6374
...
16. Retail: 26

Right, closing retail makes massive difference. Wow. Just wow.

Edit: in fact one might say that going shopping is far, far more safer than inviting friends over.

You are not supposed to have friends over, but if 10s of 1000s of retail staff have to work with the schools closed their kids will have to go to another house or even multiple households throughout the working week.

Not to mention Karen who drops her kids to the neighbors so she can go pajamas shopping for 3 hours.

Then you have the mass movement of people, with hospitals filling up and emergency services stretched it's another thing you can do it with out.

Countries in Europe are not doing it for the craic.

There is a reason for it.

walus

Tork wrote: »

The point I was making obviously flew right over your head. When non-essential shops are open, they draw large numbers of people into shopping centres and towns. A good many people see a shopping trip as a leisure activity, possibly a social activity and somewhere to go.

This isn't about how many retail workers might have caught Covid while doing their jobs. It is about deterring people from gathering in groups and throwing anti-Covid measures out the window. I saw plenty of people with my own eyes hanging around in groups, far too close together, no masks etc. They might pull their masks on when they go into the shops but once they're outside the masks are off and they're physically too close to their pals.

Sorry, but that is an awful waffle, should have said ‘poor logic’ instead - sorry. The data tells it clearly were a meaningful gains can be made.
As for the retail, it has been one of a better managed environments throughout this pandemic, with masks and limits on number of people allowed inside. Period.

emeldc

walus wrote: »

And I don’t believe I’m explaining this. COVID outbreaks:
1. Private housing: 6374
...
16. Retail: 26

Right, closing retail makes massive difference. Wow. Just wow.

Edit: in fact one might say that going shopping is far, far more safer than inviting friends over.

Do you think some (or a lot) of the private housing number might have happened while one or more of the family were in Dundrum S/C or similar doing their shopping and brought the virus home with them. No? Maybe they all picked it up while watching TV.

walus

emeldc wrote: »

Do you think some (or a lot) of the private housing number might have happened while one or more of the family were in Dundrum S/C or similar doing their shopping and brought the virus home with them. No? Maybe they all picked it up while watching TV.

In grand scheme of things that is insignificant. Totally insignificant.

emeldc

walus wrote: »

In grand scheme of things that is insignificant. Totally insignificant.

OK, grand. You're entitled to be wrong if you want to

walus

walus wrote: »

And I don’t believe I’m explaining this. COVID outbreaks:
1. Private housing: 6374
...
16. Retail: 26

Right, closing retail makes massive difference. Wow. Just wow.

Edit: in fact one might say that going shopping is far, far more safer than inviting friends over.

The idea is keeping it in houses and reducing opportunities to move from one house to another. How is this so difficult a concept?

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

When you see sensationalist stats like worst deaths since WW2 it doesn’t take into account deaths per capita and thus the fact the population has grown 20 million since then

Sounds better of course and generates more clicks

Point taken about population growth. No comment on the 91k more deaths than the previous five year average?

Tork

Deleted User wrote: »

The idea is keeping it in houses and reducing opportunities to move from one house to another. How is this so difficult a concept?

If you elaborate you'll be told you're waffling :rolleyes:

walus

Deleted User wrote: »

The idea is keeping it in houses and reducing opportunities to move from one house to another. How is this so difficult a concept?

Why do you think it is a difficult concept for me? I fully understand the logic behind it. What I’m saying is that there are 15 other locations of outbreaks that are of higher significance than retail, and that gain-to-cost ratio for closing the retail is shockingly low. Looking at the cost of that I cannot see how one could justify this at all.

average_runner

walus wrote: »

Why do you think it is a difficult concept for me? I fully understand the logic behind it. What I’m saying is that there are 15 other locations of outbreaks that are of higher significance than retail, and that gain-to-cost ratio for closing the retail is shockingly low. Looking at the cost of that I cannot see how one could justify this at all.

Because when people come out of the shops they take off their masks and talk to each other when not 2m apart

average_runner

walus wrote: »

And I don’t believe I’m explaining this. COVID outbreaks:
1. Private housing: 6374
...
16. Retail: 26

Right, closing retail makes massive difference. Wow. Just wow.

Edit: in fact one might say that going shopping is far, far more safer than inviting friends over.

But that doesn't count for the people that pick it up in a group after shopping.

Whole idea is to stop groups forming

normanoffside

average_runner wrote: »

But that doesn't count for the people that pick it up in a group after shopping.

Whole idea is to stop groups forming

If it was wildfire in retail then staff would be picking it up and passing it to other staff... Just 2 staff of a retail setting testing positive would identify the workplace as a cluster.

average_runner

normanoffside wrote: »

If it was wildfire in retail then staff would be picking it up and passing it to other staff... Just 2 staff of a retail setting testing positive would identify the workplace as a cluster.

Where did I say it was wildfire in retail?

I said outside retail after shopping

walus

average_runner wrote: »

Because when people come out of the shops they take off their masks and talk to each other when not 2m apart

Even if they do it does not seem to have had even the slightest impact on the numbers.

average_runner

walus wrote: »

Even if they do it does not seem to have had even the slightest impact on the numbers.

How do you know? The numbers dont fall under retail.

GazzaL

The sooner we get back to normal the better. People are losing their minds. Lots of people don't even realise it themselves, but they really are losing the plot.