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

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

you still don't get it. we have 2 million deaths with most of the world locked down for the best part of a year. with no lockdowns and other control measures the deaths would easily be 20-50 million.

So lockdown prevented between 10-30 times multiple deaths?

Have you any evidence whatsoever?

froog

froog wrote: »

you still don't get it. we have 2 million deaths with most of the world locked down for the best part of a year. with no lockdowns and other control measures the deaths would easily be 20-50 million.

Oh god... lol.
There’s a conspiracy theory forum for wild speculation.

emeldc

Deleted User wrote: »

And Glynn went out of his way today to reiterate that the illness is deadly to all ages.

Incredible thing to say with the stats in front of him.

So is it not deadly to all ages or is that just specific to Ireland.

GeorgeBailey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

So lockdown prevented between 10-30 times multiple deaths?

Have you any evidence whatsoever?

Christmas surely shows you what can happen, no? Allow people to gather, case numbers grow, numbers in hospitals grow and deaths grow. Maybe it's not between 10-30 times but it would be a significant amount more. How anyone can think otherwise with the evidence we've had over the last year is totally beyond me.

froog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

So lockdown prevented between 10-30 times multiple deaths?

Have you any evidence whatsoever?

fintan you've shown that you don't even understand how the virus spreads and how people staying away from each other stops it so there's no point in me explaining it any further, but here's some studies for you anyway.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-lockdowns-idUSKBN23F1G3

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/large-scale-lockdowns-in-europe-saved-millions-of-lives/25046

Ten of Swords

rusty cole wrote: »

A few posters on here seem to fine despite having bouts of the verbal brow beating lockdown variant of same diarrhea...

Ignored your threadban

Now forum banned, do not post in this thread upon your return

GeorgeBailey

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

Christmas surely shows you what can happen, no? Allow people to gather, case numbers grow, numbers in hospitals grow and deaths grow. Maybe it's not between 10-30 times but it would be a significant amount more. How anyone can think otherwise with the evidence we've had over the last year is totally beyond me.

Look at Sweden. No lockdown for months and they didn’t have a huge number of deaths. Even less excess deaths.

In fact, 2020 was a pretty normal year for them in terms of deaths.

I see no evidence at all to suggest lockdown prevented 48 million deaths. Maybe 1 at most.

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

fintan you've shown that you don't even understand how the virus spreads and how people staying away from each other stops it so there's no point in me explaining it any further, but here's some studies for you anyway.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-lockdowns-idUSKBN23F1G3

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/large-scale-lockdowns-in-europe-saved-millions-of-lives/25046

As has been discussed multiple times on this thread those are based on absolutely no mitigation measure or behavioural changes, and usually based on countries with completely different population demographics to Ireland.

I’m going to ask you, are you an anti masker?

Or why is it then, that you do not consider mask wearing an effective mitigation measure?

Why do you not consider social distancing an effective mitigation measure?

Lockdown is a nuclear measure that has massive sunk cost effects.

Ireland has essentially had lockdown for about 8 of the previous 10 months

boege

Penfailed wrote: »

Bit morbid. No.

This is a topic I have some interest in as I lost a close relative this summer. There is no evidence that suicide figures are up due to Covid. The opposite may even be the case.

Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.10

Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352

I heard this topic discussed on a radio programme a few month back and the expert being interviewed mentioned that rates in Ireland may even be slightly down. Also, due to the way suicide is reported published data is at least 6 months behind, or longer. Some additional information here:
https://www.thejournal.ie/suicide-ireland-august-claim-33-deaths-factcheck-5192698-Sep2020/

froog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

As has been discussed multiple times on this thread those are based on absolutely no mitigation measure or behavioural changes, and usually based on countries with completely different population demographics to Ireland.

I’m going to ask you, are you an anti masker?

Or why is it then, that you do not consider mask wearing an effective mitigation measure?

Why do you not consider social distancing an effective mitigation measure?

Lockdown is a nuclear measure that has massive sunk cost effects.

Ireland has essentially had lockdown for about 8 of the previous 10 months

i'll try and say this as simply as i can.

this virus is transmitted from person to person.

if you are close to someone they can infect you.

if many people are not close to each other, there is less infections going on.

less infections, less people getting sick, less people dying.

i can't go any simpler than that.

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

i'll try and say this as simply as i can.

this virus is transmitted from person to person.

if you are close to someone they can infect you.

if many people are not close to each other, there is less infections going on.

less infections, less people getting sick, less people dying.

i can't go any simpler than that.

So going back to lockdown preventing up to 50 million deaths while using models that don’t take into account basic measures.

Do you believe mask wearing and social distance works?

Or are you one of those who don’t believe masks work?

And to summarise you have no evidence to back up the claim

Cerveza

That tinder and grinder should have been shut down at level 3.

froog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

So going back to lockdown preventing up to 50 million deaths while using models that don’t take into account basic measures.

Do you believe mask wearing and social distance works?

Or are you one of those who don’t believe masks work?

And to summarise you have no evidence to back up the claim

i've answered this exact rant from you before just a few days ago.

if everyone in the world wore a mask properly and stayed more than 2 metres away from other people at all times, that would be more than enough to deal with the virus. but they don't.

and so we have lockdowns which forces people to stay away from people.

again, you need a basic understanding of how this virus spreads to understand that and i'm not sure you do.

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

i've answered this exact rant from you before just a few days ago.

if everyone in the world wore a mask properly and stayed more than 2 metres away from other people at all times, that would be more than enough to deal with the virus. but they don't.

and so we have lockdowns which forces people to stay away from people.

again, you need a basic understanding of how this virus spreads to understand that and i'm not sure you do.

Ok you don’t have evidence to support the extraordinary claim.

froog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ok you don’t have evidence to support the extraordinary claim.

lockdowns = less virus.

less virus = less deaths.

a child can understand that.

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

lockdowns = less virus.

less virus = less deaths.

a child can understand that.

Basic mitigation measures = less virus

Less virus = less deaths

froog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Basic mitigation measures = less virus

Less virus = less deaths

basic mitigation measures doesn't work for an entire population because a lot of people don't do them, as we have seen not once, but three times in our own country.

that's not to say they don't work, they do and if you do them yourself you greatly reduce the risk you will get the virus yourself.

but if you want to reduce the levels of the virus in the community, everyone needs to do them. and they don't.

and so, once again, we have lockdowns. and they work.

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

basic mitigation measures doesn't work for an entire population because a lot of people don't do them, as we have seen not once, but three times in our own country.

that's not to say they don't work, they do and if you do them yourself you greatly reduce the risk you will get the virus yourself.

but if you want to reduce the levels of the virus in the community, everyone needs to do them. and they don't.

and so, once again, we have lockdowns. and they work.

So lockdowns prevented 20-50 million deaths and basic mitigation like mask wearing and social distancing had no effect?

jd1983

froog wrote: »

lockdowns = less virus.

less virus = less deaths.

a child can understand that.

Do you think a argument could be made that lockdowns create pent up demand and mean there's less immunity in the community. Both of these factors massively increase transmission in periods between lockdowns, meaning a surge of cases at the same time. This means hospitals become overwhelmed, high hospital staff absenteeism due to illness resulting in more deaths.
What we're seeing at the moment is the opposite of a 'flatten the curve' strategy. This is due to unnecessary and badly timed lockdowns.
A better strategy might have been to lockdown two weeks before Xmas and have less restrictions in October and November.

CalamariFritti

froog wrote: »

lockdowns = less virus.

less virus = less deaths.

a child can understand that.

You made a claim that without restrictions/lockdown there would be 50 millions deaths. Someone asked for evidence which you dont have. Which I wouldnt hold against you cos no one has any evidence for anything in this.

But let me ask you besides evidence have you any case for plausibility even?

Because there are countries that didnt do much at all with restrictions like Sweden and they are mid table in Europ in the corona stats. And then there are countries that have the strictest and longest lockdowns and their stats aren't any better some in fact much worse.

We have former poster boys like Germany tumbling from one lockdown to the next now surpassing the Trumpian USA in deaths per capita which we are led to believe had the worst and most negligent and criminal covidiot response ever.

Convincing yourself without lockdown there'd be 25 times the death toll does not add up. Even you must see that.

froog

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You made a claim that without restrictions/lockdown there would be 50 millions deaths. Someone asked for evidence which you dont have. Which I wouldnt hold against you cos no one has any evidence for anything in this.

But let me ask you besides evidence have you any case for plausibility even?

Because there are countries that didnt do much at all with restrictions like Sweden and they are mid table in Europ in the corona stats. And then there are countries that have the strictest and longest lockdowns and their stats aren't any better some in fact much worse.

We have former poster boys like Germany tumbling from one lockdown to the next now surpassing the Trumpian USA in deaths per capita which we are led to believe had the worst and most negligent and criminal covidiot response ever.

Convincing yourself without lockdown there'd be 25 times the death toll does not add up. Even you must see that.

i posted three articles earlier. clearly none of you bothered to read them.

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

i posted three articles earlier. clearly none of you bothered to read them.

I did.

Very quickly, all dated from June and not taking into account basic mitigation measures and behavioural changes.

CalamariFritti

froog wrote: »

i posted three articles earlier. clearly none of you bothered to read them.

I di actually they're all very short. All 3 from 3 months into this, from early June.
We have just over 500k deaths now in Europe and one of them said no lockdown we would have had 3 million more - and again that was in June
There is no way these estimates still hold up.

froog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I did.

Very quickly, all dated from June and not taking into account basic mitigation measures and behavioural changes.

What is your point exactly? Masks and social distancing advice alone is sufficient to get the virus under control? And if i dont believe that then i must be an anti masker.

I've explained this to you three times now. It doesnt work cause a large amount of people dont follow the advice and so a lockdown is needed.

Your argument is ridiculous, but i think you know that.

SAXA

The exercise of trying to open up has proved to be a false dream.. Nephet know there numbers , staff available and warned government before 3rd Dec.. We are now in twister we as a whole society made.We need to stop blaming..even the non covid believers.. If we ever wanted proof about letting the virus go like a flu I think we are just witnessing it.. Stay safe

46 Long

froog wrote: »

What is your point exactly? Masks and social distancing advice alone is sufficient to get the virus under control? And if i dont believe that then i must be an anti masker.

I've explained this to you three times now. It doesnt work cause a large amount of people dont follow the advice and so a lockdown is needed.

Your argument is ridiculous, but i think you know that.

I'm not sure that masks - in practice anyway - really have much of an effect. Let's be honest, people are not wearing N95s. They're using whatever the chemist or corner shop has on sale, usually not worn properly and probably not washed after each use. We managed to get cases down to double digits without them in the summer. Holohan himself told the country that NPHET didn't recommend wearing one, as did the US Surgeon General Jerome Adams.

froog

froog wrote: »

What is your point exactly? Masks and social distancing advice alone is sufficient to get the virus under control? And if i dont believe that then i must be an anti masker.

I've explained this to you three times now. It doesnt work cause a large amount of people dont follow the advice and so a lockdown is needed.

Your argument is ridiculous, but i think you know that.

The only thing that is ridiculous is claiming lockdown easily prevented at least 50M deaths with no evidence whatsoever to back up such a claim.

average_runner

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The only thing that is ridiculous is claiming lockdown easily prevented at least 50M deaths with no evidence whatsoever to back up such a claim.

They can never prove it, unless they remove lockdown to keep you happy.

Removed level 5 over xmas and we had 46 deaths as a result in one day

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

So going back to lockdown preventing up to 50 million deaths while using models that don’t take into account basic measures.

Do you believe mask wearing and social distance works?

Or are you one of those who don’t believe masks work?

And to summarise you have no evidence to back up the claim

If everyone on the planet got the virus it may be close to 40 to 50 million deaths, however in 12 months that would be unlikely, even with no measure, so you would probably have been looking at circa 15-20 million deaths if no action had been taken. Luckily countries aren't like the denizens of this thread so we have no data one way or the other as most countries dont tend to use their citizens as subjects of massive experiments. And in the absence of data contrarians have filled to gap with half baked nonsense, which usually ends with the rejoinder "but where is the evidence the lockdown works" and the infantile belief that that somehow proves their point.

And no measures stop 100% of transmission by the way. Social distancing at greater than 2 meters significantly reduces risk, but doesn't eliminate it, masks reduce risk to a lesser extent, but dont eliminate it. The combination of all the measures are what are there to suppress growth

facehugger99

average_runner wrote: »

They can never prove it, unless they remove lockdown to keep you happy.

Removed level 5 over xmas and we had 46 deaths as a result in one day

Nope