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

walus

froog wrote: »

Under 8 million globally? Can i see evidence for this please as was demanded of me. Or did you just "pull that number out of your arse" as you say yourself. Or do you only want evidence for opinions contrary to your own?

The hypocrisy here is hilarious.

This an estimate, based on world's population, immunity to the virus that comes from T-cells, and death rate of covid. Depends which side you want to take this should not come out greater than 10m for sure.

Edit: You need an evidence for 8m, but not for 50m. That is interesting. Hypocrisy you say, hm...

froog

walus wrote: »

This an estimate, based on world's population, immunity to the virus that comes from T-cells, and death rate of covid. Depends which side you want to take this should not come out greater than 10m for sure.

Sorry thats not evidence. Its a bold claim you made there and i want a proven example of it on a global scale. Otherwise I'm sticking with my original figure of 20-50 million.

Thats right by the way, i gave a range of 20-50 million if you look at the original post, not an absolute figure of 50 million that fintan decided i said and got hysterical over.

uli84

‘Great’ news about the test requirements, roughly extra 600€ for a 2+1 family wanting to escape this most wonderful place for a week or two

walus

uli84 wrote: »

‘Great’ news about the test requirements, roughly extra 600€ for a 2+1 family wanting to escape this most wonderful place for a week or two

Don't worry this is just temporary. Once you vaccinate and get the 'travel passport' it will all go away...

walus

froog wrote: »

Sorry thats not evidence. Its a bold claim you made there and i want a proven example of it on a global scale. Otherwise I'm sticking with my original figure of 20-50 million.

Thats right by the way, i gave a range of 20-50 million if you look at the original post, not an absolute figure of 50 million that fintan decided i said and got hysterical over.

This is an estimate based on well known numbers.



Funnily enough though you don't demand evidence for statements that you agree with, but you do need evidence for something that disagrees with your opinion. You can stick with whatever number that makes you sleep at night as far as I'm concerned. This forum is full of biased people who just refuse to look at opinions either way with the same level of scrutiny.

froog

walus wrote: »

This is an estimate based on well known numbers.



Funnily enough though you don't demand evidence for statements that you agree with, but you do need evidence for something that disagrees with your opinion. You can stick with whatever number that makes you sleep at night as far as I'm concerned.

You missed the entire point of my post. Well done.

Donald Trump

uli84 wrote: »

‘Great’ news about the test requirements, roughly extra 600€ for a 2+1 family wanting to escape this most wonderful place for a week or two

Maybe just get a one way ticket and halve your cost then.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

This is an estimate based on well known numbers.

I have never heard of a cap on deaths was 8 million?

What is the source for this, would be interesting to read.

Could you link to it please.

uli84

Donald Trump wrote: »

Maybe just get a one way ticket and halve your cost then.

Not a chance, 350€ per week x2 comes too handy

emeldc

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

You might want to have another look at Sweden. They have the highest death rate of all the Scandinavian country’s. Also their constitution prevented their ministers from imposing lockdowns in the first place. But not anymore. It mightn’t be the best country for a comparison.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-13/odd-man-out-sweden-slammed-by-virus-gets-with-the-program

FintanMcluskey

emeldc wrote: »

You might want to have another look at Sweden. They have the highest death rate of all the Scandinavian country’s. Also their constitution prevented their ministers from imposing lockdowns in the first place. But not anymore. It mightn’t be the best country for a comparison.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-13/odd-man-out-sweden-slammed-by-virus-gets-with-the-program

This gymnastics around the fact a country didn’t impose lockdowns and had little excess deaths is baffling.

Lockdown is obviously a weird form of Stockholm syndrome

emeldc

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

This gymnastics around the fact a country didn’t impose lockdowns and had little excess deaths is baffling.

Lockdown is obviously a weird form of Stockholm syndrome

Don’t know anything about excess deaths. But they must be worried about the amount of people dying if they’re going to start implementing lockdowns now. Funny that if they don’t work.

Tork

If Sweden's strategy had worked, it makes sense that most governments would have changed tack and switched to their model. Instead, they have gone for an approach similar to everywhere else. Being "open" didn't help their economy much either.

Donald Trump

Let me give some stats for the (very) slow learners unfortunately among us:

The current rate of death in the UK is 1222 per million people. That is with restrictions. They messed up over there but they still have restrictions (As does every other country in the world to various degrees)

The population of the world is 7.674 billion according to google. That is 7674 million for the slower ones out there, and "bleedin' loads and loads" for some of the more hopeless ones.

If the world had the same death rate, by the end of the pandemic, with zero restrictions or vaccines, as the UK does now then the death total would be about 9.4m.

If you would like to use a larger country as the base, then take the US which currently has 1174 per million. That still gives a total of over 9 million.

To even come to the conclusion of a global 9m total by the end of everything if there had been no restrictions, you would have to assume two things:
(1) That the virus is already gone now. Nobody else will die in the UK or US.
(2) That lockdowns did nothing to lower the rate to now.

Neither of those are true.

How someone could try to keep a straight face and say that with no lockdowns or restrictions of any sort that the total would have been capped at 8m is flat-earther territory.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

This gymnastics around the fact a country didn’t impose lockdowns and had little excess deaths is baffling.

Lockdown is obviously a weird form of Stockholm syndrome

The is pure misrepresentative waffle from those arguing Sweden had no excess deaths. The Numbers weren't finalised when snapshots were taken, have been updated and still do not represent the final numbers for the year, but already records have over 6,000 people more dying in Sweden last year than the previous year, about 4,000 to 5,000 more than the 10 year average. And it still inst finalised. People also seem to think life in Sweden was completely unchanged in Sweden in 2020

https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The is pure misrepresentative waffle from those arguing Sweden had no excess deaths. The Numbers weren't finalised when snapshots were taken, have been updated and still do not represent the final numbers for the year, but already records have over 6,000 people more dying in Sweden last year than the previous year, about 4,000 to 5,000 more than the 10 year average. And it still inst finalised. People also seem to think life in Sweden was completely unchanged in Sweden in 2020

https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/

When this first started, we went into lockdowns based on models that were showing huge numbers of deaths.

A year later and we are bickering over whether Sweden had some excess deaths or not.

Easy enough to conclude that this is not the apocalypse people predicted.

More will have starved to death in 2020.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

This gymnastics around the fact a country didn’t impose lockdowns and had little excess deaths is baffling.

Lockdown is obviously a weird form of Stockholm syndrome

I see what you did there

emeldc

Deleted User wrote: »

When this first started, we went into lockdowns based on models that were showing huge numbers of deaths.

A year later and we are bickering over whether Sweden had some excess deaths or not.

Easy enough to conclude that this is not the apocalypse people predicted.

More will have starved to death in 2020.

You're the one that brought Sweden up and how great they did without lockdowns

emeldc

emeldc wrote: »

You're the one that brought Sweden up and how great they did without lockdowns

I think that data needs to be verified. I’ll have to look into it further.
Sweden had large numbers of deaths in some years such as 2002 and 2015.
Last stats I saw for 2020 were less.

Point stands though. Bickering about whether a country had some excess deaths or not.

Tork

He's a bit of a pain in the arse but Philip O'Connor's episodes on The Stand have been pretty good. He lives in Sweden so he has been giving updates all year about what the strategy was, what life has been like over there and how it has panned out. As things now stand, it looks like the politicians are now stepping in after having left Tegnell call the shots since this started.

Captain_Crash

So let me get this straight.. in Ireland, anything less than Level 5 is not "lockdown" and its disingenuous to say otherwise... but in Sweden, implementing a small number of measures which are akin to our Level 2 = Lockdown!!

So the quesiton is have we been in lockdown for the guts or a year? or are Sweden not actually going into lockdown? which is it?

emeldc

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that data needs to be verified. I’ll have to look into it further.
Sweden had large numbers of deaths in some years such as 2002 and 2015.
Last stats I saw for 2020 were less.

Point stands though. Bickering about whether a country had some excess deaths or not.

As I said earlier I know nothing about excess deaths. Your post was made in relation to how well Sweden were doing without lockdowns. They are not doing well without them and lockdowns are now imminent to try and bring the death rate down.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

When this first started, we went into lockdowns based on models that were showing huge numbers of deaths.

A year later and we are bickering over whether Sweden had some excess deaths or not.

Easy enough to conclude that this is not the apocalypse people predicted.

More will have starved to death in 2020.

Did Sweden take no action? - because that seems to be the contention in claiming the Sweden not having 100,000 deaths is proof that covid is nothing serious

Penfailed

Captain_Crash wrote: »

So let me get this straight.. in Ireland, anything less than Level 5 is not "lockdown" and its disingenuous to say otherwise... but in Sweden, implementing a small number of measures which are akin to our Level 2 = Lockdown!!

So the quesiton is have we been in lockdown for the guts or a year? or are Sweden not actually going into lockdown? which is it?

You're conflating two different discussions. I haven't said anywhere that Sweden is going into lockdown.

FintanMcluskey

emeldc wrote: »

As I said earlier I know nothing about excess deaths. Your post was made in relation to how well Sweden were doing without lockdowns. They are not doing well without them and lockdowns are now imminent to try and bring the death rate down.

What imminent in Sweden is restrictions aligned to Ireland’s last Summer.

emeldc

Captain_Crash wrote: »

So let me get this straight.. in Ireland, anything less than Level 5 is not "lockdown" and its disingenuous to say otherwise... but in Sweden, implementing a small number of measures which are akin to our Level 2 = Lockdown!!

So the quesiton is have we been in lockdown for the guts or a year? or are Sweden not actually going into lockdown? which is it?

They can impose restrictions like masks, social distancing and stuff like that but apparently can't close shopping centres and the likes. That is until last weelend when they brought in new laws to allow lockdowns as the restrictions were not working.
I didn't read all of the article:
https://www.thelocal.se/20201119/does-swedens-constitution-really-prevent-tough-covid-measures

PTH2009

We will always go with the cautious approach even with numbers in double/single digits

manniot2

I think the point that is consistently missed about Sweden is that nobody is saying their approach was a huge success, however,it does not stand out as a disaster also. In terms of a wider view of Europe, they are rooted in the middle in terms of deaths despite being far more relaxed about mandatory rules. Again, not good, but better than many that locked down.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What imminent in Sweden is restrictions aligned to Ireland’s last Summer.

Relatively normal?

manniot2

manniot2 wrote: »

I think the point that is consistently missed about Sweden is that nobody is saying their approach was a huge success, however,it does not stand out as a disaster also. In terms of a wider view of Europe, they are rooted in the middle in terms of deaths despite being far more relaxed about mandatory rules. Again, not good, but better than many that locked down.

i think the ppint that is consistently missed about sweden is that they had almost 4x the number of deaths of their closest country demographically - Denmark, and more again than the next closest - Norway and Finland