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

Boggles

paw patrol wrote: »

the other posters are right this pints dig is tiresome

Ahh. You brought it up.

You said you should be entitled to go for pints today because of your individual liberty.

Anyway, this misguided perception of ones liberty during a once in a generation public health emergency has been challenged by 2 similar minded individuals in the courts, they lost spectacularly and now have a large bill to pay.

But by all means it's your right to take your own case.

Lundstram

Lundstram wrote: »

I'm 100% sure there's no one on this thread who believes thy should be allowed go for pints at the moment, despite what they say. Of course, it's the main go-to line for the lockdown lovers to stem debate. It's cheap and unintelligent but not surprising.

Should we have been allowed for pints back in the Summer when cases were on the floor and we went 16 days without a death, yes. But the government was chasing gold at the Covid19 Olympics to make themselves look good and thus the population suffered which resulted in chaos at Christmas and look at us now.

Balancing restrictions with supporting data was not done, a blanket lockdown for much of the summer. NPHET's over cautious approach has us where we are today, a total mess. People were given an inch at Christmas and took a mile and who can blame them.

Donnelly bragging about us being the best in Europe a few weeks back didn't help either, it gave a false sense of security to become complacent when restrictions eased a little.

Here we are now stuck in some sort of weird limbo. Lockdown level 5 but no end in sight. No vaccines numbers. No confidence in the HSE. No confidence in the bungling Donnelly.

A truly depressing time to be alive.

No such thing as "lockdown lovers". And some of us you are painting with the same brush argued that "wet pubs" should not have been differentiated from others.

What is being argued is the infantile view that preventing mixing of households in public settings has no effect on transmission, despite this being the third such incidence where increasing restrictions are driving the numbers lower

Whatsisname

Some good news this morning.

Scientists have figured out humans have immune systems.

Covid victims gain immunity from the virus
Beating disease ‘as good as’ getting vaccine, say scientists

This was an interesting little snippet.

With an estimated one in five having been infected, the findings, based on a study of 21,000 UK healthcare workers, suggested that herd immunity could already be slowing the course of the pandemic. However, scientists warned that they still did not know how long immunity lasted.

“What that’s saying to us is that prior infection looks as good as the vaccine, at least at this time interval, which is very good news for the population,” said Susan Hopkins, deputy director of the national infections service at Public Health England (PHE). “It will help alongside the vaccine to give a level of immunity and protection that will start to reduce transmission.”

Professor Hopkins said the best way to think of it was that immunity from infection was as good as, or better than, a vaccine.

“The immunity gives you similar effects to the Pfizer vaccine, and much better effects than the Astrazeneca vaccine, and that is reassuring for people,” she said. Two doses of the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine offer 62 per cent protection.

Maybe herd immunity wasn't some sorta right wing conspiracy theory after all.

FintanMcluskey

Whatsisname wrote: »

Some good news this morning.

Scientists have figured out humans have immune systems.

Covid victims gain immunity from the virus
Beating disease ‘as good as’ getting vaccine, say scientists

This was an interesting little snippet.



Maybe herd immunity wasn't some sorta right wing conspiracy theory after all.

Neil Ferguson said last weekend that London likely has herd immunity.

Why did some consider it such an anti-PC term?

Lundstram

Deleted User wrote: »

No such thing as "lockdown lovers". And some of us you are painting with the same brush argued that "wet pubs" should not have been differentiated from others.

What is being argued is the infantile view that preventing mixing of households in public settings has no effect on transmission, despite this being the third such incidence where increasing restrictions are driving the numbers lower

And what I'm saying is why were restrictions in place in the summer while we went 16 days without a death? At the time Ireland had the harshest restrictions in Europe.

What numbers were they trying to lower then? 12 cases a day down to 3? 0 deaths down to -5?

My county, Kildare has seen more lockdown time than an other county in Ireland, this was due to meat plants and DP centres thinking the rules didn't apply to them. Government's approach? Sort meat plants? No. Sort DP centres. No. Lockdown the whole populace was their answer. The easiest solution that required no action or rational thinking.

They still haven't fixed the nursing home problem, 9 months on. It's still rampant in them and it's where the majority of deaths are originating from.

But yeah.. lets close barbers and stop people playing golf, that'll fix the nursing homes.

Whatsisname

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Neil Ferguson said last weekend that London likely has herd immunity.

Why did some consider it such an anti-PC term?

Neil Ferguson doesn't know his arse from his elbow tbf. Read his recent interview of him fawning over China's reaction and how "we'd never get away with it in the west, and then we realised we could". Guy is dangerous.

I think it's the word "herd" tbh. It's how you'd refer to a group of animals, rather than people. So it might across as a way of saying people are expendable. I wonder what the reaction would have been had it been called "natural immunity".

one armed dwarf

Because herd immunity through infection is an uncontrolled, chaotic way of developing resistance to covid which will end up with lots of people dying.

It will also encourage mutations, including ones which may eventually escape our vaccines our be more severe

It is dangerous and stupid

Irish Steve

Lundstram wrote: »

My county, Kildare has seen more lockdown time than an other county in Ireland, this was due to meat plants and DP centres thinking the rules didn't apply to them. Government's approach? Sort meat plants? No. Sort DP centres. No. Lockdown the whole populace was their answer. The easiest solution that required no action or rational thinking.

Last summer was a lifetime ago in terms of the learning curve of Covid, while there were hints there to be seen if you looked in the right places, there was no clear understanding that Covid survives much better in the sort of temperatures that Meat Plants are working at most of the time, and the balancing act was to keep production going, because people here and abroad still need to be able to get food, and meat is rightly or wrongly a significant part of that. If food started to be unavailable, there would be massive repercussions. And yes, there were and are problems in the meat plants with social separation, but some of that was external to the meat plants, shared vehicles with no masks, overcrowded shared accomodation, but these are societal issues that Covid has exposed in the worst possible ways.

They still haven't fixed the nursing home problem, 9 months on. It's still rampant in them and it's where the majority of deaths are originating from.

But yeah.. lets close barbers and stop people playing golf, that'll fix the nursing homes.

So, I will ask you the same question that others asked a different poster yesterday, what would YOU do to fix the nursing homes, NOW, given that the problem is so urgent and is causing huge problems? If all you can do is say this is wrong, and you can't propose a viable alternative, then effectively, it's verging on trolling.

And No, I am NOT defending the way that NPHET and the Government have managed things, there are a number of issues that should have been dealt with long ago, but there is a very real and significant political vacuum at the highest levels because of the problems of short termism, too many of the people in power can't look beyond the next election and the importance of retaining their seat and all that implies, and making the hard decisions and seeing them through is just not on their radar.

bb1234567

Whatsisname wrote: »

Some good news this morning.

Scientists have figured out humans have immune systems.

Covid victims gain immunity from the virus
Beating disease ‘as good as’ getting vaccine, say scientists

This was an interesting little snippet.



Maybe herd immunity wasn't some sorta right wing conspiracy theory after all.

Seriously ??

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/12/2020-was-deadliest-year-in-a-century-in-england-and-wales-says-ons
If that's from 20% of UK being infected what would 40% or 60% or 80% look like? I don't think this changes much about people's reaction to the concept tbh !

CIARAN_BOYLE

Irish Steve wrote: »

So, I will ask you the same question that others asked a different poster yesterday, what would YOU do to fix the nursing homes, NOW, given that the problem is so urgent and is causing huge problems? If all you can do is say this is wrong, and you can't propose a viable alternative, then effectively, it's verging on trolling.

While I dont think nursing homes can be solved I do think the situation could be improved significantly by daily antigen tests for all staff and residents.

I'm not saying that they are perfect but if you test daily false negatives will be found quickly enough.

That said I dont think they did badly in nursing homes. It's a convenient stick for people to beat the government with but it's just a bad situation for them.

polesheep

bb1234567 wrote: »

Seriously ??

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/12/2020-was-deadliest-year-in-a-century-in-england-and-wales-says-ons
If that's from 20% of UK being infected what would 40% or 60% or 80% look like? I don't think this changes much about people's reaction to the concept tbh !

Realistically, if scientists hadn't managed to develop vaccines, our only option was to gradually develop herd immunity through infection and rolling lockdowns.

Whatsisname

Whatsisname wrote: »

Some good news this morning.

Scientists have figured out humans have immune systems.

Covid victims gain immunity from the virus
Beating disease ‘as good as’ getting vaccine, say scientists

This was an interesting little snippet.



Maybe herd immunity wasn't some sorta right wing conspiracy theory after all.

I think the point is being missed here. No one said herd immunity was a conspiracy, they said the idea that herd immunity could be achieved without a massive cost in human lives was bullsh*t

CIARAN_BOYLE

polesheep wrote: »

Realistically, if scientists hadn't managed to develop vaccines, our only option was to gradually develop herd immunity through infection and rolling lockdowns.

I think they would have tried to go for zero covid close the border (I don't know build a border patrol get the army and send in the reserves) if they didn't know a vaccine was coming.

polesheep

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I think they would have tried to go for zero covid close the border (I don't know build a border patrol get the army and send in the reserves) if they didn't know a vaccine was coming.

Zero Covid was never an option. For us to have attempted that would have been the equivalent of hiding under the stairs and starving to death while waiting for Covid to go.

Irish Steve

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

While I dont think nursing homes can be solved I do think the situation could be improved significantly by daily antigen tests for all staff and residents.

I'm not saying that they are perfect but if you test daily false negatives will be found quickly enough.

That said I dont think they did badly in nursing homes. It's a convenient stick for people to beat the government with but it's just a bad situation for them.

The problems with testing daily is having a machine , or possibly a whole room full of machines that's quick enough to be able to test all the people arriving for work in a timely manner, it's not a lot of help having a test if the result is not going to be available very quickly, the result has to be available before the person starts work, and there will (rightly) be significant push back if people have to arrive at their place of work an hour or more before their shift is due to start in order to get tested, and that's assuming that the machine can deal with the numbers, and changing shift start and finish times for a lot of people is going to cause all manner of management issues across the board.

I wish it was easy, but it seems that the present testing regime is not an easy, quick or cheap regime.

Whatsisname

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the point is being missed here. No one said herd immunity was a conspiracy, they said the idea that herd immunity could be achieved without a massive cost in human lives was bullsh*t

Yes they did.

The WHO updated their definition of herd immunity recently to say it was only achieved through vaccination.

Youtube have it in their terms of use that anyone who says any group or person has immunity can have their channel removed for misinformation.

There was 100% a narrative put out that herd immunity simply didn't exist. And it's why there was so much news about "reinfections" put out.

I'm not saying herd immunity was a tactic to use, but there was a clear message put out that it didn't exist at all. Which never made sense, because if that was the case, humans would have been wiped out hundreds of years ago.

walus

Irish Steve wrote: »

The problems with testing daily is having a machine , or possibly a whole room full of machines that's quick enough to be able to test all the people arriving for work in a timely manner, it's not a lot of help having a test if the result is not going to be available very quickly, the result has to be available before the person starts work, and there will (rightly) be significant push back if people have to arrive at their place of work an hour or more before their shift is due to start in order to get tested, and that's assuming that the machine can deal with the numbers, and changing shift start and finish times for a lot of people is going to cause all manner of management issues across the board.

I wish it was easy, but it seems that the present testing regime is not an easy, quick or cheap regime.

Creating a fast testing facilities is not a massive problem. The problem is with a foresight thinking and open mindedness that need to be employed to see the need for such facilities ahead of the time they are required. This government have neither. They are rigidly sticking with the lockdown-until-vaccine franchise, they are incapable of thinking on their own.

mandrake04

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

While I dont think nursing homes can be solved I do think the situation could be improved significantly by daily antigen tests for all staff and residents.

I'm not saying that they are perfect but if you test daily false negatives will be found quickly enough.

That said I dont think they did badly in nursing homes. It's a convenient stick for people to beat the government with but it's just a bad situation for them.

By the time antigen tests go positive you have probably already introduced the virus a day or so before, thats a fact.

mandrake04

Irish Steve wrote: »

The problems with testing daily is having a machine , or possibly a whole room full of machines that's quick enough to be able to test all the people arriving for work in a timely manner, it's not a lot of help having a test if the result is not going to be available very quickly, the result has to be available before the person starts work, and there will (rightly) be significant push back if people have to arrive at their place of work an hour or more before their shift is due to start in order to get tested, and that's assuming that the machine can deal with the numbers, and changing shift start and finish times for a lot of people is going to cause all manner of management issues across the board.

I wish it was easy, but it seems that the present testing regime is not an easy, quick or cheap regime.

You could use these

https://www.cepheid.com/en_US/systems/GeneXpert-Family-of-Systems/GeneXpert-System


1x45min
2x45min
4x45min
16x45min

Captain_Crash

mandrake04 wrote: »

By the time antigen tests go positive you have probably already introduced the virus a day or so before, thats a fact.

The alternative being having not done the test in the first place, and thus introducing it anyway with the added caveat of not finding it a day or so later

one armed dwarf

Whatsisname wrote: »

Yes they did.

The WHO updated their definition of herd immunity recently to say it was only achieved through vaccination.

Youtube have it in their terms of use that anyone who says any group or person has immunity can have their channel removed for misinformation.

There was 100% a narrative put out that herd immunity simply didn't exist. And it's why there was so much news about "reinfections" put out.

I'm not saying herd immunity was a tactic to use, but there was a clear message put out that it didn't exist at all. Which never made sense, because if that was the case, humans would have been wiped out hundreds of years ago.

Nobody has disputed the scientific fact of herd immunity, that is some top tier codology.

What people have disputed is the cost of herd immunity through infection as a strategy for getting through covid. It's a really high one.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19

'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail.

polesheep

one armed dwarf wrote: »

Nobody has disputed the scientific fact of herd immunity, that is some top tier codology.

What people have disputed is the cost of herd immunity through infection as a strategy for getting through covid. It's a really high one.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19

"There is no such thing as herd immunity without a vaccine" was everywhere this past year.

CIARAN_BOYLE

mandrake04 wrote: »

By the time antigen tests go positive you have probably already introduced the virus a day or so before, thats a fact.

That may be true but isn't it better to have a chance to catch it after a day rather than waiting for symptoms or PCR every few weeks.

It’s become exhausting trying to make people see sense. Way too many are now brain washed into believing that staying in lockdown to avoid lockdown is the ONLY solution.

It is going to be hard to ever convince people to move forward. I have a feeling we’ll be heavily restricted until there are 0 deaths and 0 in hospital. Which is probably not realistic anyways. People still die of flu and hospitals get overwhelmed even with a vaccine.

Failing that, something big will have to happen. Finances collapse completely or people lose support in larger numbers across Europe.

I think it will probably be a mixture of the latter. The government will surely have to stop borrowing billions at some point.

Whatsisname

Whatsisname wrote: »

Yes they did.

The WHO updated their definition of herd immunity recently to say it was only achieved through vaccination.

Youtube have it in their terms of use that anyone who says any group or person has immunity can have their channel removed for misinformation.

There was 100% a narrative put out that herd immunity simply didn't exist. And it's why there was so much news about "reinfections" put out.

I'm not saying herd immunity was a tactic to use, but there was a clear message put out that it didn't exist at all. Which never made sense, because if that was the case, humans would have been wiped out hundreds of years ago.

Most sane people understood having the virus gave a level of immunity at least. In March or April no one had any idea how long that would last, so there was a lot of genuine, but sometimes misplaced angst over reinfection. But no message was ever put out that immunity was unlikely from any reputable source.

The comment in general was against the idea that rapid herd immunity could be achieved without a massive cost.

The extreme position among a fraction of those who believe that restrictions are warranted and that herd immunity through infection comes at a cost is not the view of the majority. On this thread, arguing against that extreme position seems to make some believe they are refuting the entire position on the necessity of restrictions

Whatsisname

Whatsisname wrote: »

Yes they did.

The WHO updated their definition of herd immunity recently to say it was only achieved through vaccination.

Youtube have it in their terms of use that anyone who says any group or person has immunity can have their channel removed for misinformation.

There was 100% a narrative put out that herd immunity simply didn't exist. And it's why there was so much news about "reinfections" put out.

I'm not saying herd immunity was a tactic to use, but there was a clear message put out that it didn't exist at all. Which never made sense, because if that was the case, humans would have been wiped out hundreds of years ago.

And your statement about the WHO is false

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19

'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease.

mandrake04

Captain_Crash wrote: »

The alternative being having not done the test in the first place, and thus introducing it anyway with the added caveat of not finding it a day or so later

Just use one of these, results in 13mins

https://www.globalpointofcare.abbott...ls/id-now.html

polesheep

polesheep wrote: »

"There is no such thing as herd immunity without a vaccine" was everywhere this past year.

Not because it wasn't possible, but because it wasn't palatable

mandrake04

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

That may be true but isn't it better to have a chance to catch it after a day rather than waiting for symptoms or PCR every few weeks.

Just means you realise yer fecked earlier.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a feeling we’ll be heavily restricted until there are 0 deaths and 0 in hospital.

You had a feeling we should have eased restrictions 2 days before Christmas as well.

Maybe stop using your feelings to navigate through the pandemic.

Science and reality are much better tools I find.