When will it all end?

Rodin

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The virus is 98% less deadly than first thought.

During the summer I witnessed streets public parks beaches and beauty spots jammed with people with zero social distancing or masks and there were zero deaths and zero cases.
Isn't it interesting that cases rocket and deaths go up in the winter?
We have been told for the past two weeks now that deaths will be in the hundreds per day.
There is no sign of that.
Every year at this time of year our hospitals are overwhelmed by flu cases.

This whole thing is a total joke.

Are the people in ICU faking it?

partyguinness

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

CalamariFritti

Quazzie wrote: »

Excess figures don't allow for the fact that in general deaths have been down due to the other positive effects of isolation on general sickness transmission.

Be that as it may but we are seeing unprecedented measures and restrictions of civil and economical liberties.

If we were to find out this pandemic has us with the same number of deaths as every other year there is no other conclusion than our response being disproportionate. And if it were 10% or 20% higher than every other year it is still the same.

Quazzie

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Be that as it may but we are seeing unprecedented measures and restrictions of civil and economical liberties.

If we were to find out this pandemic has us with the same number of deaths as every other year there is no other conclusion than our response being disproportionate. And if it were 10% or 20% higher than every other year it is still the same.

If it's the same (or higher) than every other year, then the argument is definitely there to be made that the lockdowns were required. It's a farcical claim to make that the positive effects of lockdown mean that we didn't need them. The only way that lockdowns could be seen as unjustified is if there is a massive drop in the death count nationwide, which would then suggest perhaps we jumped the gun a bit, and went too harsh too quick.

partyguinness

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Be that as it may but we are seeing unprecedented measures and restrictions of civil and economical liberties.

If we were to find out this pandemic has us with the same number of deaths as every other year there is no other conclusion than our response being disproportionate. And if it were 10% or 20% higher than every other year it is still the same.

A lot of it is guided by trying to keep the healthcare system from imploding. The more people that catch it the more people that will end up in hospital. Not necessarily die but just ill and taking up shrinking bed space.

Alf Veedersane

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Be that as it may but we are seeing unprecedented measures and restrictions of civil and economical liberties.

If we were to find out this pandemic has us with the same number of deaths as every other year there is no other conclusion than our response being disproportionate. And if it were 10% or 20% higher than every other year it is still the same.

Comparing with all deaths for other years is a fool's errand.

Also, the number of excess deaths will be lower than it would have been without any restrictions for obvious reasons so the actual numbers won't determine if it was disproportionate because you have no idea what would have happened without the restrictions.

CalamariFritti

Quazzie wrote: »

If it's the same (or higher) than every other year, then the argument is definitely there to be made that the lockdowns were required. It's a farcical claim to make that the positive effects of lockdown mean that we didn't need them. The only way that lockdowns could be seen as unjustified is if there is a massive drop in the death count nationwide, which would then suggest perhaps we jumped the gun a bit, and went too harsh too quick.

I disagree completely. We are basically back to those models of 100,000 deaths now. Are you saying if we hadnt had any lockdown we would have had those 100,000 deaths? Or even 20,000? 10,000?

Diabhalta

I hope it will end soon, March/April ... The media need to seriously stfu about it for a very long time... Article after article all about nothing. Clickbait, spamming my facebook newsfeed constantly... enough is enough.

people are sick of it, everyone I talk to couldn't care less about some stupid covid... It just takes too long at this stage.

Samsonsmasher

Rodin wrote: »

Are the people in ICU faking it?

The numbers of people in ICU or dying does not justify locking down the entire nation destroying small businesses putting hundreds of thousands out of work many whom will have no jobs to return to generating poverty homelessness and a coming wave of mental health crises and suicides.
Masks wearing social distancing and restrictions of personal freedon is driving the country mad.
No place to go for a coffee a drink or a meal nowhere to socialize no way to date or keep a relationship alive no way to have a hobby or meet family and friends or travel or see a movie a play or a match or go to a museum of gallery or even go for a cycle or walk now.
People are expected to sit at home stewing in utter boredom?
For the sake of a virus with a 0.03% death rate.
It's utter insanity.

Allinall

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The numbers of people in ICU or dying does not justify locking down the entire nation destroying small businesses putting hundreds of thousands out of work many whom will have no jobs to return to generating poverty homelessness and a coming wave of mental health crises and suicides.
Masks wearing social distancing and restrictions of personal freedon is driving the country mad.
No place to go for a coffee a drink or a meal nowhere to socialize no way to date or keep a relationship alive no way to have a hobby or meet family and friends or travel or see a movie a play or a match or go to a museum of gallery or even go for a cycle or walk now.
People are expected to sit at home stewing in utter boredom?
For the sake of a virus with a 0.03% death rate.
It's utter insanity.

Who says you can't go for a cycle or a walk?
Go and get a takeaway coffee?
Have a hobby? Ever heard of indoor hobbies?
See a movie? Ever heard of TV?

Rodin

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The numbers of people in ICU or dying does not justify locking down the entire nation destroying small businesses putting hundreds of thousands out of work many whom will have no jobs to return to generating poverty homelessness and a coming wave of mental health crises and suicides.
Masks wearing social distancing and restrictions of personal freedon is driving the country mad.
No place to go for a coffee a drink or a meal nowhere to socialize no way to date or keep a relationship alive no way to have a hobby or meet family and friends or travel or see a movie a play or a match or go to a museum of gallery or even go for a cycle or walk now.
People are expected to sit at home stewing in utter boredom?
For the sake of a virus with a 0.03% death rate.
It's utter insanity.

The death rate isn't that important.
Morbidity is what cripples a health service, not death.

If people had stayed at home when told then perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess.
Aren't those sitting at home "stewing with boredom" the lucky ones? They could always volunteer to help out.
Nobody likes a back seat driver.

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

..........

If we were to find out this pandemic has us with the same number of deaths as every other year there is no other conclusion than our response being disproportionate. And if it were 10% or 20% higher than every other year it is still the same.

You could say the response prevented the excess deaths you seem to crave.

Quazzie

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I disagree completely. We are basically back to those models of 100,000 deaths now. Are you saying if we hadnt had any lockdown we would have had those 100,000 deaths? Or even 20,000? 10,000?

The death rate in Ireland is 6.5 per 1000, so approximately 32,500 people per year. If you think that an increase of 10,000 people* isn't significant enough to justify a lockdown then you are a colder person than I am.

*the lowest number you quote, and a mere 4 times how many actually died from Covid so entirely plausible

CalamariFritti

Augeo wrote: »

You could say the response prevented the excess deaths you seem to crave.

It doesnt make sense what you are saying. Restriction critics don't 'crave' excess deaths. Quite the opposite. They point out there aren't any or very little and they're quite happy about that as everyone should

Excess deaths would only help the pro-restriction argument.

Also I dont like your tone. You could try and debate without letting off cheap and silly shots all the time.

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

It doesnt make sense what you are saying. Restriction critics don't 'crave' excess deaths. Quite the opposite. They point out there aren't any or very little and they're quite happy about that as everyone should

Excess deaths would only help the pro-restriction argument.

Also I dont like your tone. You could try and debate without letting off cheap and silly shots all the time.

Boohoo if you don't like my tone.

You are spouting out crap like "If we were to find out this pandemic has us with the same number of deaths as every other year there is no other conclusion than our response being disproportionate. And if it were 10% or 20% higher than every other year it is still the same."

Our response is much the same as in most other developed country. After easing restrictions in Dec (the response) we are seeing a rapid rise in cases and more folk with covid are dyiing........ of course most of them had underlying health issues but that doesn't make them cannon fodder IMO.

TomSweeney

Look at Sweden, they didn't have much excess deaths in 2020.
I think lockdown or no lockdown people would have caught it and died from it anyway, it's endemic at this stage - has been since early on in all of this.

niallo27

Quazzie wrote: »

The death rate in Ireland is 6.5 per 1000, so approximately 32,500 people per year. If you think that an increase of 10,000 people* isn't significant enough to justify a lockdown then you are a colder person than I am.

*the lowest number you quote, and a mere 4 times how many actually died from Covid so entirely plausible

How many lives could we save if we kept these restrictions in place full time after the vaccine, I think 1000s of lives would be saved from other diseases. Is this enough to justify a continuation of the lockdown.

Quazzie

TomSweeney wrote: »

Look at Sweden, they didn't have much excess deaths in 2020.
I think lockdown or no lockdown people would have caught it and died from it anyway, it's endemic at this stage - has been since early on in all of this.

They had more deaths this year, than any in the last 10, and that number was kept low by last minute attempts at lockdowns when the numbers were seen to be rising.

partyguinness

It's not so much about the number of people dying but rather that virtually the entire healthcare system is being diverted to Covid. It is impacting on other services. Operating rooms are being turned into ICU wards.

It will be interesting to note the cancer death rates over the next few years to see if delayed diagnosis due to Covid has had a major impact.

Annasopra

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

It's never going to end.

The vaccine does not stop transmission of the virus
Masks distancing and restrictions on your personal liberty and travel are here to stay.
That was why the virus was created and deliberately released.
The plan is to destroy small businesses and wipe out the middle class destroy democracy freedom and human rights create a police state and compliance.
When joblessesness leads to economic collapse mass homelessness followed by famine and depopulation begins a beaten people will continue to wear masks socially distance and wash their hands until the end.

Noone plans to destroy small businesees democracy and human rights. You are talking absolute sh ite. I reccomend if you really believe that stuff to go and see your doctor. Ask your doctor can they remove the tinfoil hat.

TomSweeney

Augeo wrote: »

Boohoo if you don't like my tone.

You are spouting out crap like "If we were to find out this pandemic has us with the same number of deaths as every other year there is no other conclusion than our response being disproportionate. And if it were 10% or 20% higher than every other year it is still the same."

Our response is much the same as in most other developed country. After easing restrictions in Dec (the response) we are seeing a rapid rise in cases and more folk with covid are dyiing........ of course most of them had underlying health issues but that doesn't make them cannon fodder IMO.

Do you think these people wouldn't have caught it with restrictions ?

Most spread is in the home, so I think spread would have happened anyway - also as said, it's that time of year for respiratory illnesses.

PTH2009

niallo27 wrote: »

How many lives could we save if we kept these restrictions in place full time after the vaccine, I think 1000s of lives would be saved from other diseases. Is this enough to justify a continuation of the lockdown.

Suicides could go up in that instance

Social lifes would be forever changed with some simply not able to adapt. The Economy would also be ****ed

Beasty

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

It's never going to end.

The vaccine does not stop transmission of the virus
Masks distancing and restrictions on your personal liberty and travel are here to stay.
That was why the virus was created and deliberately released.
The plan is to destroy small businesses and wipe out the middle class destroy democracy freedom and human rights create a police state and compliance.
When joblessesness leads to economic collapse mass homelessness followed by famine and depopulation begins a beaten people will continue to wear masks socially distance and wash their hands until the end.

Cut out the conspiracy theory rubbish, or take it to the right forum (which is not this one)

TomSweeney

TomSweeney wrote: »

Do you think these people wouldn't have caught it with restrictions ?

Most spread is in the home, so I think spread would have happened anyway - also as said, it's that time of year for respiratory illnesses.

I think loads of folk in restaurants for December definitely was a contributor, along with all other social gatherings many of which were not in the spirit of the guidelines. Take away pint gatherings etc etc etc

There were still restrictions in Dec, without any restrictions I think we would have multiples of the current numbers and there would be zero ICU capacity currently as opposed to very little....... a horrific situation IMO and we should do all we can to avoid that.

niallo27

PTH2009 wrote: »

Suicides could go up in that instance

Social lifes would be forever changed with some simply not able to adapt. The Economy would also be ****ed

So like what's happening now but on a bigger scale.

PTH2009

niallo27 wrote: »

So like what's happening now but on a bigger scale.

Yep

The sad thing is this is been ignored by the government. NPHET also ignoring it but its really not there problem but there constant recommendations of hard lockdowns plays its part

Alf Veedersane

TomSweeney wrote: »

Do you think these people wouldn't have caught it with restrictions ?

Most spread is in the home, so I think spread would have happened anyway - also as said, it's that time of year for respiratory illnesses.

It's brought into the home from somewhere. People don't just catch it at home unless someone has been infected and brought it into the home.

pauliebdub

The lockdown will probably continue until the end of March when the elderly and vulnerable are fully vaccinated. The purpose of the lockdowns are to protect those groups. After that there should be an opening up of the country.

Can't wait to see the back of Holohan to be honest.

JDD

We will have all over 70's and HCWs vaccinated by the end of March.

I can see us staying in this Level 5 until then, with the exception of schools going back on 1 March. This lockdown should have the effect of reducing the infections to the low hundreds per day.

We will, in all likliehood, revert to a Level 3 by then. Once over 70's are innoculated there will be way less deaths and it should take a good chunk off the hospitalisations too. With the HCWs also innoculated the health service will be in a much better position to cope with any remaining hospitalisations of the 40-70 age group. And of course we will be out of the winter, so there will be less hospitalisations for non-covid illnesses, which should also take the pressure off. Once April comes it will be easier to socialise outside restaurants and pubs, and to meet in people's gardens, so infections should stay low.

If we get the vulnerable and the over 50's innoculated by May/June we may be able to go to a Level 1/2 for the summer. No summer festivals, but we will be able to dine and drink inside.

I expect mass inoculation to be complete by Hallowe'en. Restrictions should then be removed completely. I can't see any reason to keep them at that stage, and I don't believe the conspiracy theorists who say we'll be masking and distancing forever because of Tony Holohan's power trip.

I expect that there will be a high uptake of the vaccination programme by everyone over 50, HCWs and all vulnerable people whatever age they are. I expect that there will be about 50-60% of the remainder of the population to take the vaccine. That should be enough, what with a proportion of the non-vaccine cohort having already had covid and therefore will have a certain level of immunity.

Now, nobody knows whether having covid, or getting the vaccination, will keep you immune for long. We do know for sure that it is for at least six months. And it is likely that it will be for at least a year. If we are lucky it might be for longer than that, though I'd expect over the course of 1-2 years the virus will change and it will require a further vaccination. I still think, if we do need an annual vaccination, that there will be a high uptake from the over 50's and vulnerable. Which means we should never have to have a Level 5 lockdown again.

Inevitably less people will get top up vaccine's as time goes on. Which means one of two things - either the virus will have gotten less potent by then (they generally do over a course of years), or we will need some level of restrictions for a short period of time while there is a push to get everyone their vaccination.

So, in the case that the vaccines don't give long term immunity AND the virus has not gotten less potent, we may need mild restrictions for a short period. But that's a good few ifs.

ingo1984

partyguinness wrote: »

It's not so much about the number of people dying but rather that virtually the entire healthcare system is being diverted to Covid. It is impacting on other services. Operating rooms are being turned into ICU wards.

It will be interesting to note the cancer death rates over the next few years to see if delayed diagnosis due to Covid has had a major impact.

The number of cancer diagnosis was down 6,000 people than on the average of the past couple of years. So certainly is a ticking time bomb for some people.