When will it all end?

jackryan34

Irish Stones wrote: »

That is scary!
It means that unless they develop a "real" vaccine, we won't live a normal life again. And maybe even after that!
Scary!

Question if anyone can answer

If your fully vaccinated and have your 2 doses and spend a long time with a confirmed covid case maskless do you have to self isolate for 2 weeks?

If you've had Covid recently, like under 2 months ago and spend a long time with a confirmed case maskless do you have to self isolate for 2 weeks?

CollectThat

Feel a lot of the doom and gloom about us never getting back to normal don't take into account financial considerations. There is no way we can afford to keep social distancing indefinitely, we can never afford to keep bringing restrictions in whenever cases/hospitalizations spike. The cost of this level 5 lockdown is €250 a week, we can' (and should not ) keep affording this. We will have to move on

JDD

Irish Stones wrote: »

That is scary!
It means that unless they develop a "real" vaccine, we won't live a normal life again. And maybe even after that!
Scary!

I don't quite understand. If we all get vaccinated, with the current vaccines (and without any vaccine resistant variants showing up) then the risk of getting covid is vastly reduced. In the unlikely event that you are infected, you probably won't even notice.

In the unlikely event you are infected, and you do develop symptoms, it is likely they will be mild, with no lingering after effects. In the extremely unlikely event you are infected, develop symptoms, and those symptoms become serious or have long lasting effects, well jaysus, you are extremely unlucky. But you could also be hit by a bus or lightening, so I wouldn't be losing too much sleep over it.

If you think people will accept restrictions, in any form, to prevent the tiny tiny amount of vaccinated people that might be hospitalised, then you are dreaming. In the absence of any vaccine resistant variants, we will go back to normal with the current approved vaccine program.

Tazz T

Irish Stones wrote: »

A proper vaccine should prevent people from being infected in the first place, not keeping them healthier than an ICU patient.
All vaccines so far given to the world population along human history have kept people safe and clear from the virus. These vaccines seem to work differently.

These aren't any different to previous vaccines. They do reduce the risk of infection, and the data we do have shows they do this quite well. They were developed much faster than traditional vaccines and the data isn't entirely there to show efficacy against new variants. In fact, there aren't many vaccines that provide 'sterilising immunity', which is what you're referring to.

Lots of vaccines don't guaranteed immunity from infection. A lot actually infect people with a less virulent form of infection - to prevent serious illness and death.

Micky 32

CollectThat wrote: »

Feel a lot of the doom and gloom about us never getting back to normal don't take into account financial considerations. There is no way we can afford to keep social distancing indefinitely, we can never afford to keep bringing restrictions in whenever cases/hospitalizations spike. The cost of this level 5 lockdown is €250 a week, we can' (and should not ) keep affording this. We will have to move on

It’s unreal the amount of people who think this won’t end and that we’ll be SD for the rest of our lives.:pac:

Fast forward to say this day 12 months. The conversations on here will be a lot different

gozunda

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Guaranteed they will try and lock us down and probably succeed because there will be cases and deaths and the majority even if they are presumably vaccinated will still go along with it.
I have no doubt it would happen. I met people wearing 2 masks in the park today. Wearing gloves. Rubbing sanitizer on their hands. In a park.

To quote another poster 'Even more desperate for doom and gloom or thinking the government will leave us in permanent lockdown'!


So because you've met people wearing masks and some gloves out - that's a sign that the government are going to keep us in lockdown forever :rolleyes:

Did you ever stop to think - that the person you saw out walking might just need to be a bit more cautious than the rest of us when out and about - maybe they have CF or Asthma?

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Neurotic hysteria.....it is truly staggering what has happened to some people, watching a fella two nights ago walking a dog in an empty park wearing a mask.....I actually don't know what goes through their heads. Total and utter neurosis at this stage.

Well evidently the person wasn't alone if you there were watching him...

And again maybe just maybe people who do wear a mask out might just need to be a bit more cautious than the rest of us when out and about due to an underlying condition. Perhaps the individual didn't know how many people would be there - who feking knows. If someone wants to wear a mask for health reasons or otherwise - it's certainly none of anyones business other than their own.

JDD

Micky 32 wrote: »

It’s unreal the amount of people who think this won’t end and that we’ll be SD for the rest of our lives.:pac:

Fast forward to say this day 12 months. The conversations on here will be a lot different

I completely agree. People can't see beyond the end of their noses. I find that the same colleagues who last year couldn't get their heads around the fact that we wouldn't be back in the office in a few weeks are the same one who can't fathom us returning to normal before the end of the year.

Tchaikovsky

Micky 32 wrote: »

It’s unreal the amount of people who think this won’t end and that we’ll be SD for the rest of our lives.:pac:

Fast forward to say this day 12 months. The conversations on here will be a lot different

It's what we call in the mental health world "catastrophizing"

jackryan34

JDD wrote: »

I don't quite understand. If we all get vaccinated, with the current vaccines (and without any vaccine resistant variants showing up) then the risk of getting covid is vastly reduced. In the unlikely event that you are infected, you probably won't even notice.

In the unlikely event you are infected, and you do develop symptoms, it is likely they will be mild, with no lingering after effects. In the extremely unlikely event you are infected, develop symptoms, and those symptoms become serious or have long lasting effects, well jaysus, you are extremely unlucky. But you could also be hit by a bus or lightening, so I wouldn't be losing too much sleep over it.

If you think people will accept restrictions, in any form, to prevent the tiny tiny amount of vaccinated people that might be hospitalised, then you are dreaming. In the absence of any vaccine resistant variants, we will go back to normal with the current approved vaccine program.

The 95% can be interpreted different ways

8/162 was the 95%

The Pfizer trial was basically

8/18000 infections vaccine trail

162/18000 placebo

Chances of getting pcr tested Covid was like 0.04 in vac people and 0.88 in placebo

99% you don't get pcr tested covid either way in that 2-3 months the trial went on

Its kind of why countries going zero covid have a plan b

JDD

jackryan34 wrote: »

The 95% can be interpreted different ways

8/162 was the 95%

The Pfizer trial was basically

8/18000 infections vaccine trail

162/18000 placebo

Chances of getting pcr tested Covid was like 0.04 in vac people and 0.88 in placebo

99% you don't get pcr tested covid either way in that 2-3 months the trial went on

Its kind of why countries going zero covid have a plan b

Well, remember those figures came during a period where most countries would have had varying amounts of restrictions in place. So you'd imagine that, in a scenario where there were no restrictions, the chances of testing positive for covid (whether placebo or vaccine) would be much higher.

That being said, once most of the population is vaccinated, that should act in the same way as restrictions do in preventing covid spread. So your figures will probably broadly stay correct - that is, you will remain highly unlikely to ever test positive for covid, and even less likely to be hospitalised while vaccinated. Winter or no winter, I can't see any restrictions remaining post-September 2021.

El_Duderino 09

JDD wrote: »

I don't quite understand. If we all get vaccinated, with the current vaccines (and without any vaccine resistant variants showing up) then the risk of getting covid is vastly reduced. In the unlikely event that you are infected, you probably won't even notice.

In the unlikely event you are infected, and you do develop symptoms, it is likely they will be mild, with no lingering after effects. In the extremely unlikely event you are infected, develop symptoms, and those symptoms become serious or have long lasting effects, well jaysus, you are extremely unlucky. But you could also be hit by a bus or lightening, so I wouldn't be losing too much sleep over it.

If you think people will accept restrictions, in any form, to prevent the tiny tiny amount of vaccinated people that might be hospitalised, then you are dreaming. In the absence of any vaccine resistant variants, we will go back to normal with the current approved vaccine program.

If the bit in bold is how it works then there wont really much of a problem. The thing is that we don't know if that's how it will work. It might work that way and that would be ideal. It might not work that way and both good and bad scenarios merit consideration.

The initial results are very positive but they're happening within the context of restrictions such as distancing, mask wearing and no mass gatherings. So what happens when most adults are vaccinated and restrictions are lifted and winter comes? We don't know yet.

francogarbanzo

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

It's what we call in the mental health world "catastrophizing"

Make it illegal to leave your house except to exercise, buy groceries, or for medical reasons.
Shut down "non-essential" businesses with no explicit end-date.
Pepper the roads with Garda checkpoints.
Give people fines for travelling outside of the country for "non-essential reasons".
Enact on, then off, then on again, etc. lockdowns for a year, again with no explicit end date.
Give horribly tone-deaf mixed messaging about our plan for re-opening, make no mention about ever "fully getting back to normal", mention variants as a potential reason why we could lock down again.
Give the people a clear plan with levels and never follow it even once.
Make sure to not include in the plan anything like a Level 0 (no restrictions.)

"You're worried this might go on for longer? You're just catastrophizing!"

Probably time to post this one again:

JDD

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If the bit in bold is how it works then there wont really much of a problem. The thing is that we don't know if that's how it will work. It might work that way and that would be ideal. It might not work that way and both good and bad scenarios merit consideration.

The initial results are very positive but they're happening within the context of restrictions such as distancing, mask wearing and no mass gatherings. So what happens when most adults are vaccinated and restrictions are lifted and winter comes? We don't know yet.

Well I agree, we don't know anything about anything until it happens. But given the outcome of the vaccine trials, and what we know about the spread of any infection in a population that have herd immunity from a vaccine, I don't think it's overly optimistic to expect the spread of covid in a vaccinated population to be very low, and where covid infection occurs the chances of hospitalisation to be even lower than at present.

The only curveball really is vaccine resistant variants. Now, people should remember that these variants are only hypothetical at the moment and as time goes on - as the vaccine rolls out - the chances of such a variant occurring becomes less and less.

Hellrazer

HBC08 wrote: »

Ireland is not getting 2.2m doses of a vaccine thats not even approved in the next 3 weeks.
We won't be getting 2 million doses of all the other vaccines combined either before the end of March.

No need for the personal abuse

There really was no need for the personal abuse.

I had posted the link from our National Broadcaster that said we were due 2.2 million doses. No conspiracy theory there at all.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0...id-19-vaccine/

gozunda

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Make it illegal to leave your house except to exercise, buy groceries, or for medical reasons.
Shut down "non-essential" businesses with no explicit end-date.
Pepper the roads with Garda checkpoints.
Give people fines for travelling outside of the country for "non-essential reasons".
Enact on, then off, then on again, etc. lockdowns for a year, again with no explicit end date.
Give horribly tone-deaf mixed messaging about our plan for re-opening, make no mention about ever "fully getting back to normal", mention variants as a potential reason why we could lock down again.
Give the people a clear plan with levels and never follow it even once.
Make sure to not include in the plan anything like a Level 0 (no restrictions.)

"You're worried this might go on for longer? You're just catastrophizing!"

Probably time to post this one again:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EprKPuaW4AI5rI0?format=jpg&name=medium

Wow abusive relationship infograhic - we've reached new heights :rolleyes:

Chsxt not this ****e again. Bar the extensive hyperbole in that - eg "make it illegal to leave your house except to exercise, buy groceries, or for medical reasons" That's simply bs. You can leave your house for work and for a long list of other reasons. Of course there's been restrictions- we're in the midst of a pandemic - and still mopping up after the fun and frolics of Christmas. Our restrictions have been less than the UK but noooooo we're the worst in the world and its neeeeever going to end!

There is no level zero because that means we're back to normal with covid at worst existing as a background disease which will be primarilly controlled by vaccination

So yeah even more desperate doom and gloom and wailing we're in permanent lockdown'!

Tchaikovsky

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Make it illegal to leave your house except to exercise, buy groceries, or for medical reasons.
Shut down "non-essential" businesses with no explicit end-date.
Pepper the roads with Garda checkpoints.
Give people fines for travelling outside of the country for "non-essential reasons".
Enact on, then off, then on again, etc. lockdowns for a year, again with no explicit end date.
Give horribly tone-deaf mixed messaging about our plan for re-opening, make no mention about ever "fully getting back to normal", mention variants as a potential reason why we could lock down again.
Give the people a clear plan with levels and never follow it even once.
Make sure to not include in the plan anything like a Level 0 (no restrictions.)

"You're worried this might go on for longer? You're just catastrophizing!"

Probably time to post this one again:

I didn't say catastrophizing is people worrying that this will go on for longer, it's people that are talking about social distancing and lockdowns being permanent, which is patently unrealistic. Won't happen.

El_Duderino 09

JDD wrote: »

Well I agree, we don't know anything about anything until it happens. But given the outcome of the vaccine trials, and what we know about the spread of any infection in a population that have herd immunity from a vaccine, I don't think it's overly optimistic to expect the spread of covid in a vaccinated population to be very low, and where covid infection occurs the chances of hospitalisation to be even lower than at present.

The only curveball really is vaccine resistant variants. Now, people should remember that these variants are only hypothetical at the moment and as time goes on - as the vaccine rolls out - the chances of such a variant occurring becomes less and less.

Well, yes and no. The real world trials we have seen so far have been in very controlled, lockdown environments. The UK and Israel have both been in lockdown until now. So while we don't know what will happen next winter with vaccines and no restrictions, it's not just a theoretical possibility that things won't go great and we would need restrictions or even a lockdown.

I think it's interesting how many posters are willing to dismiss anything except the best case scenario. Note how many posters are saying something to the effect of " people won't accept restrictions next winter" and consider that people accepted restrictions after Christmas because they were generally seen as necessary. If restrictions are necessary again next winter then yes, of course there could be restrictions.

Ignoring the possibility of the need for restrictions doesn't make the less likely to occur, it just means it would be a bigger surprise to those to chose to ignore anything except the best case scenario. Note the usage of the term "shifting the goalpost" in this thread and you'll see that it was generally used by people who ignored anything except the best case scenario too.

HansKroenke

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Make it illegal to leave your house except to exercise, buy groceries, or for medical reasons.
Shut down "non-essential" businesses with no explicit end-date.
Pepper the roads with Garda checkpoints.
Give people fines for travelling outside of the country for "non-essential reasons".
Enact on, then off, then on again, etc. lockdowns for a year, again with no explicit end date.
Give horribly tone-deaf mixed messaging about our plan for re-opening, make no mention about ever "fully getting back to normal", mention variants as a potential reason why we could lock down again.
Give the people a clear plan with levels and never follow it even once.
Make sure to not include in the plan anything like a Level 0 (no restrictions.)

"You're worried this might go on for longer? You're just catastrophizing!"

Probably time to post this one again:

1. stop you seeing your friends and family; check.
2. won't let you go out without permission; check (the government bans travel over 5km unless it is permitted for essential reasons and a negative PCR test is needed for foreign travel).
3. tell you what to wear; check (masks).
4. monitor your phone or emails; debatable as they would monitor to gauge effectiveness of propaganda / awareness campaigns.
5. control the finances or won't let you work; check (PUP was introduced as a carrot to get people to stop working).
6. control what you read, watch and say; check (big media spend for newspapers, tv and radio broadcasters to "raise awareness" about covid).
7. monitor everything you do; debatable as I wouldn't say "everything" but quite a large part under the guise of "assessing levels of compliance".
8. punish you for breaking the rules but the rules keep changing; check (when things reopened in June last year, I went back to the office and face coverings weren't mandatory so didn't bother wearing them in cafes and shops; however, the rules changed and would have been punished for this behaviour only a few weeks later in July, to give one example).
9. tell you it is for your own good and that they know better; check.
10. don't allow you to question it; check (look at the treatment of protestors, look at the "experts" (e.g. McDonkey) and narrative of hosts (e.g. Claire Byrne, Pat Kenny) wheeled out on the national broadcaster's articles and broadcasts; all toe the party line).
11. tell you you're crazy and no one agrees with you; check (I feel I'm correct based on my assessment of the data on covid as well as my own anecdotal observations when I opine that the reaction has been nothing short of OTT and hysterical and lacking any sort of proportionality or context, yet I feel like I am, with my otherwise measureable intelligence, a "conspiracy theorist").
12. call you names or shame you for being selfish; check (granny killer, far right, tinfoil hat etc.).
13. gaslight you, challenge your memory of events, make you doubt yourself; check (wasn't the whole point of lockdown to reduce the impact of the inevitable infections and waves of potential hospitalisations from covid; not to eradicate it. Almost everyone will get infected so the goal is not to prevent that, just spread it out. Yet, policy and approach does not reflect this).
14. dismiss your opinion; check (similar to 11, 12 and 13; I have a good job with a respectable status in society but at the same time my observation backed by data is dismissed).
15. play the victim if things go wrong, it's your fault; check (Christmas a great example where the people were wrongly blamed for enjoying themselves and somehow the government have convinced people that winter surges in hospitals never happened before covid!).

If you support restrictions, quite simply you are an ignorant, hysterical [rhymes with stunt].

gozunda

HansKroenke wrote: »

1. stop you seeing your friends and family; check
2. won't let you go out without permission; check (the government bans travel over 5km unless it is permitted for essential reasons and a negative PCR test is needed for foreign travel).
3. tell you what to wear; check (masks).
4. monitor your phone or emails; debatable as they would monitor to gauge effectiveness of propaganda / awareness campaigns.
5. control the finances or won't let you work; check (PUP was introduced as a carrot to get people to stop working).
6. control what you read, watch and say; check (big media spend for newspapers, tv and radio broadcasters to "raise awareness" about covid).
7. monitor everything you do; debatable as I wouldn't say "everything" but quite a large part under the guise of "assessing levels of compliance".
8. punish you for breaking the rules but the rules keep changing; check (when things reopened in June last year, I went back to the office and face coverings weren't mandatory so didn't bother wearing them in cafes and shops; however, the rules changed and would have been punished for this behaviour only a few weeks later in July, to give one example).
9. tell you it is for your own good and that they know better; check
10. don't allow you to question it; check (look at the treatment of protestors, look at the "experts" (e.g. McDonkey) and narrative of hosts (e.g. Claire Byrne, Pat Kenny) wheeled out on the national broadcaster's articles and broadcasts; all toe the party line).
11. tell you you're crazy and no one agrees with you; check (I feel I'm correct based on my assessment of the data on covid as well as my own anecdotal observations when I opine that the reaction has been nothing short of OTT and hysterical and lacking any sort of proportionality or context, yet I feel like I am, with my otherwise measureable intelligence, a "conspiracy theorist").
12. call you names or shame you for being selfish; check (granny killer, far right, tinfoil hat etc.).
13. gaslight you, challenge your memory of events, make you doubt yourself; check (wasn't the whole point of lockdown to reduce the impact of the inevitable infections and waves of potential hospitalisations from covid; not to eradicate it.Almost everyone will get infected so the goal is not to prevent that, just spread it out. Yet, policy and approach does not reflect this).
14. dismiss your opinion; check (similar to 11, 12 and 13; I have a good job with a respectable status in society but at the same time my observation backed by data is dismissed).
15. play the victim if things go wrong, it's your fault; check (Christmas a great example where the people were wrongly blamed for enjoying themselves and somehow the government have convinced people that winter surges in hospitals never happened before covid!).

If you support restrictions, quite simply you are an ignorant, hysterical [rhymes with stunt].

Even outside the conspiracy forum that wins the main prize for bat**** hyperbole

And the fact that list is indeed "hysterical" Painting restrictions put in place in the middle of a pandemic here and in many other countries including the UK as as some type of 1984 novel with keep drinking the koolaid type stuff

And as a bonus those who support current restrictions to keep case numbers down whilst vaccines are rolled out are according to yourself "ignorant ... cnuts" ?

Nice ....

HansKroenke

gozunda wrote: »

Even outside the conspiracy forum that wins the the main prize for bat**** hyperbole

And the fact that list is indeed "hysterical" Painting restrictions put in place in the middle of a pandemic here and in many other countries including the UK as as some type of 1984 novel with keep drinking the koolaid type stuff

And as a bonus those who support current restrictions to keep case numbers down whilst vaccines are rolled out are ignorant *****?

Nice ....

11, 13 and 14.

Posters, here is a case point example of the hysteria and ignorance we see with anti-relaxxers.

gozunda

HansKroenke wrote: »

11, 13 and 14.

Is this a bit like the conspiracy theorists Bible where you get to quote chapter and verse as a way of insisting you're right

But nope repeating conspiracy type beliefs ad nauseum don't make them any more believable you know ..

Edit: Ah I see you added even more attempted insult ...

But by no means am I an "anti-relaxxer"

HansKroenke

gozunda wrote: »

Is this a bit like the conspiracy theorists Bible where you get to quote chapter and verse as a way of insisting you're right

But nope repeating conspiracy type beliefs ad nauseum don't make them any more believable you know ..

Edit: Ah I see you added even more attempted insult ...

But by no means am I an "anti-relaxxer"

I'll add number 15 to this particular poster after the above.

gozunda

HansKroenke wrote: »

I'll add number 15 to this particular poster after the above.

Ah more conspiracy theory Bible and verse Bingo :pac:

You're doing well there keep going ...

Micky 32

Seriously people need to chill and ignore the waffling posts about why we’ll still be locked up for the winter. I guess it makes certain posters feel relevant.

The data emerging of the dramatic drop in cases with HCW’s and the death rate in older people plummeting due to the vaccines is hugely significant. You have NEPHET, HSE, even MM aknowledging it. Once the masses are vaccinated there will be little need for restrictions or lockdowns going forward.

Make no mistake, this will come to an end.

Plumbthedepths

Micky 32 wrote: »

Seriously people need to chill and ignore the waffling posts why we’ll still be locked up for the winter. I guess it makes certain posters feel relevant.

The data emerging of the dramatic drop in cases with HCW’s and the death rate in older people plummeting due to the vaccines is hugely significant. You have NEPHET, HSE, even MM aknowledging it. Once the masses are vaccinated there will be little need for restrictions or lockdowns going forward.

Make no mistake, this will come to an end.

But....but....but variants. We are all doomed.

gozunda

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

But....but....but variants. We are all doomed.

No. Varients certainly are factor globally as they were here where we saw the UK varient aiding an increasing the rate of infection along with lots more travel over Christmas. Its simply another issue which needs to kept an eye on.

But no were not "doomed" regardless of the hyperbole or media sensationalism.

jackryan34

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, yes and no. The real world trials we have seen so far have been in very controlled, lockdown environments. The UK and Israel have both been in lockdown until now.

Exactly

People are not getting this part, 95% efficacious with countries in lockdown

Chance of infection in trials were less than 1% over 2-3 months for all groups

8/18,000 vaccine, 99.96% chance of no infection

162/18,000 placebo, 99.10% chance of no infection

If everything is opened, no restrictions, concerts, discos and chance of infection is high what happens?

Are vaccines that don't stop transmission good enough to keep RO below 1 with no restrictions?

Its an RO of 6 or more with no restrictions

Whats the real world hospitalisation % rate of elderly covid infected vaccine patients

5%?

Its 20% in placebo?

newuser99999

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it's interesting how many posters are willing to dismiss anything except the best case scenario. Note how many posters are saying something to the effect of " people won't accept restrictions next winter" and consider that people accepted restrictions after Christmas because they were generally seen as necessary. If restrictions are necessary again next winter then yes, of course there could be restrictions.

Nearly every time I’ve come on to read this thread you’re on about what happened last Christmas.

None of us know for certain what’s going to happen next month let alone next Christmas.

Let it go.

Micky 32

newuser99999 wrote: »

Nearly every time I’ve come on to read this thread you’re on about what happened last Christmas.

None of us know for certain what’s going to happen next month let alone next Christmas.

Let it go.

Yeah, some people are stuck in 2020 also.

Micky 32

jackryan34 wrote: »

If everything is opened, no restrictions, concerts, discos and chance of infection is high what happens?

So you’d propose that we keep them all closed permanently? Would you suggest that , seeing that you’re claiming the vaccines don’t work because the trials were done in lockdown. It doesn’t work that way and everything was taken into account. The rubbish being posted on here is actually making me laugh :pac:

If my memory serves me correctly ( forgive me if i’m wrong and i do apologise if i am wrong) didn’t you post one time something about pubs etc will never be reopening again?:D

Even though i feel like a parrot i’ll repeat. The end is in sight.