When will it all end?

ujjjjjjjjj

aido79 wrote: »

At what level do you start reacting to hospital numbers increasing? When they get to 80% capacity? 90% capacity? 100% capacity?...knowing that the cases are rising exponentially because that's what will be happening if hospital numbers are at those levels.
I'm sure you will know that from your "analytical skills and intelligence ". You'll also know that any reaction to rising case numbers will take 2 weeks to have any effect so case numbers rising exponentially for 2 weeks while hospital bed are filling up at roughly 6% of that exponential rate could mean a lot of people suffer unnecessarily.

Or maybe your "analytical skills and intelligence" only stretch far enough to think of yourself and you're too short sighted to see anything else.

I would be fairly confident on taking my chances with covid and beating it just like the majority of people in my age group but I'd also like to know that the option would be there for minor treatment in a hospital if I required it. This may not be an option if hospitals are over run.

At no point have hospitals been 'over-run' despite all the hysteria and doom mongering. Irish hospitals regularly run to 100% capacity in winter months, nothing new. At what point do you just accept that an increase in hospital admissions caused by Covid is just the straw that breaks the camels back.

We can keep this charade going forever, the what if.......what if the hospitals are over run, what if there is a new killer variant etc etc.

Read the data and make your own decision.

I am not remotely worried about Covid bar the hysterical reactions to date. Yes it is a risk to the elderly and vulnerable but since day one they could have been given specific health advice.

You obviously are worried about it.

All depends on your perception of risk. For me and many others the risk is greater from restrictions than the disease.

If you believe it is the other way around then stay at home but don't ask me to.

Graces7

bucketybuck wrote: »

My favourite is the bit where I could have been arrested for going to that same background to make my own video.

Sounds interesting; on the Dingle peninsula road? Do tell!

Scotty #

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

We can keep this charade going forever, the what if...

Only 6 weeks ago we had the highest infection rate in the world. How on earth can you call it a charade?

aido79

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats pure deflection and you know it, why not just answer the simple question?

At what level should we react to hospital numbers decreasing?

How is it deflection? I'm sure you are well aware that cases and hospital number rose every time there was a relaxation of restrictions after a drop in hospital numbers.

Why would you relax restrictions this knowing full well that hospital number will start to rise within weeks and force the government to implement another lockdown?

Why not wait until enough people are vaccinated so the spread of the virus is slow enough to avoid the need for lockdowns? The aim this time should be to open up without having to worry about when the next lockdown will be which is what would happen if they react to the decline in hospital numbers alone with looking at the bigger picture.

Just in case you need a reminder, have a look at the case numbers for last April to June when people actually stuck to restrictions to get an idea of how bad things could get with the current "adherence " to "level 5" restrictions:

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/72d92-updates-on-covid-19-coronavirus-from-april-june-2020/

aido79

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

At no point have hospitals been 'over-run' despite all the hysteria and doom mongering. Irish hospitals regularly run to 100% capacity in winter months, nothing new. At what point do you just accept that an increase in hospital admissions caused by Covid is just the straw that breaks the camels back.

We can keep this charade going forever, the what if.......what if the hospitals are over run, what if there is a new killer variant etc etc.

Read the data and make your own decision.

I am not remotely worried about Covid bar the hysterical reactions to date. Yes it is a risk to the elderly and vulnerable but since day one they could have been given specific health advice.

You obviously are worried about it.

All depends on your perception of risk. For me and many others the risk is greater from restrictions than the disease.

If you believe it is the other way around then stay at home but don't ask me to.

Show me proof that the hospitals wouldn't have become overrun without restrictions. Do you just not believe that restrictions played a part in stopping the hospitals becoming overrun?

I presume you are referring to people on trolleys when you say that hospitals run at 100% capacity. Can you see how things might be a little bit different if you had covid patients on trolleys who should be in isolation wards?

I'm not worried about it. However I do have a conscience and it would probably play on my mind just a little bit more than it would on yours if I passed it onto someone of any age and they died from it.

I'm glad you feel you are bulletproof when it comes to covid. Do you never come into contact with people who may not fair as well as you think you would if they contract it? Do you think everyone over a certain age should just lock themselves at home until they get vaccinated?

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

The premise of your argument is incorrect. The use of restrictions is to help reduce the rate of infection and allow health services to be able to treat those who become infected and require hospitalisation and other services.

Crazy that we're 12 months in and some are still insisting that the fight against Covid 19 is solely based on mortality especially considering this has been pointed out ad nauseam.

Sorry but I don’t understand your argument here. If lockdown is about maintaining the capacity of the health service to treat people then this is absolutely and invariably linked to the saving of lives. The argument is that, if the health service cannot treat people properly, then more people will die — right?

I think it would be fairly ludicrous to claim that the unprecedented shutdown of society (and support for it), hinges merely on the desire to ensure that people get the same level treatment they would have received in any other recent year. It was the prospect of a huge rise in excess deaths that spurred lockdown and spurred people into supporting lockdown. To argue otherwise is moving the goalposts into an entirely different stadium.

gozunda wrote: »

There will come the day where Covid infection rates are at a level where vaccination can manage to prevent large scale outbreaks and at that point hopefully everyone will remember all those who have died.

Indeed, and when that day arrives and we bow our heads in remembrance, the people who will continue to die from Covid and other infectious illnesses every year will be forgotten. If those deaths remain at tolerable numbers, the very same people who have spent the past year accusing others of being happy to ‘let’ people die in order to have normality back will, unavoidably, support ‘letting’ these people die so they can have normality back.

bucketybuck

aido79 wrote: »

How is it deflection? I'm sure you are well aware that cases and hospital number rose every time there was a relaxation of restrictions after a drop in hospital numbers. ]

How is it not, you still refuse to answer the question.

You wanted to know at what level we should react to hospital numbers increasing, but when I ask you what level we should react to decreasing numbers you won't answer.

Are we to assume then that your answer is zero, that there should be no reaction to decreasing numbers until all those people are gone from hospital and the numbers themselves are gone in turn?

Or will you just answer the question. What level of hospital numbers will be acceptable to allow restrictions to be relaxed? At what level do we react to decreasing hospital numbers?

Harpon

aido79 wrote: »

How is it deflection? I'm sure you are well aware that cases and hospital number rose every time there was a relaxation of restrictions after a drop in hospital numbers.

Why would you relax restrictions this knowing full well that hospital number will start to rise within weeks and force the government to implement another lockdown?

Why not wait until enough people are vaccinated so the spread of the virus is slow enough to avoid the need for lockdowns? The aim this time should be to open up without having to worry about when the next lockdown will be which is what would happen if they react to the decline in hospital numbers alone with looking at the bigger picture.

Just in case you need a reminder, have a look at the case numbers for last April to June when people actually stuck to restrictions to get an idea of how bad things could get with the current "adherence " to "level 5" restrictions:

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/72d92-updates-on-covid-19-coronavirus-from-april-june-2020/

When do you think enough people will be vaccinated to avoid the need for further lockdowns? What percentage of people would need to be vaccinated for that? What happens if it turns out that a top up vaccination is needed every year but we still haven’t even given everyone their first vaccination yet? What happens if a vaccine resistant variant enters the country because we don’t have enforced quarantine here and likely never will?

The governments strategy of staying locked down to the point where we will never need to have another lockdown is so idiotic as it is something that is completely outside of their control, unless they plan on extending the current lockdown for at least another year. If that’s the case they need to come out immediately and explain to the public how they will pay for that in the immediate term and how much taxes are going to have to increase long term.

newuser99999

Graces7 wrote: »

Non sequitur. Killjoy!

I’d love some of whatever you’re snorting

Kunta Kinte

Deleted User wrote: »

A rare moment of introspection from you there, Kunta.

When you look at yourself in the mirror are you happy with what you see there?

AdamD

aido79 wrote: »

How is it deflection? I'm sure you are well aware that cases and hospital number rose every time there was a relaxation of restrictions after a drop in hospital numbers.

Why would you relax restrictions this knowing full well that hospital number will start to rise within weeks and force the government to implement another lockdown?

Why not wait until enough people are vaccinated so the spread of the virus is slow enough to avoid the need for lockdowns? The aim this time should be to open up without having to worry about when the next lockdown will be which is what would happen if they react to the decline in hospital numbers alone with looking at the bigger picture.

Just in case you need a reminder, have a look at the case numbers for last April to June when people actually stuck to restrictions to get an idea of how bad things could get with the current "adherence " to "level 5" restrictions:

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/72d92-updates-on-covid-19-coronavirus-from-april-june-2020/

Because now you're into the argument of staying locked down to avoid having to be locked down. If you say this lockdown is going to go on until we have 50%+ of people vaccinated, then you immediately lose the ahderence of a lot of people.


And why not wait? How many reasons do you want to be given as to why we shouldn't indefinitely stay in lockdown? Is that a serious question? At what point did we cross the boundary to the asking why not lockdown an entire country, as opposed to why lockdown an entire country?

aido79

bucketybuck wrote: »

How is it not, you still refuse to answer the question.

You wanted to know at what level we should react to hospital numbers increasing, but when I ask you what level we should react to decreasing numbers you won't answer.

Are we to assume then that your answer is zero, that there should be no reaction to decreasing numbers until all those people are gone from hospital and the numbers themselves are gone in turn?

Or will you just answer the question. What level of hospital numbers will be acceptable to allow restrictions to be relaxed? At what level do we react to decreasing hospital numbers?

We should not react to decreasing hospital numbers at all. What's the point in repeating previous mistakes? Public buy in is at the lowest since the start of this so any easing of restrictions will result in a "give an inch take a mile" effect and we'll end up in a worse situation than we are in at present.

Do you honestly believe that we are in a level 5 lockdown? As far as I can see it is level 5 in name only. There will be easing of restrictions either in April or May but this will be based on the level of virus in the community, the average case numbers, the R number etc rather than hospital numbers.

Keeping covid related hospital numbers low gives the health service a chance to catch up on non covid related treatments for which waiting lists are growing all the time. Your way of looking at things ensures that covid cases will rise leaving less hospital beds for non covid related treatments.

aido79

Harpon wrote: »

When do you think enough people will be vaccinated to avoid the need for further lockdowns? What percentage of people would need to be vaccinated for that? What happens if it turns out that a top up vaccination is needed every year but we still haven’t even given everyone their first vaccination yet? What happens if a vaccine resistant variant enters the country because we don’t have enforced quarantine here and likely never will?

The governments strategy of staying locked down to the point where we will never need to have another lockdown is so idiotic as it is something that is completely outside of their control, unless they plan on extending the current lockdown for at least another year. If that’s the case they need to come out immediately and explain to the public how they will pay for that in the immediate term and how much taxes are going to have to increase long term.

I think the government will be keeping a close eye on data coming from places like the UK and Israel for the answers to some of your questions. The rest of your questions would require a crystal ball to answer them.

ujjjjjjjjj

aido79 wrote: »

Show me proof that the hospitals wouldn't have become overrun without restrictions. Do you just not believe that restrictions played a part in stopping the hospitals becoming overrun?

I presume you are referring to people on trolleys when you say that hospitals run at 100% capacity. Can you see how things might be a little bit different if you had covid patients on trolleys who should be in isolation wards?

I'm not worried about it. However I do have a conscience and it would probably play on my mind just a little bit more than it would on yours if I passed it onto someone of any age and they died from it.

I'm glad you feel you are bulletproof when it comes to covid. Do you never come into contact with people who may not fair as well as you think you would if they contract it? Do you think everyone over a certain age should just lock themselves at home until they get vaccinated?

There isn't any proof just like there isn't any proof that they would have been. Have hospitals had more to deal with yes, do they need more resources and assistance yes but this is a story not of one virus but of decades of mismanagement and incompetence.

Glad you ain't worried about it. I'm not bulletproof but have weighed up the risk and it's not a risk worth worrying about for most people in my opinion.

I have elderly parents and parents in law etc - I have been full supportive of their wishes in terms of isolation and point of view but don't expect them to impose their will on mine.

Bottom line is we have a clear understanding and have done for many months now as to who is at risk from this virus, the elderly have been locked away anyway (like my parents have chosen to do) so what difference has it made, absolutely none. They would have been free to do so without legal restrictions and wait for a vaccine.

I am not in favour at all of any legal restrictions just general public health advice but fully supportive if people wish to restrict their movements and contacts.

You clearly don't think this but I think the damage from lockdowns far outweighs any positive benefits at this stage.

We can bat this around forever - we don't agree, that's fine.

Problem is people are having severe restrictions which have life changing impacts without any choice.

aido79

AdamD wrote: »

Because now you're into the argument of staying locked down to avoid having to be locked down. If you say this lockdown is going to go on until we have 50%+ of people vaccinated, then you immediately lose the ahderence of a lot of people.


And why not wait? How many reasons do you want to be given as to why we shouldn't indefinitely stay in lockdown? Is that a serious question? At what point did we cross the boundary to the asking why not lockdown an entire country, as opposed to why lockdown an entire country?

You're heading for conspiracy theory stuff there. Who has ever mentioned staying in lockdown indefinitely?

Scotty #

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

Ivan Yates was on Newstalk at lunchtime.
He said (and I agreed): There are only 3 cohorts in Ireland who have NOT been affected financially by Covid 19.

1. Those working in Pharma and IT
2. Those working in supermarkets (who are raking in the money) and retail.
3. Those working in the public service

He said the Irish people are incredibly docile and seem to have no understanding of what the payback will be like and the fact WE WILL have to pay this incredible debt at some stage!

The British were made aware on 3 March how this will impact on them financially for the years ahead and what the taxes and cuts will be introduced https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52663523


The Brits are being kept informed, they are being given roadmaps and plans. In Ireland we are told nothing and still some people think for the "vast majority are us life has carried on"!!! Ignorance is bliss but our day of reckoning will come!

Scotty #

SnuggyBear wrote: »

This coming from someone who said only a tiny minority are affected. You are not worth taking seriously.

And again, no counter argument, just a personal attack.

If you are so right then you should have no problem showing me the figures.

bucketybuck

aido79 wrote: »

Public buy in is at the lowest since the start of this

We should not react to decreasing hospital numbers at all.

These two sentences are all I need to quote, because if you cannot see the connection here then there is little I can say.

bucketybuck

aido79 wrote: »

Who has ever mentioned staying in lockdown indefinitely?

Ahem.

aido79 wrote: »

We should not react to decreasing hospital numbers at all.

aido79

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

There isn't any proof just like there isn't any proof that they would have been. Have hospitals had more to deal with yes, do they need more resources and assistance yes but this is a story not of one virus but of decades of mismanagement and incompetence.

Glad you ain't worried about it. I'm not bulletproof but have weighed up the risk and it's not a risk worth worrying about for most people in my opinion.

I have elderly parents and parents in law etc - I have been full supportive of their wishes in terms of isolation and point of view but don't expect them to impose their will on mine.

Bottom line is we have a clear understanding and have done for many months now as to who is at risk from this virus, the elderly have been locked away anyway (like my parents have chosen to do) so what difference has it made, absolutely none. They would have been free to do so without legal restrictions and wait for a vaccine.

I am not in favour at all of any legal restrictions just general public health advice but fully supportive if people wish to restrict their movements and contacts.

You clearly don't think this but I think the damage from lockdowns far outweighs any positive benefits at this stage.

We can bat this around forever - we don't agree, that's fine.

Problem is people are having severe restrictions which have life changing impacts without any choice.

So you just ignore trends of rising cases and say that there is no proof that hospital numbers would have continued to rise? Do you just want the government to take a chance and let them rises and then apologise saying they f$%led up?

There is no denying the fact that there has been decades of mismanagement and incompetence in the health service in Ireland. It's not something that can be fixed overnight so it's the cards we have to play with right now.

So your solution is everyone over a certain age stay at home and the rest of us just go back to normal?

aido79

bucketybuck wrote: »

These two sentences are all I need to quote, because if you cannot see the connection here then there is little I can say.

I only see a connection between you picking and choosing the bits you want to see. That might explain your poor understanding of things.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Ivan Yates was on Newstalk at lunchtime.

I was listening, a breath of fresh air, MM and Leo should grow a pair, NPHET were elected by nobody, The media are useless.
We could really do with him back on the airwaves he'd probably beat the head of Crazy Kenny and Shill O'Neill on his first day though.

aido79

bucketybuck wrote: »

Ahem.

If you actually read the rest of my post you might see that I mentioned there are other factors involved in opening up and not just hospital numbers.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I was listening, a breath of fresh air, MM and Leo should grow a pair, NPHET were elected by nobody, The media are useless.
We could really do with him back on the airwaves he'd probably beat the head of Crazy Kenny and Shill O'Neill on his first day though.

There is simply nobody like Yates anymore, no voices of dissent are allowed, no questioning of the narrative. The fact he is articulate, questions the status quo, and doesn't mind saying what he thinks is so refreshing it almost shocked me today. Its been SO long since we heard speaking a bit of truth !!

ujjjjjjjjj

aido79 wrote: »

So you just ignore trends of rising cases and say that there is no proof that hospital numbers would have continued to rise? Do you just want the government to take a chance and let them rises and then apologise saying they f$%led up?

There is no denying the fact that there has been decades of mismanagement and incompetence in the health service in Ireland. It's not something that can be fixed overnight so it's the cards we have to play with right now.

So your solution is everyone over a certain age stay at home and the rest of us just go back to normal?

Or it was just a winter spike like every year. Reality is we don't know.

We have had a year to put emergency capacity in place. In the UK overnight they has huge Nightingale Hoapitals built. Never used but there you go. We did SFA.

Yes to your last question but not legally so you are only advised to restrict your movements if you are elderly or at risk.

ujjjjjjjjj

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I was listening, a breath of fresh air, MM and Leo should grow a pair, NPHET were elected by nobody, The media are useless.
We could really do with him back on the airwaves he'd probably beat the head of Crazy Kenny and Shill O'Neill on his first day though.

Thank god I heard Ivan.....good man. Telling it as it is.

Those doing fine don't give a horlicks about anyone else.

ELM327

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I was listening, a breath of fresh air, MM and Leo should grow a pair, NPHET were elected by nobody, The media are useless.
We could really do with him back on the airwaves he'd probably beat the head of Crazy Kenny and Shill O'Neill on his first day though.

Exactly. We need to stop listening to these fools.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Ivan Yates was on Newstalk at lunchtime.
He said (and I agreed): There are only 3 cohorts in Ireland who have NOT been affected financially by Covid 19.

1. Those working in Pharma and IT
2. Those working in supermarkets (who are raking in the money) and retail.
3. Those working in the public service[/url]

Forgetting the lifelong welfare recipients.

OwenM

aido79 wrote: »

We should not react to decreasing hospital numbers at all. What's the point in repeating previous mistakes? Public buy in is at the lowest since the start of this so any easing of restrictions will result in a "give an inch take a mile" effect and we'll end up in a worse situation than we are in at present.

Do you honestly believe that we are in a level 5 lockdown? As far as I can see it is level 5 in name only. There will be easing of restrictions either in April or May but this will be based on the level of virus in the community, the average case numbers, the R number etc rather than hospital numbers.

Keeping covid related hospital numbers low gives the health service a chance to catch up on non covid related treatments for which waiting lists are growing all the time. Your way of looking at things ensures that covid cases will rise leaving less hospital beds for non covid related treatments.

Lets start with the R number, last time I looked the modelling group said it was between .6 and 1 which is a complete pile of bo##ocks . If it's .6 then it is falling quickly, if it's 1 then it not falling at all? So they can't decide either way. They haven't a scooby doo.

The case numbers mean less and less as a proxy for deaths and hospitilisations as we vaccinate in the sequence we are doing it. In about 3 weeks from now the data surrounding deaths and numbers in hospital will drive the government to open up more, I'm hoping for level three by start of May.

AdamD

aido79 wrote: »

You're heading for conspiracy theory stuff there. Who has ever mentioned staying in lockdown indefinitely?

Saying we should stay in lockdown until we have a significant portion of the population vaccinated is literally staying in lockdown indefinitely. That isn't a conspiracy theory. We do not know how long its going to take to get people vaccinated.

Even if things go to plan (hopefully), you're still talking about July, which means half a year of lockdown.