When will it all end?

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

Forgetting the lifelong welfare recipients.

But they are the neaveau riche, not even impacted by recessions!

aido79

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

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.

By your logic we should avoid the spike in April that we had last by staying locked down for April and then easing restrictions in May.

Why did the UK bother with lockdowns if those nightingale hospitals which were barely used were the solution?

What age would you set for people who need to cocoon?

ELM327

aido79 wrote: »

By your logic we should avoid the spike in April that we had last by staying locked down for April and then easing restrictions in May.

Why did the UK bother with lockdowns if those nightingale hospitals which were barely used were the solution?

What age would you set for people who need to cocoon?

Just 10-14 days to flatten the curve should do it.

aido79

OwenM wrote: »

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.

Do you understand the R number? If it's at 0.6 then for every 10 people who contract it they will pass it onto 6 people so the numbers will drop.
If the R number is at 1 then those 10 people will pass it onto 10 more people so the numbers stay steady.
Do you have a more accurate figure for the R number if you think their figure is a complete pile of bo##ocks?

I would also be very confident of level 3 by the beginning of May. As I said earlier we are in level 5 in name only. Level 3 from where we are now would not be a huge leap and should be possible if the vaccine supply issues are resolved.

ELM327

aido79 wrote: »

Do you understand the R number? If it's at 0.6 then for every 10 people who contract it they will pass it onto 6 people so the numbers will drop.
If the R number is at 1 then those 10 people will pass it onto 10 more people so the numbers stay steady.
Do you have a more accurate figure for the R number if you think their figure is a complete pile of bo##ocks?

I would also be very confident of level 3 by the beginning of May. As I said earlier we are in level 5 in name only. Level 3 from where we are now would not be a huge leap and should be possible if the vaccine supply issues are resolved.

It is 2029, the taoiseach addresses the nation and says we are in level 2++, we just need 10-14 days to flatten the curve.

Quazzie

ELM327 wrote: »

It is 2029, the taoiseach addresses the nation and says we are in level 2++, we just need 10-14 days to flatten the curve.

It is 2020, and that joke stopped being funny

Parachutes

Quazzie wrote: »

It is 2020, and that joke stopped being funny

It stopped being funny because it's slowly becoming reality.

aido79

AdamD wrote: »

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.

No it's not. An indefinite lockdown is conspiracy theory stuff.
I also hope things go to plan but I would not class restrictions until July as an indefinite lockdown.

aido79

ELM327 wrote: »

It is 2029, the taoiseach addresses the nation and says we are in level 2++, we just need 10-14 days to flatten the curve.

You're almost in trolling territory....

Parachutes

aido79 wrote: »

No it's not. An indefinite lockdown is conspiracy theory stuff.
I also hope things go to plan but I would not class restrictions until July as an indefinite lockdown.

It's gone from April to July now? :rolleyes:

aido79

Parachutes wrote: »

It's gone from April to July now? :rolleyes:

Relaxation of restrictions end of April. End of restrictions in July. Roll your eyes all you want but that's the most positive prediction that anyone can hope for.

ujjjjjjjjj

aido79 wrote: »

By your logic we should avoid the spike in April that we had last by staying locked down for April and then easing restrictions in May.

Why did the UK bother with lockdowns if those nightingale hospitals which were barely used were the solution?

What age would you set for people who need to cocoon?

Look you can bat this around forever.

I've never agreed with any legally enforceable restrictions, health advice sure go ahead but removing basic freedoms for a virus of this low level of lethality to the vast majority of the population is just not something I can find any reason to justify.

Sweden has come closest to managing this sensibly in my opinion. They made a horlicks of protecting their elderly in the nursing homes where the majority of their deaths have come from but otherwise the closest to a pragmatic approach to this while limiting damage to personal freedoms.

It may gall you and others in the lockdown and safety at all costs brigade but while I would of course prefer these viruses not to exist I think the damage outweighs the benefits and life years saved in the elderly and vulnerable and we should have just got on with like Sweden did and muddle through as best we can, providing assistance for the elderly and vulnerable who wished to isolate.

As a caring society we can afford to put in place protections and assistance for the elderly and vulnerable who wish to restrict their movements.

Staying as a free society carries a price and we haven't been prepared to pay that price. But there is another price to pay now and I don't think anyone has really thought it through, you cross a point and it's very hard to go back, in fact I'd say it's impossible.

We can argue forever about whether it was right or wrong. I don't think it was, other will disagree and that's fine.

History in time I have no doubt will judge this as a substantial inflection point in what we call Western Democracy and it won't be well judged. Unfortunately my overwhelming emotion is one of sadness as most people don't realise what has happened here.

I know many won't agree and that's fine but it isn't going to change my perspective or assessment of what has happened here.

ujjjjjjjjj

aido79 wrote: »

Do you understand the R number? If it's at 0.6 then for every 10 people who contract it they will pass it onto 6 people so the numbers will drop.
If the R number is at 1 then those 10 people will pass it onto 10 more people so the numbers stay steady.
Do you have a more accurate figure for the R number if you think their figure is a complete pile of bo##ocks?

I would also be very confident of level 3 by the beginning of May. As I said earlier we are in level 5 in name only. Level 3 from where we are now would not be a huge leap and should be possible if the vaccine supply issues are resolved.

They haven't a clue what the 'R' number is and never have. With a virus of this nature with so many asymptomatic or mild cases many people who have been infected you simply can't estimate it with any degree of accuracy. You can also only record an R number if you have a consistent level of testing. If you test more you find more and the R number goes up, test less and it drops. It hasn't been scientifically done since day one and therefore it's just garbage.

Read the CSO stats, that is data and clearly shows who is at risk and who isn't.

ujjjjjjjjj

aido79 wrote: »

You're almost in trolling territory....

Close but if you'd say to me last year we would be breaking the law on the 4th April 2021 by going to a beach 6km away I would have laughed and said you were nuts..............:)

ulster

I reckon late 2022 for full vaccination given our government's capability.

gozunda

ArthurDayne wrote: »

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.

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.

Nope. Not too sure what you're trying hard to understand. You stated

its hard to advocate even moderate lifting of restrictions because it means at least some more people will die and Mr / Mrs Morality finds themselves in the selfish cretin bucket too

As if that was the only metric on which restrictions and lockdown is based. As pointed out it's not. What is correct is that your argument is not only in the wrong stadium - it's also in the wrong ballpark.

Restrictions are about managing infection rates ie keeping the numbers infected down and allowing health care services to cope both with Covid patient care and other services. By no means is it only about "saving" lives. Those who also need hospital admission for covid and non covid related or other non terminal condition have a much greater chance of proper medical care where heath resources are available.

But yes it also about saving some lives - especially those who require critical care.

Its always been about that and to use a phrase "flattering the curve" ie reducing the number who need care at any one time. So the proposition that restrictions are solely based on people dying is indeed ludicrous.

When we get to the point where covid19 infection rates are manageable with vaccination rates then "normality" will have nothing whatsoever to do with "letting people die" and deciding fuk it we'll do nothing

ELM327

Quazzie wrote: »

It is 2020, and that joke stopped being funny

Only because it's becoming a reality.

aido79 wrote: »

You're almost in trolling territory....

No, just venting my anger at the incessant lockdowns

Parachutes

ulster wrote: »

I reckon late 2022 for full vaccination given our government's capability.

The government can fcuk off if they think they can get away locking me up like a dog till the end of 22. Don't even suggest something like that

aido79

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Look you can bat this around forever.

I've never agreed with any legally enforceable restrictions, health advice sure go ahead but removing basic freedoms for a virus of this low level of lethality to the vast majority of the population is just not something I can find any reason to justify.

Sweden has come closest to managing this sensibly in my opinion. They made a horlicks of protecting their elderly in the nursing homes where the majority of their deaths have come from but otherwise the closest to a pragmatic approach to this while limiting damage to personal freedoms.

It may gall you and others in the lockdown and safety at all costs brigade but while I would of course prefer these viruses not to exist I think the damage outweighs the benefits and life years saved in the elderly and vulnerable and we should have just got on with like Sweden did and muddle through as best we can, providing assistance for the elderly and vulnerable who wished to isolate.

As a caring society we can afford to put in place protections and assistance for the elderly and vulnerable who wish to restrict their movements.

Staying as a free society carries a price and we haven't been prepared to pay that price. But there is another price to pay now and I don't think anyone has really thought it through, you cross a point and it's very hard to go back, in fact I'd say it's impossible.

We can argue forever about whether it was right or wrong. I don't think it was, other will disagree and that's fine.

History in time I have no doubt will judge this as a substantial inflection point in what we call Western Democracy and it won't be well judged. Unfortunately my overwhelming emotion is one of sadness as most people don't realise what has happened here.

I know many won't agree and that's fine but it isn't going to change my perspective or assessment of what has happened here.

Sweden got lucky in my opinion. They may have avoided lockdown but not everything is sunshine and roses there either as you can see from articles like this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2020/12/13/sweden-frontline-health-care-workers-quitting-covid/amp/

There are plenty of other articles that show how close Sweden came to real problems.

It's very difficult to compare other country's covid measures as every country done things differently and reacted to peaks at different times.

A few months ago people on Facebook were championing Poland and Italy for defying restrictions and opening up. Now they seem to be 2 of the countries in Europe heading for stricter lockdowns. In fact the numbers in most countries in Europe seem to be going in the opposite direction to the numbers in Ireland.

What in your opinion has happened here?

aido79

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

They haven't a clue what the 'R' number is and never have. With a virus of this nature with so many asymptomatic or mild cases many people who have been infected you simply can't estimate it with any degree of accuracy. You can also only record an R number if you have a consistent level of testing. If you test more you find more and the R number goes up, test less and it drops. It hasn't been scientifically done since day one and therefore it's just garbage.

Read the CSO stats, that is data and clearly shows who is at risk and who isn't.

I'd actually agree with that. It's only an estimate and they've always made that clear.
Even with the case numbers that's only an estimate too. I would say if you took the official case numbers each day and doubled or even tripled them you would be closer to the actual level of covid in the country due to asymptomatic cases.

Harry Palmr

So then is this the thread that'll be marching on Wednesday?

Scotty #

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

They haven't a clue what the 'R' number is and never have.

Case numbers mean nothing, CFR is irrelevant. Deaths are no indication of anything. Modelling doesn't work... etc, etc, etc.

At one point or another every measurable yard stick has been rubbished by the anti-restriction argument. Can I ask, if all the data is irrelevant, on what information are you actually forming your opinions? Genuinely curious to know.

The Big Easy

Scotty # wrote: »

Case numbers mean nothing, CFR is irrelevant. Deaths are no indication of anything. Modelling doesn't work... etc, etc, etc.

At one point or another every measurable yard stick has been rubbished by the anti-restriction argument. Can I ask, if all the data is irrelevant, on what information are you actually forming your opinions? Genuinely curious to know.

It's really not that hard. ICU numbers; which are way down, hospital numbers; which are way down and deaths; which are way down.

There's no point in looking at any numbers other than those and the first two we look at, mainly because of our inefficient poorly run health sector. Which coincidentally makes up the vast majority of Nphet.

To wait for Nphet to recommend decreasing restrictions would be to wait until they are capable of running the HSE efficiently. When do you think that will be?!

Graces7

The Big Easy wrote: »

It's really not that hard. ICU numbers; which are way down, hospital numbers; which are way down and deaths; which are way down.

There's no point in looking at any numbers other than those and the first two we look at, mainly because of our inefficient poorly run health sector. Which coincidentally makes up the vast majority of Nphet.

To wait for Nphet to recommend decreasing restrictions would be to wait until they are capable of running the HSE efficiently. When do you think that will be?!

Exact figures would be good; thank you.

ujjjjjjjjj

aido79 wrote: »

Sweden got lucky in my opinion. They may have avoided lockdown but not everything is sunshine and roses there either as you can see from articles like this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2020/12/13/sweden-frontline-health-care-workers-quitting-covid/amp/

There are plenty of other articles that show how close Sweden came to real problems.

It's very difficult to compare other country's covid measures as every country done things differently and reacted to peaks at different times.

A few months ago people on Facebook were championing Poland and Italy for defying restrictions and opening up. Now they seem to be 2 of the countries in Europe heading for stricter lockdowns. In fact the numbers in most countries in Europe seem to be going in the opposite direction to the numbers in Ireland.

What in your opinion has happened here?

Not diasgreeing that Sweden had issues but they have managed to avoid the most draconian restrictions and really on balance haven't done badly accepting (and they admit this and many other countries have made identical mistakes) that they didn't protect nursing homes at all.

I think we have moved into a period now where countries see light at the end of the tunnel with the vaccines and it's human nature to 'hang in there' now until populations are vaccinated. Inevitably this means you go back to restrictions like we are seeing in Italy and Poland etc.

Look while I don't like what has happened, it's happened and I'm also a realist and fully understand now it's politically impossible for countries to lift restrictions without a significant chunk of the population vaccinated. The populations themselves are in many areas so scared that they won't accept it.

The worry for me is that we don't at somepoint move past all restrictions in the mid term and we end up with invasive restrictions or impositions on our lives even after vaccination has reached a good chunk of our populations.

What I hope happens is a point where we say have done all we can (post vaccination) and draw a line in the sand and say jog on and we accept that we will have hospitalizations and deaths from this virus indefinitely in the risk group but as these will be modest we just have to jog on.

If we can't get to this point of just accepting the above and moving on we will do lasting damage to the very perception of risk v life and end up living in some OCD dystopian health and safety course. I fear we already have changed to a point of no return in someways but not clearly moving back to 'normality' once the vaccine roleout is well along the curve we risk changing so much more.

ujjjjjjjjj

aido79 wrote: »

I'd actually agree with that. It's only an estimate and they've always made that clear.
Even with the case numbers that's only an estimate too. I would say if you took the official case numbers each day and doubled or even tripled them you would be closer to the actual level of covid in the country due to asymptomatic cases.

Agree - the problem is this type of stuff when thrust down everyone throats begins to have huge psychological impact and in the case of the R number it's nothing but alarmist nonsense - if it isn't a data point you can trust or rely on why quote it or even refer to it.

ujjjjjjjjj

Scotty # wrote: »

Case numbers mean nothing, CFR is irrelevant. Deaths are no indication of anything. Modelling doesn't work... etc, etc, etc.

At one point or another every measurable yard stick has been rubbished by the anti-restriction argument. Can I ask, if all the data is irrelevant, on what information are you actually forming your opinions? Genuinely curious to know.

Okay fair question - personally I look at three bits of data as being important yardsticks for assessing risk with this virus.

i) ICU Admissions as I think anyone in ICU is in significant trouble.
ii) Deaths attributed to Covid.
iii) Average Age of Death and Underlying Health Conditions.

What I have seen is quite clear - the vast bulk of people who end up in hospital or dead are either very elderly or have underlying health conditions.

Data is clearly showing to me that the risk is negligible for huge sections of our populations. You also have to bear in mind we have an incredibly elderly and frail population and it's an easy target for a virus like this - bizarrely this very defined section of our population (in nursing homes) we have totally failed to protect but you also have to (and I know this sounds morbid) remember how we behaved before - when a 90 year old with dementia or a poor quality of life died in the past from flu or pneumonia etc etc it was viewed as a release - dieing from Covid and it's now a tragedy. Why the change ?

Median age of death in Ireland is when I last checked the CSO data is 84. That means so many of our Covid dead were 80 plus. I have elderly parents myself and I would prefer them not to die from Covid or any other respiratory disease but something will soon get them and it's not a tragedy, they have had a great life and death is inevitable.

Case numbers for me are hard to quantify or hard to draw much information from as it depends on testing and we still don't know (and never will) the amount of people who are asymptomatic or with such mild symptoms they never get tested.

I also for the same reason place little faith in the R number - it's just a finger in the air number and unscientific. Test more and it goes up.....etc etc.

CFR/IFR is unknown as we don't know how many people have had covid so again it's just a finger in the air and any figure we have for CFR or IFR is a wild over estimation of how lethal this virus is as so many have had it but don't show up in 'case' figures.

drunkmonkey

Seemingly Professor Nolan thinks we're in a similar situation to Halloween.
It's about time the media stopped publicizing his brain farts, We've vaccines and we're just about to come out of our traditional flu season, it's nothing like halloween.

Scotty #

The Big Easy wrote: »

It's really not that hard.

You missed the memo too! :D

The Big Easy wrote: »

ICU numbers; which are way down, hospital numbers; which are way down and deaths; which are way down.

ICU and acute cases would be my go to indicators too. Not so much deaths. Not the actual numbers themselves but how they are trending. Well, maybe the actual number for ICU as we have quite a low normal capacity (225).

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Okay fair question -
What I have seen is quite clear - the vast bulk of people who end up in hospital or dead are either very elderly or have underlying health conditions.

Data is clearly showing to me that the risk is negligible for huge sections of our populations.
Case numbers for me are hard to quantify or hard to draw much information from

Thanks for the proper answer. I'd largely agree. While I very much agree that covid in itself is extremely low risk to most of us, I consider it to be a significant threat to our health service when the numbers are going the wrong way. For me, this is the only justification for ever having restrictions.

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Not too sure what you're trying hard to understand. You stated



As if that was the only metric on which restrictions and lockdown is based. As pointed out it's not. What is correct is that your argument is not only in the wrong stadium - it's also in the wrong ballpark.

Restrictions are about managing infection rates ie keeping the numbers infected down and allowing health care services to cope both with Covid patient care and other services. By no means is it only about "saving" lives. Those who also need hospital admission for covid and non covid related or other non terminal condition have a much greater chance of proper medical care where heath resources are available.

But yes it also about saving some lives - especially those who require critical care.

Its always been about that and to use a phrase "flattering the curve" ie reducing the number who need care at any one time. So the proposition that restrictions are solely based on people dying is indeed ludicrous.

When we get to the point where covid19 infection rates are manageable with vaccination rates then "normality" will have nothing whatsoever to do with "letting people die" and deciding fuk it we'll do nothing

I think you are conflating two separate points in my posts. The line which you quote from my post was a specific reference to people who seem to position themselves as “caring” about others while suggesting that those who are against the government’s strategy are uncaring. I was simply making the point that this ‘care’ was simply a question of scale, not a question of superior compassion — because when numbers are deemed manageable then the cold calculation of ‘these deaths are a price worth paying for normality’ comes right back into play. For some reason, you seem to have taken this as me saying that lockdown was only about saving lives full-stop. I said specifically in my previous post that lockdown was about preventing excess deaths — not preventing deaths outright.

You are saying that lockdown was about flattening the curve and aiding the health service in maintaining its capacity. This is true. But that narrative was accompanied by the assertion that, by not flattening the curve, the country would be faced with a situation where a huge number of people would die from Covid and others would die from reduced capacity of the healthcare service to save them. I really don’t know why you are disputing this.

All you have to do is ask, if Covid was an entirely non-lethal virus but still had the capability to at least hospitalise a huge number of people and perhaps even land people in ICU — do you really think the lockdown would have been sustained on a message of : “This virus doesn’t kill and we don’t expect many excess deaths but we are going to lock the country down completely to avoid the health service being put under severe strain ”? Do you really believe anything less than the spectre of an extremely high number of excess deaths would have compelled the ordinary people to support a year or so of lockdown? I think it would be doubtful.