When will it all end?

polesheep

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hold on. Are you suggesting they shouldn't tell us what the likely outcomes are? I wold have thought the small, private gatherings would have been pretty commonly expected in the summer

What do you want to hear?

I want to hear facts. I want to hear what information the government and authorities currently have. I don't want to hear Leo Varadkar or any other politician telling me what they think will happen in the future unless they can back it up with specific fact-based analysis. Otherwise it's no more than the musings of two old dears over their cup of tea.

El_Duderino 09

polesheep wrote: »

Well I hate to break it to you but Leo Varadkar's guess is no better than your own.

Not true. He has the information, published and unpublished. We, on boards, are pretty uninformed and making “man on the street” assessments. Leo is not a man on the street. He is an informed actor in all this.

I don’t take everything he says as gospel but it’s very important to recognise the difference between someone on this thread and a government minister.But you know that.

There is a level of hysteria at the moment. Some bad news has broken ( the restrictions will go on longer than a lot of people had hoped) and people are being very irrational in response to that news.

polesheep

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not true. He has the information, published and unpublished. We, on boards, are pretty uninformed and making “man on the street” assessments. Leo is not a man on the street. He is an informed actor in all this.

I don’t take everything he says as gospel but it’s very important to recognise the difference between someone on this thread and a government minister.But you know that.

There is a level of hysteria at the moment. Some bad news has broken ( the restrictions will go on longer than a lot of people had hoped) and people are being very irrational in response to that news.

So why didn't he say "The restrictions may have to go on for longer than people hoped and here are the reasons why"? Instead he just made guesses for the media.

El_Duderino 09

polesheep wrote: »

I want to hear facts. I want to hear what information the government and authorities currently have. I don't want to hear Leo Varadkar or any other politician telling me what they think will happen in the future unless they can back it up with specific fact-based analysis. Otherwise it's no more than the musings of two old dears over their cup of tea.

That’s effectively what he did. He didn’t publish data along with the interview.
I suspect you would react differently if he had good news to tell.

I take it as the likely scenario, as government sees it right now. You got what you say you want. You just don’t like it.

polesheep

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s effectively what he did. He didn’t publish data along with the interview.
I suspect you would react differently if he had good news to tell.

I take it as the likely scenario, as government sees it right now. You got what you say you want. You just don’t like it.

You're obviously a Leo fan. I don't do politics, so we'll leave it there. I'm off for a spin on the bike, enjoy the day.

Richard Hillman

No travel until 2022 is poppycock. The likes of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Croatia, Greece place huge value on their tourist industries. They can't miss out on 2 years of non activity. They won't be asking for tests or vaccine passports this summer.

I think it's more a move to keep people spending at home.

Tazz T

Richard Hillman wrote: »

No travel until 2022 is poppycock. The likes of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Croatia, Greece place huge value on their tourist industries. They can't miss out on 2 years of non activity. They won't be asking for tests or vaccine passports this summer.

I think it's more a move to keep people spending at home.

It's an over cautious move to protect their own asses. They simply don't want to be seen to get it wrong.

newuser99999

Richard Hillman wrote: »

No travel until 2022 is poppycock. The likes of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Croatia, Greece place huge value on their tourist industries. They can't miss out on 2 years of non activity. They won't be asking for tests or vaccine passports this summer.

I think it's more a move to keep people spending at home.

Absolutely. They want another year of forcing us to staycation so they don’t have to try to appease the Irish tourism industry.

hynesie08

Richard Hillman wrote: »

No travel until 2022 is poppycock. The likes of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Croatia, Greece place huge value on their tourist industries. They can't miss out on 2 years of non activity. They won't be asking for tests or vaccine passports this summer.

I think it's more a move to keep people spending at home.

Did he say no travel or government advice regarding essential tralvel? Because there is a massive difference between those 2 statements.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Steady on there. They haven't done the research on whether it prevents serious illness yet. Accuracy is important.

Accuracy doesn't seem to be important when it comes to scaring people ... but I agree with you, let's be accurate.

It is too soon to say for sure, or by how much, until more tests are completed, although it is extremely unlikely the mutations would render vaccines useless.

Preliminary work suggests the Oxford-AstraZeneca's vaccine offers "limited" protection against mild disease from the South Africa variant, but experts say it should still protect against severe disease.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55534727

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I suspect you would react differently if he had good news to tell.

He never has good news to tell and he never will. Good news doesn't help his public profile.

mcsean2163

polesheep wrote: »

The first can't work because the majority of Covid patients have other illness/complications that require different treatments that would only be available in general hospitals. Not enough healthy people with no underlying illnesses are being hospitalised with Covid to justify a separate hospital.

That's why I said to assume a multi disciplinary team could be put together and put a figure of 25%.

In addition, it's not like the treatments are that different, oxygen, proning and liquids being the main treatments that I know of...

josip

polesheep wrote: »

And in the UK they are talking about ten-year prison terms. I agree with you that they are spooked by mutations.

They are more spooked than others by the mutations because Boris has put all his political capital in the AZ emergency use basket and has been trumpeting his success.
AZ is already proven to be less efficacious than the mRNA vaccines in general, and if AZ is considerably less efficacious against the SA variant, then they're back, not to square 1 perhaps, but somewhere on the bottom 2 rows of the board.

St.Spodo

All told, it's probably going to take until Sept/Oct to vaccinate the adult population in the country. They're then going to have to wait and see what effect the vaccines have on infection, hospitalization and death in the real world before we transition back to unrestricted social activity some time after that. It's not at all surprising to me that Varadkar would say that mass gatherings are off the table until then; concerts and football matches and the like mean contact tracing, masks, distancing etc are out the window and I don't see how anyone could think we might be there before the end of the year.

At the same time, when talking about what specific set of restrictions on social activity will be in place 6 months from now or whatever, Varadkar is making an educated guess. There'll probably be a lot more to do than there is now. Whether you'll be able to drink a pint indoors or have to drink it outdoors, whether you'll be able to go down the country with your mates, or whether you'll be able to have 15 or 25 at your wedding will depend on how low we can get the numbers, how well the vaccines work in practice, the extent to which we can prevent the importation of new cases and other things like that. Those are things that no-one can possibly speak about with confidence at this point IMO.

El_Duderino 09

polesheep wrote: »

So why didn't he say "The restrictions may have to go on for longer than people hoped and here are the reasons why"? Instead he just made guesses for the media.

I don’t work for government but my job means I have to read government briefings and announcements. I can tell you that when a government minister invites the main newspaper in the country i to their office and tells them something like this, it means it’s most likely the current government stance on the issue.

It wasn’t guesses. It was most likely scenario, as things stand right now.

People seemed to believe the September vaccination target even though there were absolutely no numbers to go along with it. We didn’t even have a good estimate for vaccine supply or administration, at that time. But people still quote that target, why? Because it’s a target people wanted to believe. People don’t want to believe this news, so they don’t.

Believe it or don’t believe it. But don’t use what you want to be true as a barometer of truth. It’s a terrible way to figure out what’s likely to happen.

I think that interview was an earnest attempt to let people know what’s likely happen, using the information available at the moment.

El_Duderino 09

polesheep wrote: »

Well I hate to break it to you but Leo Varadkar's guess is no better than your own.

Actu, the more I read this statement the more I realise how far off reality some people are at the moment.

Just look at the state of the comment quoted above....

The news from Leo’s interview will take some time to sink in. It’s disappointing news, but it’s bette to know it than pretend it’s not happening.

El_Duderino 09

polesheep wrote: »

You're obviously a Leo fan. I don't do politics, so we'll leave it there. I'm off for a spin on the bike, enjoy the day.

I’m not a Leo fan. I just take the news as it comes.

Enjoy your spin.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Accuracy doesn't seem to be important when it comes to scaring people ... but I agree with you, let's be accurate.





https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55534727

Yes. That’s accurate. They haven’t yet done the research on severe illness because it takes longer for that research to come through (smaller sample size). Thank you.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Actu, the more I read this statement the more I realise how far off reality some people are at the moment.

Just look at the state of the comment quoted above....

The news from Leo’s interview will take some time to sink in. It’s disappointing news, but it’s bette to know it than pretend it’s not happening.

While I disagree strongly with your view that McConkey is being totally honest, I agree that Leo is on this topic at least. As another poster said, we are looking at at least September before any herd immunity significant numbers are vaccinated, unless there are huge changes in vaccine supply in the meantime. Then it will be softly softly reopening since the big scare the Government got last Christmas.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He never has good news to tell and he never will. Good news doesn't help his public profile.

Leo delivered this news, but it wasn’t speaking off the cuff.

How much do you know about how government gives out news? Something like this (inviting the IT for a sit down interview), will have been discussed long in advanced. It might have been discussed in cabinet meetings so all the ministers know what to say when asked about it.

Leo delivered the news, but it’s not just his opinion. It saddens me to think people know so little about how government works. This is the government levelling with us and people don’t want to know.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. That’s accurate. They haven’t yet done the research on severe illness because it takes longer for that research to come through (smaller sample size). Thank you.

Them not having done the research is not the same as insinuating it isn't effective against severe illness .... that is misleading, and as it says in the same article, experts think it's extremely unlikely it won't be.

The problem I have with this kind of thought process is that when something suits the narrative, there is no mention of how likely or not it is, just that "very young people are getting ill and dying from this" - which on the face of it isn't untrue, but is extremely misleading, as the vast majority are much much older - whereas if it doesn't suit, suddenly there is "no evidence" and "unproven" is thrown about, as it was initially about wearing masks, while the science around them didn't change at all, suddenly in July we had to wear one - not that I have an issue with that, I thought from the start on the balance of probabilities a mask must be better than no mask - but the way the messaging changed was scary, quite frankly.

This is the kind of rhetoric Sam McConkey and NPHET in general are forever engaging in. And the media gives them a free pass on it. This isn't how science or scientists talk.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

While I disagree strongly with your view that McConkey is being totally honest, I agree that Leo is on this topic at least. As another poster said, we are looking at at least September before any herd immunity significant numbers are vaccinated, unless there are huge changes in vaccine supply in the meantime. Then it will be softly softly reopening since the big scare the Government got last Christmas.

I have t referenced McConkey at all. Not have I said anyone is being totally honest.

Did you mean to quote me or were you thinking of another poster? I’ve been pretty clear about what I’m saying and I haven’t even suggested anything anything about McConkey.

Also, nobody has suggested herd immunity in September. The current government target (set before the vaccination program actually began and is very unlikely to be met) said they wanted 70% of adults vaccinated by the end of September. That’s 56% of the total population and nobody is suggesting 56% will confer herd immunity.

Lads, what people say is really important. You can’t just pick it up and reinterpret it any way you want.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Them not having done the research is not the same as insinuating it isn't effective against severe illness .... that is misleading, and as it says in the same article, experts think it's extremely unlikely it won't be.

The problem I have with this kind of thought process is that when something suits the narrative, there is no mention of how likely or not it is, just that "very young people are getting ill and dying from this" - which on the face of it isn't untrue, but is extremely misleading, as the vast majority are much much older - whereas if it doesn't suit, suddenly there is "no evidence" and "unproven" is thrown about, as it was initially about wearing masks, while the science around them didn't change at all, suddenly in July we had to wear one - not that I have an issue with that, I thought from the start on the balance of probabilities a mask must be better than no mask.

This is the kind of rhetoric Sam McConkey and NPHET in general are forever engaging in. And the media gives them a free pass on it. This isn't how science or scientists talk.

Stop now. You said it is effective against severe illness. I said they haven’t done the research yet - because they haven’t done the research yet.

I didn’t insinuate that it doesn’t work for severe illness. I, accurately corrected your statement that it does work for severe illness.

I can’t be any more clear about it than that.

bucketybuck

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can’t be any more clear about it than that.

Clear would be stating your point in one post instead of flooding every thread with dozens of them.

plodder

My worry is that hosp. cases will drop to very low numbers, but there will be reluctance to fully open up due to fears what might happen next Winter. I'd accept foreign travel (outside of Europe at least) is a problem and that is going to be limited until the rest of the world gets the vaccine.

We might not really know if the vaccines work until well into next winter season, but is that justification for heavy restrictions until then? Personally, I would prefer to open up, but accept the risk of a sudden lock down again next Autumn, and hopefully that risk is low, if the vaccination campaign goes well, and we aren't hit with bad new variants..

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I have t referenced McConkey at all. Not have I said anyone is being totally honest.

Did you mean to quote me or were you thinking of another poster? I’ve been pretty clear about what I’m saying and I haven’t even suggested anything anything about McConkey.

I thought you were also referring to the Newstalk McConkey interview as when I looked at the latest posts, everyone else I read was. Seems now you were actually referring to a separate Varadkar interview. Fair enough, I didn't see that one so can't comment.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Also, nobody has suggested herd immunity in September. The current government target (set before the vaccination program actually began and is very unlikely to be met) said they wanted 70% of adults vaccinated by the end of September. That’s 56% of the total population and nobody is suggesting 56% will confer herd immunity.

This is the EU Commission target as Ursula Von der Leyen stated again today. 56% will get us in the ballpark of it, as young people aren't significant sources of spread, and many have already been exposed to it.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lads, what people say is really important. You can’t just pick it up and reinterpret it any way you want.

That wasn't what I did, I misunderstood who you were referring to.

polesheep

mcsean2163 wrote: »

That's why I said to assume a multi disciplinary team could be put together and put a figure of 25%.

In addition, it's not like the treatments are that different, oxygen, proning and liquids being the main treatments that I know of...

Coronary care, cancer treatments, scans, colonoscopies, to name just a few. many people admitted to hospital with Covid have many other health issues.

polesheep

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t work for government but my job means I have to read government briefings and announcements. I can tell you that when a government minister invites the main newspaper in the country i to their office and tells them something like this, it means it’s most likely the current government stance on the issue.

It wasn’t guesses. It was most likely scenario, as things stand right now.

People seemed to believe the September vaccination target even though there were absolutely no numbers to go along with it. We didn’t even have a good estimate for vaccine supply or administration, at that time. But people still quote that target, why? Because it’s a target people wanted to believe. People don’t want to believe this news, so they don’t.

Believe it or don’t believe it. But don’t use what you want to be true as a barometer of truth. It’s a terrible way to figure out what’s likely to happen.

I think that interview was an earnest attempt to let people know what’s likely happen, using the information available at the moment.

I have literally being arguing the opposite.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Stop now. You said it is effective against severe illness. I said they haven’t done the research yet - because they haven’t done the research yet.

I didn’t insinuate that it doesn’t work for severe illness. I, accurately corrected your statement that it does work for severe illness.

I can’t be any more clear about it than that.

They haven't done the research yet .... they also haven't done the research yet on if the vaccines will kill us all 10 months down the road - because they literally can't .... but it's extremely unlikely, don't you agree? Isn't it disingenuous and irresponsible to say "Shock new finding: No evidence new mRNA vaccines won't kill everyone in 2022"

This is really important.

El_Duderino 09

plodder wrote: »

My worry is that hosp. cases will drop to very low numbers, but there will be reluctance to fully open up due to fears what might happen next Winter. I'd accept foreign travel (outside of Europe at least) is a problem and that is going to be limited until the rest of the world gets the vaccine.

We might not really know if the vaccines work until well into next winter season, but is that justification for heavy restrictions until then? Personally, I would prefer to open up, but accept the risk of a sudden lock down again next Autumn, and hopefully that risk is low, if the vaccination campaign goes well, and we aren't hit with bad new variants..

Opening up and locking down fully might be one approach. But they'll be criticised whichever approach they take.

I have thought they would do pretty much what Leo said in the interview. Loosen restrictions in the summer, get as many people vaccinated as they can, and tighten restrictions as and when they need to when the weather cools down again.

If things go really well (increased vaccine supply, efficient rollout, vaccines work well and no more vaccine-resistant variants) they might not need to tighten the restrictions by much in the winter. That way, things could open up over the coming months and never have to close fully again. Whether that's the best approach, it seems to be the approach they're taking for now.