When will it all end?

Ginger n Lemon

SheepsClothing wrote: »

Given that 3 weeks of semi-normality over Christmas caused our hospitals to breeze past capacity and a thousand people to die over January, I am 100% sure 1000's would die if we did what you are suggesting.

Which restaurants were accounted for most infections? can you provide a link to which business establishment that reopened during xmas caused thousands of deaths?

PS sounds like hospital capacity may need to increase. Has much been done about that?

ujjjjjjjjj

markodaly wrote: »

See, this is the nub of the issue. There is a large, let us just say it, the anti-science sentiment here, that is just sick of lockdown. They want to open up asap, or when we get some old people vaccinated, and then open up and let what happens, happen..... even though the CDC, WHO, ECDC among others, and pretty much the scientific community advises us, NOT to do it this way.

I get it, people are sick of lockdown and want a way out, that is somewhat logical from a human point of view, but that doesn't entitle people to just make up a new reality where just things will be grand once their own opinion of the matter, that is not backed up by any data gets implemented.

At the end of the day, the motivation here is built from selfishness, which is fine, but at least say it.

"I don't really care about other people getting sick, I want my old life back"
At least be honest about it.

Other people take a different view, that we will need to do this carefully.

I am afraid if we can't accept that people die and get sick we will never open up. This is an endemic virus and what is needed is a balance between the damage being done v lives saved and hospitalisations.

It is extremely easy to continue the 'no risk' lockdown forever narrative but at some point we have to open fully up and live with it.

Based on the extremely comprehensive data we have it is clear that the risk from this virus is only an issue for very defined sections of our population. If we vaccinate these groups we open up and see what happens.

Otherwise there is no end to this as there will always be a risk.

I am open to a government taking a cautions approach to where the vaccination line is drawn but it has to be drawn or we stay closed forever.

SheepsClothing

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Which restaurants were accounted for most infections? can you provide a link to which business establishment that reopened during xmas caused thousands of deaths?

PS sounds like hospital capacity may need to increase. Has much been done about that?

We don't do real contact tracing in this country, so difficult to point to exact restaurants, but a basic understanding of infectious disease should be enough for a thinking person to deduce what happened.

The biggest issue in increasing capacity is staffing. Every country in the world is competing for medical personnel at the moment. Adequately trained professionals can't be manufactured, this needed to be done years prior to the pandemic.

johnire

Here's a thought. Why don't you put your theory to the test. Book a flight. Get stopped. . Get fined and then challenge it. Let us know how you get on......

ingo1984 wrote: »

It won't be upheld in a court. Government know this. However the mere fact there is a fine in place will act as a deterent for the majority and ensure compliance by the majority. Its merely a smokescreen and will work.

Ginger n Lemon

SheepsClothing wrote: »

We don't do real contact tracing in this country, so difficult to point to exact restaurants, but a basic understanding of infectious disease should be enough for a thinking person to deduce what happened.

The biggest issue in increasing capacity is staffing. Every country in the world is competing for medical personnel at the moment. Adequately trained professionals can't be manufactured, this needed to be done years prior to the pandemic.

Hopefully you have basic understanding of infectious disease. Restaurants re opened on 29th of June 2020, thousands of people DID NOT die in July 2020. Nor August 2020. Nor September 2020. Nor October 2020.

Can you come again, with something of value this time?

ujjjjjjjjj

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah yeah but I asked plenty of posters where they got the impression that things would go back to normal this summer, and they couldn’t actually remember. The evidence is here in front of you. You’re an active poster so I think you’ve seen it for yourself. You and your mate alight be very clued in, but a few minutes on this thread should show you that isn’t typical. Tabloids are a profitable business... some people get their news from tabloids and Facebook and Twitter and from their mates. That’s serious and you can see the results in these threads.

On the point of making policy without the information: so they make a policy now before they have good information, what should they then do when the information comes in? Should they change the plan to accommodate the reality or should they stick to the plan no matter what new information they get?

Okay yes tabloids are a pain but an awful lot of people read past them and can understand caveats.

Maybe we can agree to disagree on the information but I think the information is here now. We know from CSO data the at risk groups. We know that the vaccines strongly reduce hospitalisation and deaths in these groups.

So you pick a point (be it over 65's or over 50's) vaccinate down to that point and then open fully. Yes it could backfire (although the data suggests this is highly unlikely) but we will never know without opening up. If you do open up and hospitalisations and deaths stay moderate and don't put a huge strain in the health services we have achieved something huge.

I think the mindset shift required here is an acceptance that this is an endemic virus and juat part of the woodwork now just like the flu. With a decent level of vaccination it shouldn't place any more strain on people and the health service than a moderate flu outbreak.

I don't believe we can get rid of it so we have to have a mature discussion about an acceptable level of hospitalisation and death from it.

Just my opinion......

SheepsClothing

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Hopefully you have basic understanding of infectious disease. Restaurants re opened on 29th of June 2020, thousands of people DID NOT die in July 2020. Nor August 2020. Nor September 2020. Nor October 2020.

Can you come again, with something of value this time?

Good point, cases didn't explode last summer. You wanna know why?

We eliminated community transmission in June 2020 and were able to keep numbers relatively low until the Autumn through contact tracing. We could have stayed like that if not for international travel re-importing the virus. We should do the same this year, just with mandatory quarantines for incoming travellers.

markodaly

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

I am afraid if we can't accept that people die and get sick we will never open up. This is an endemic virus and what is needed is a balance between the damage being done v lives saved and hospitalisations.

It is extremely easy to continue the 'no risk' lockdown forever narrative but at some point we have to open fully up and live with it.

Based on the extremely comprehensive data we have it is clear that the risk from this virus is only an issue for very defined sections of our population. If we vaccinate these groups we open up and see what happens.

Otherwise there is no end to this as there will always be a risk.

I am open to a government taking a cautions approach to where the vaccination line is drawn but it has to be drawn or we stay closed forever.

"See what happens", is not a plan, it just isn't....
We have had our arse handed to us the past two months because we opened up and 'sure we will see what happens'.

To put this into perspective, 1000 people have died in January, alone. That is 1000 people who should be all alive today the guts of a year after all this started.

"See what happens" could well mean thousands more die. Easy to say that behind a keyboard.

The_Brood

markodaly wrote: »

See, this is the nub of the issue. There is a large, let us just say it, the anti-science sentiment here, that is just sick of lockdown. They want to open up asap, or when we get some old people vaccinated, and then open up and let what happens, happen..... even though the CDC, WHO, ECDC among others, and pretty much the scientific community advises us, NOT to do it this way.

I get it, people are sick of lockdown and want a way out, that is somewhat logical from a human point of view, but that doesn't entitle people to just make up a new reality where just things will be grand once their own opinion of the matter, that is not backed up by any data gets implemented.

At the end of the day, the motivation here is built from selfishness, which is fine, but at least say it.

"I don't really care about other people getting sick, I want my old life back"
At least be honest about it.

Other people take a different view, that we will need to do this carefully.

What we have doing has been possibly the most anti-scientific approach imaginable.

The research and official advice was not to rely on economic lockdowns as your sole method of battling the virus. Yet it is exactly what we chose to do.

No enforcement of mask wearing (I don't mean bull**** fines, I mean soldiers on the streets.) No closed borders. Schools opened for way too long. No enforcement of house party prohibitions. Literally 0 effective methods to stop the spread of the virus, other than the one thing we were told we cannot rely on - economic lockdowns.

It's mind-numbing how international news makes fun of certain countries and loony politicians for their covid stances, yet we have done the exact opposite of what the science advises yet have escaped any and all criticism.

SnuggyBear

Soldiers on the streets to enforce mask wearing? I can't take much more of this bull****

Parachutes

SnuggyBear wrote: »

Soldiers on the streets to enforce mask wearing? I can't take much more of this bull****

We turned into a totalitarian state so gradually I hardly noticed...

ujjjjjjjjj

markodaly wrote: »

"See what happens", is not a plan, it just isn't....
We have had our arse handed to us the past two months because we opened up and 'sure we will see what happens'.

To put this into perspective, 1000 people have died in January, alone. That is 1000 people who should be all alive today the guts of a year after all this started.

"See what happens" could well mean thousands more die. Easy to say that behind a keyboard.

Yes January while no one likes what has happened has given us a really good idea of what will happen when we vaccinate the at risk groups. The vast vast majority of the deaths in January were in defined old age groups and vulnerable. Many tens of thousands caught Covid and didn't end up in hospital etc.

There are no absolute guarantees with any plan so there will always be an element of risk. Life is a risk and we balance risk all the time.

The balanced decision in my opinion is to choose a line in the sand using the data we have now, vaccinate over a point and then open up and closely and carefully observe.

Perhaps the decision that is made is that we don't open up until all over 18's are vaccinated but even then there is always going to be a risk. Nothing is certain.

The data I think clearly supports opening up well before this point but that is me trying to achieve a balance between Covid damage and other damage.

I just don't see any other logical solution if we accept this is an endemic virus.

But I think the key point is the information is clearly here now as to where we can risk opening up.

markodaly

The_Brood wrote: »

What we have doing has been possibly the most anti-scientific approach imaginable.

The research and official advice was not to rely on economic lockdowns as your sole method of battling the virus. Yet it is exactly what we chose to do.

No enforcement of mask wearing (I don't mean bull**** fines, I mean soldiers on the streets.) No closed borders. Schools opened for way too long. No enforcement of house party prohibitions. Literally 0 effective methods to stop the spread of the virus, other than the one thing we were told we cannot rely on - economic lockdowns.

It's mind-numbing how international news makes fun of certain countries and loony politicians for their covid stances, yet we have done the exact opposite of what the science advises yet have escaped any and all criticism.

You will not get disagreement from me, that we were too soft in many ways in our lockdowns, in particular our second one. People just took the piss and people lost faith and chanced their arm. Rules were for someone else, not them.

El_Duderino 09

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Okay yes tabloids are a pain but an awful lot of people read past them and can understand caveats.

Maybe we can agree to disagree on the information but I think the information is here now. We know from CSO data the at risk groups. We know that the vaccines strongly reduce hospitalisation and deaths in these groups.

So you pick a point (be it over 65's or over 50's) vaccinate down to that point and then open fully. Yes it could backfire (although the data suggests this is highly unlikely) but we will never know without opening up. If you do open up and hospitalisations and deaths stay moderate and don't put a huge strain in the health services we have achieved something huge.

I think the mindset shift required here is an acceptance that this is an endemic virus and juat part of the woodwork now just like the flu. With a decent level of vaccination it shouldn't place any more strain on people and the health service than a moderate flu outbreak.

I don't believe we can get rid of it so we have to have a mature discussion about an acceptable level of hospitalisation and death from it.

Just my opinion......

We will have to agree to disagree on people’s tendency to read government statements accurately.

But you didn’t address the question in my last post. After they make a plan now without the information I’ve outlined (mainly vaccine supply, efficacy and the impact of new strains), what should the government do when new information comes to light? Should they adapt the plan or stick rigidly to the old plan?

Risteard81

Parachutes wrote: »

We turned into a totalitarian state so gradually I hardly noticed...

I didn't think it was particularly gradual. It was obvious to me last March that totalitarianism was rife within the then junta as well as its successor.

topdecko

Parachutes wrote: »

We turned into a totalitarian state so gradually I hardly noticed...

If we were a totalitarian state we would not be in the quagmire we are in. government has to have multiple meetings about any change in direction to placate the masses. Drip feeding changes to the media instead of taking necessary measures means we are chasing our tail constantly.

International travel has to be curtailed massively. A more deadly variant even than UK one will arise due to asymmetrical rates of vaccinations in different countries and we will be buggered come winter 2021.

Parachutes

topdecko wrote: »

If we were a totalitarian state we would not be in the quagmire we are in. government has to have multiple meetings about any change in direction to placate the masses. Drip feeding changes to the media instead of taking necessary measures means we are chasing our tail constantly.

International travel has to be curtailed massively. A more deadly variant even than UK one will arise due to asymmetrical rates of vaccinations in different countries and we will be buggered come winter 2021.

You're stating this like is a foregone conclusion, not just a prediction that will probably never happen.

These lockdowns and restrictions are totalitarian. You can't even leave 5km from your home, the Government have total control over what the populace are allowed do and not a squeak out of most people.

Micky 32

Parachutes wrote: »

You're stating this like is a foregone conclusion, not just a prediction that will probably never happen.

These lockdowns and restrictions are totalitarian. You can't even leave 5km from your home, the Government have total control over what the populace are allowed do and not a squeak out of most people.

I know, it’s like a broken record with the variant merchants. They’ll grab on to anything for an excuse to keep the restrictions ongoing.

Vaccines are still effective against current variants. Vaccines will evolve to deal with the limited amount of variants the virus can evolve into.

ujjjjjjjjj

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree on people’s tendency to read government statements accurately.

But you didn’t address the question in my last post. After they make a plan now without the information I’ve outlined (mainly vaccine supply, efficacy and the impact of new strains), what should the government do when new information comes to light? Should they adapt the plan or stick rigidly to the old plan?

I think the info is there. Vaccinate to a point, open up and them closely monitor hospitalisation and deaths. If is stays under an acceptable point continue if hospitalisations and deaths go over this acceptable point we revisit.

What else can we do? This is an endemic virus.

It is hard but at somepoint we have to make a call on acceptable hospitalisations and deaths or we stay in lockdown forever.

markodaly

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40226633.html

On when restrictions should be lifted, 59% of people said that the Government should wait until daily Covid-19 cases drop to below 20 per day with three quarters saying that they would prefer a harsher, shorter lockdown over a longer period with fewer restrictions.

Just 5% of people think the economy should reopen now.

Polls seem to be vastly in favour of a cautious measured approach. Most of the commentary here appears to be out of touch with this.

Coybig_

markodaly wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40226633.html


Polls seem to be vastly in favour of a cautious measured approach. Most of the commentary here appears to be out of touch with this.

What is the age profile of those involved in this poll?

The response is likely to be drastically different depending on which age profile you look at, and such polls are easy to achieve whatever result you want.

markodaly

Coybig_ wrote: »

What is the age profile of those involved in this poll?

The response is likely to be drastically different depending on which age profile you look at, and such polls are easy to achieve whatever result you want.

59% vs 5% is a hell of a difference, it must be said. It's kinda emphatic tbh.

Coybig_

markodaly wrote: »

59% vs 5% is a hell of a difference, it must be said. It's kinda emphatic tbh.

No answer. The equivalent of you putting your fingers in your ear saying 'lalala'

If I ask 1000 different 80 year olds vs 1000 different 20 year olds about what they think we should do, the poll results will be drastically different. 80 year olds do not have to face anywhere remotely close to the economic and social sacrifice of younger people. Far easier for them to recommend harsher restrictions given that fact.

Polls are completely meaningless without the profile of those polled being made available. When you can let us know the ages of those polled, maybe someone will take that nonsense seriously.

El_Duderino 09

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

I think the info is there. Vaccinate to a point, open up and them closely monitor hospitalisation and deaths. If is stays under an acceptable point continue if hospitalisations and deaths go over this acceptable point we revisit.

What else can we do? This is an endemic virus.

It is hard but at somepoint we have to make a call on acceptable hospitalisations and deaths or we stay in lockdown forever.

Sorry, just to confirm, you claim we know how effective the vaccines are, what supply of vaccines we will have and how the new strains of the virus will affect transmissions and hospitalisations? Those are three very important questions (not all the relevant questions).

If you think we have the information already, then you’re just not taking the issue seriously enough.

What can they do? They can do exactly what they are doing, which is wait until they have store certainty about some of the variables. The main one would be vaccine supply.

Picking random numbers like “vaccinate the over 70s and open up” is just making a policy for the sake of it. Making policy based on elation is tempting, but it will, always be superseded by actually information.

You’re asking them to make policy that you wan to hear and they have no intention to stick to when the information comes through, just to shut you up for now. That’s a terrible approach

ujjjjjjjjj

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sorry, just to confirm, you claim we know how effective the vaccines are, what supply of vaccines we will have and how the new strains of the virus will affect transmissions and hospitalisations? Those are three very important questions (not all the relevant questions).

If you think we have the information already, then you’re just not taking the issue seriously enough.

What can they do? They can do exactly what they are doing, which is wait until they have store certainty about some of the variables. The main one would be vaccine supply.

Picking random numbers like “vaccinate the over 70s and open up” is just making a policy for the sake of it. Making policy based on elation is tempting, but it will, always be superseded by actually information.

You’re asking them to make policy that you wan to hear and they have no intention to stick to when the information comes through, just to shut you up for now. That’s a terrible approach

The info is there re the people in our population who are at risk. The vaccines efficacy is well documented. Yes we don't know when we will have the vaccines to vaccinate over a point but you can have a policy which states 'we will open up after we have vaccinated say over 65's'. It doesn't have to have a date to be a policy.

This is an endemic virus which will continue to mutate forever, if we follow your logic of having to have definitive data of not lifting restrictions until we can be certain it works against every mutation we will never open up as mutations will be never ending.

We are looking for guarantees where you can't have guarantees.

markodaly

Coybig_ wrote: »

No answer. The equivalent of you putting your fingers in your ear saying 'lalala'

If I ask 1000 different 80 year olds vs 1000 different 20 year olds about what they think we should do, the poll results will be drastically different. 80 year olds do not have to face anywhere remotely close to the economic and social sacrifice of younger people. Far easier for them to recommend harsher restrictions given that fact.

Polls are completely meaningless without the profile of those polled being made available. When you can let us know the ages of those polled, maybe someone will take that nonsense seriously.

Why do you assume that is the demographic?
It could well as easily be the opposite.
Maybe they asked 1000 cats and cows? Very plausible!

This is the usual stuff I would expect from some zealot climate change denier. Some facts come out, facts are dismissed as propaganda as they do not conform to a previously held belief, so instead of changing your mind, you just dig a trench and say, everyone else is wrong, I am right...\


Anyway, this is the crowd that do the polls, maybe they will release their raw numbers later.
https://www.irelandthinks.ie/

markodaly

This is from an older poll.



Not much variance between young and old to the hotel quarantine question.
I think people are just not accepting the reality that there is a big majority out there for the lockdown to continue and that they are in a tiny minority. A few thanks from like-minded posters won't change that.

Ginger n Lemon

markodaly wrote: »

Why do you assume that is the demographic?
It could well as easily be the opposite.
Maybe they asked 1000 cats and cows? Very plausible!

This is the usual stuff I would expect from some zealot climate change denier. Some facts come out, facts are dismissed as propaganda as they do not conform to a previously held belief, so instead of changing your mind, you just dig a trench and say, everyone else is wrong, I am right...\


Anyway, this is the crowd that do the polls, maybe they will release their raw numbers later.
https://www.irelandthinks.ie/

The crowd does not seem respectable, legit or been in business for that long. I can open a company tomorrow and do polls, will you be linking result of my polls too?

In fact that "crowd" seems to be 1 guy. speechless stuff

Ginger n Lemon

markodaly wrote: »

I think people are just not accepting the reality that there is a big majority out there for the lockdown to continue and that they are in a tiny minority. A few thanks from like-minded posters won't change that.

Mark honest to god I dont know anyone who is afraid of covid or who wants this nonsense to continue. I know well over 100 people including work colleagues.

www.gingerandlemon.ie poll has just shown that apart from few posters who seem quite covid concerned and are looking for 2021 lockdowns and 2022 lockdowns, majority of people want life to return to normality.

I mean all joking aside, are there really that many people out there that you know of who dont want to hug their parents, who dont want to travel abroad while they can (note while they can...) and who dont want to socialise? :eek:

Coybig_

Coybig_ wrote: »

If I ask 1000 different 80 year olds vs 1000 different 20 year olds about what they think we should do, the poll results will be drastically different. 80 year olds do not have to face anywhere remotely close to the economic and social sacrifice of younger people. Far easier for them to recommend harsher restrictions given that fact

That's some conclusion to come to with zero evidence!
For all you know every 80 year old in the country might want to get rid of all restrictions.....