Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*
Options
Comments
-
ArthurDayne wrote: »...........
................ Those people made the argument that a year of lockdowns would cause short, medium and long term effects that had to be weighed up against the risk of a virus that is mostly killing people who have reached or exceeded average life expectancy. The people making that argument were laughed out the door because ..........................
Laughed out the door as anyone with 2 braincells realises that if you don't have restrictions hospitals will fill up with more than "people who have reached or exceeded average life expectancy" (not that older folk are cannon fodder IMO)ArthurDayne wrote: ».........
And even at that, what have we seen over the last few weeks? With this explosion of cases, the predictions were dire as ever of an impending cataclysm. Has it been the cataclysm predicted? Nobody denies the tragedy of the loss of life, but the scales and level of tragedy have simply not hit the levels of apocalyptic disaster that are used to justify the most stringent forms of restriction.
We've seen hospitals jammed full of Covid patients, healthcare workers off sick with covid and L5 restrictions.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »Nobody denies the tragedy of the loss of life, but the scales and level of tragedy have simply not hit the levels of apocalyptic disaster that are used to justify the most stringent forms of restriction.
Would that have anything to do with current restrictions?0 -
FintanMcluskey wrote: »Not really, it’s similar to the minister for health banning meat because they are vegan.
The lower middle income workers will be crippled with these measures and the austerity in future
No, your comparison is not accurate at all. It's suggesting that the the person proposing these restrictions would prefer that people are out of work. What nonsense!
It's just unfortunate that lower income workers are affected by this. It's not like there are other options on the table that could affect those on greater incomes. People who can work from home tend to be higher earners. That's just a fact.Deleted User wrote: »Having a full salary is generally a key trait in the pro restrictions side.
I doubt many of the 460000 on PUP are big supporters.
It’s like Bono saying we should all give money to charity. Easy when you’re a millionaire. More difficult on an average wage with a mortgage and 2 kids in crèche.
Correlation does not equal causation. I could similarly say that those who are out of work are more likely to be less educated and are may not understand the benefits of lockdown. Of course if you have a full salary the impact of the restrictions are less severe. That doesn't mean it's the wrong decision.
You're essentially saying the same thing as the "pro-restriction" group though except from the other side. You want to change the approach so that you're ultimately not affected. You're putting your own well-being ahead of the health of the most vulnerable.
Also the Bono analogy doesn't work either. He is a public figure so would tend to have a much larger income than your average Joe Soap. No one's going to listen to an unknown office worker telling the world to give to charity.0 -
.................. I can't even remember what it was like to socialise, to live a normal life, not to mention the fact that I'm getting older and time is ticking away to buy my own place, meet someone, get married, have kids etc.........Of course, I know that
I'm saying that if we are still in these kind of lockdowns come September, there will be a LOT of very frustrated people..............
And I said we won't be in these lockdowns but there'll be some restrictions.
Normal life means people are rammed into pubs and there's gigs etc, just because you aren't bothered about that form of socialising it doesn't make it not part of normal life.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
.............
Correlation does not equal causation. I could similarly say that those who are out of work are more likely to be less educated and are may not understand the benefits of lockdown. Of course if you have a full salary the impact of the restrictions are less severe. That doesn't mean it's the wrong decision............
Sister's fella was delighted to be on the PUP, 80 or 90% of his wages for not going to work. I doubt he's unique.0 -
And I said we won't be in these lockdowns but there'll be some restrictions.
Normal life means people are rammed into pubs and there's gigs etc, just because you aren't bothered about that form of socialising it doesn't make it not part of normal life.
Where did I say I wasn't bothered about that form of socialising??! Talk about twisting my words; I know those are part of normal life (and they are part of my life too) but I am well aware that they won't be happening anytime soon - you felt the need to point out that they won't be happening this year, you assumed that I was talking about gigs and pubs when I said normal life - there is more to life than those things, even though I very much enjoy them. Some normality at this stage, FOR ME, would be being able to go shopping at the drop of a hat without thinking about it and feeling relaxed, not anxious about it. Just going about my business as normal as possible and not worrying that I might pick up the virus, which is where a rapid vaccine rollout comes in.
Anyway, I don't really want to have a debate about it; just saying how I feel about everything.0 -
-
I definitely think the restrictions are needed this time around. It’s the first time if I’m not mistaken since the pandemic occurred that hospitals here have been truly under pressure, and so yes, now is the time to be rolling out the big guns. It makes it even more baffling however when you look back to last May/June/July when we had cases > 30 and days with 0 deaths and we were still being strung along by the balls and being told off for not being good enough by Tony. That attitude and approach contributed massively to the fatigue that had well set in by November/December, and we were barely out of lockdown 1 before being thrust straight into lockdown 2 with the promise of Christmas, which never actually fully materialised. Their approach last summer was extremely over cautious and they need to realise that the whole thing had worn pretty thin for a lot of people by late summer. It felt like there was no more we could collectively do, as it was never good enough. And meanwhile the boarder wide open for every corona oozing Tom Dick and Harry to arrive through and undo all our efforts.
Losing your freedom for almost a year is extremely extremely demoralising and even more so when you do all is asked but cases still increase due to government mishandling. And if it’s going to be the same drip fed easing this time around with three weeks in between each stage, that’s going to be really tiring and depressing. So yes, in short. I agree restrictions are necessary this time around. It’s just a pity we made such a pigs ear of it last summer when we should have seized the moment like everyone else in Europe. I don’t see us doing any similar this time around either, which is contributing to the collective fatigue this time around. Everyone I’ve been speaking to agrees this one feels like the worst one yet and can’t see a way out any time soon. If there was any sense to any of it then once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated we should all be let live our lives again and have our freedom back. After all, we’ve been told all along they are who we are doing this for in the first place.0 -
Laughed out the door as anyone with 2 braincells realises that if you don't have restrictions hospitals will fill up with more than "people who have reached or exceeded average life expectancy" (not that older folk are cannon fodder IMO)
We've seen hospitals jammed full of Covid patients, healthcare workers off sick with covid and L5 restrictions.
And here we have it — the immediate reversion to the black and white absolutism. I question the restrictions and you leap to the conclusion that I am somehow advocating having no restrictions at all. This has been an astoundingly problematic issue with the debate, that anything other than full agreement with the approach is invariably an argument for a completely opposite approach. Oh yes, and the tired old trope about old people being cannon fodder — yes I truly must simply be an evil person for believing that society must balance out the interest of people living well into their 80s with other important things in this world.
The effect of restrictions has already been profound. Even in the summer where things were somewhat more relaxed, society was still operating nowhere near the same levels of social interaction. The restrictions by that time had already more or less rendered the country as a socially distant world where Covid etiquette has largely been embedded and those at risk generally know the precautions.
For whatever reason, it is deemed that this is not enough to prevent some cataclysm. Instead, the government must be seen to do something, and we end up in the situation where people are once more ground down in rules preventing free movement even though the ability and likelihood to find oneself in a crowded place over 5km from home is close to zero. Explosion of cases over Christmas because of people going to see family and friends at the one big time of year people do that, in a context where people have been living in relative lockdown for most of the year? Level 5 lockdown it is — even though the things we are preventing were not actually the issue in the first place. But we must be seen to do something or the media will lynch us, the electorate will then turn against us, and our political reputations and careers are in tatters.0 -
Advertisement
-
Everyone is tired, it's been a long year and January seems to be going on forever..
Groundhog day
Life is work and home or home and home, same thing day in day out. Dark dreary days
No one is enjoying this and I get so fed up of people going on about numbers not being that high, deaths not being that high etc
They are not gone out of control because of the restrictions, because most people do what's asked. Christmas came at a price and now we are paying it
The restrictions are not just about deaths and case numbers. The hospital situation is also a very important factor in all this
No the government are not perfect, neither are most of the public.0 -
retro:electro wrote: »It makes it even more baffling however when you look back to last May/June/July when we had cases > 30 and days with 0 deaths and we were still being strung along by the balls and being told off for not being good enough by Tony. That attitude and approach contributed massively to the fatigue that had well set in by November/December
This thesis seems to have morphed into fact for some strange reason, but it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny when a spot light is shone on it.
The UK were more relaxed in their restrictions during the summer and they hit Christmas week with circa 40,000 daily infections, they reported nearly 2000 deaths in one day yesterday.
So what happened there, they were given too much freedom?0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »Why is that?
What we saw in the last few weeks was the inevitable consequence of allowing a situation to develop where there was (1) an environment in which the transmission of infection was pushed into a bottleneck; (2) an overwhelming pent up desire among people to see friends and family over Christmas knowing full well that it would be a while before they could do so again — precisely because the harshness of the approach here made it clear to people that a sense of liberty should be enjoyed while it lasted. This is called human nature — the fundamental basis for how and why we behave the way we do, and a concept which lately we seem to be pretending is some sort of social choice that we make.
What we have seen over the past few weeks is little more than a resounding vindication of the people who argued last March that the harshness of the lockdown strategy in Ireland would merely kick the can down the road — that once the moral precedent justifying lockdown was set, it would be impossible to row back on until there was a vaccine. Those people made the argument that a year of lockdowns would cause short, medium and long term effects that had to be weighed up against the risk of a virus that is mostly killing people who have reached or exceeded average life expectancy. The people making that argument were laughed out the door because of the prevailing attitude that heavy restrictions would not go on for over a year - “sure we just need to flatten the curve, ramp up capacity, and we will be in a better place by Christmas”. This complacency towards the lockdown approach then fed the odious narrative that to question the restrictions was nothing more than questioning the right to life of the old and sick.
And even at that, what have we seen over the last few weeks? With this explosion of cases, the predictions were dire as ever of an impending cataclysm. Has it been the cataclysm predicted? Nobody denies the tragedy of the loss of life, but the scales and level of tragedy have simply not hit the levels of apocalyptic disaster that are used to justify the most stringent forms of restriction.
You may not have noticed, but the reason we are not on rocket ship to the Covid moon right now, is because we entered lockdown after Christmas.
I'm critical of the way this government has dealt with Covid. There has been a lack of long term thinking throughout. Our test and trace system is nowhere near good enough to contain the virus and when we had an opportunity to pursue a maximum suppression strategy last summer, we chose to "live with Covid". Having said that, if we had done what the "open the pubs!" people have been calling for over the last 9 months, we'd be in a far, far worse place right now.0 -
Would that have anything to do with current restrictions?
But this is after the fact isn’t it? The explosion of cases was portrayed as being a grim indication of mass horror to come — the current restrictions don’t magically make Covid go away for those already infected. The horse has bolted so to speak, and the disaster of this huge spike in cases should already be upon us.
I mean, ground it down to common sense here. Is it beyond the borders of common sense to say that Christmas is the most sociable time of year? Is it too unscientific to say that the sociable nature of Christmas passes after the New Year? If you don’t find any of those questions particularly problematic, then ask yourself if a 5km limit of travel is really the reason why a great calamity has been averted.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »But this is after the fact isn’t it? The explosion of cases was portrayed as being a grim indication of mass horror to come — the current restrictions don’t magically make Covid go away for those already infected.
Restrictions stop the spread, from preventing people who are infected from giving it to others.
The virus needs hosts, keep hosts apart the virus can't jump to another host.
What part of that is confusing you exactly?0 -
This thesis seems to have morphed into fact for some strange reason, but it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny when a spot light is shone on it.
The UK were more relaxed in their restrictions during the summer and they hit Christmas week with circa 40,000 daily infections, they reported nearly 2000 deaths in one day yesterday.
So what happened there, they were given too much freedom?
Oh I don’t know, let me think.. It hardly had anything to do with that new variant circulating just before Christmas that was 50% more transmissible. No?
How does that have anything to do with them being more relaxed than us in the summer? Their numbers would have exploded either way0 -
retro:electro wrote: »Oh I don’t know, let me think.. It hardly had anything to do with that new variant circulating just before Christmas that was 50% more transmissible. No?
How does that have anything to do with them being more relaxed than us in the summer? Their numbers would have exploded either way
Germany so. Go.
But if it is the new variant that is to take the blame our restrictions in October / November stopped that variant accelerating and becoming dominant entering the festive season.0 -
................. you assumed that I was talking about gigs and pubs when I said normal life - there is more to life than those things, even though I very much enjoy them. ...........
I'm not twisting any words.
Gigs and pubs are part of normal life.
I merely gave my thoughts on what the Summer holds........ I don't see why you have to nitpick the fook out of it from a personal viewpoint.It will. But folk rammed into pubs and at gigs might not happen this year. Restaurants etc might well be open for sit-down service indoors in the Summer with social distancing perhaps. Summer 2021 won't be like Summer 2019.
What we saw in the last few weeks should surely make folk realise the restrictions are absolutely necessary.0 -
Germany so. Go.
But if it is the new variant that is to take the blame our restrictions in October / November stopped that variant accelerating and becoming dominant entering the festive season.
Sorry but your original point was trying to force a narrative that the fact the UK being a lot more relaxed than us during the summer is somehow responsible for an explosion in cases and deaths being experienced now, when there is nothing to suggest that’s the case and when there are any amount of variables that could have influenced a rise in cases, including a new highly infectious variant circulating in that country and others. It is your own thesis that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when under the spotlight, I’m afraid.0 -
I'm not twisting any words.
Gigs and pubs are part of normal life.
I merely gave my thoughts on what the Summer holds........ I don't see why you have to nitpick the fook out of it from a personal viewpoint.
Yes, they are, never disputed that, but you said "just because you aren't bothered about that form of socialising it doesn't make it not part of normal life" - that's not twisting words or putting words in my mouth?? I can't see where I said anything of the sort. Anyway, could be going around in circles here so let's just leave it at that
0 -
Advertisement
-
Restrictions stop the spread, from preventing people who are infected from giving it to others.
The virus needs hosts, keep hosts apart the virus can't jump to another host.
What part of that is confusing you exactly?
Restrictions though is a broad brush.
Social distancing, hand washing, mask wearing, banning mass gatherings like concerts, sport events, closing niteclubs...limited seating in cafes/hotels/restaurants/pubs are all understandable and fairly extreme in their own right.
Stopping household visits, 5km limit on movement, closing all retail, hospitality related businesses, cutting all sport for every one, closing gyms, keeping kids apart from their classmates and friends, isolating the elderly are beyond extreme restrictions as these types of restrictions will have a detrimental affect on the mental health of those most affected...for a virus, that the majority would have coped with comfortably.
What we do not know is how many of the restrictions are a costly waste of time ...and as people are directly and in many cases, hugely affected we are perfectly entitled to ask questions and draw our own conclusions and most importantly not rely on the hysteria pumped at us daily for nearly a full year.0 -
retro:electro wrote: »Sorry but your original point was trying to force a narrative that the fact the UK being a lot more relaxed than us during the summer is somehow responsible for an explosion in cases and deaths being experienced now, when there is nothing to suggest that’s the case and when there are any amount of variables that could have influenced a rise in cases, including a new highly infectious variant circulating in that country and others. It is your own thesis that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when under the spotlight, I’m afraid.
Well then pick any European country who were perceived to be more relaxed than us during the summer, who are having their worst waves now?
I offered Germany as an alternative. You are letting the political establishment in the UK away with one if their woes are based solely on a new variant, but we can park that so not to muddy the water.
For your thesis to be true, countries in Europe who were more relaxed during the summer shouldn't be reporting the level of infections or deaths they are currently.
Would you agree?0 -
retro:electro wrote: »Sorry but your original point was trying to force a narrative that the fact the UK being a lot more relaxed than us during the summer is somehow responsible for an explosion in cases and deaths being experienced now, when there is nothing to suggest that’s the case and when there are any amount of variables that could have influenced a rise in cases, including a new highly infectious variant circulating in that country and others. It is your own thesis that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when under the spotlight, I’m afraid.
Ah, I wouldn't bother if I was you. Some people can never let up and except that others may have a point.
There's a 14 day lag between cases rising and hospital admissions with another delay to deaths. Suggesting anything done during the summer months helped in December is laughable. You'll not hear anyone in authority admit they made a complete balls of the Christmas period by allowing 100,000+ return to this country untested and no mandated quarantine. Easier to blame the folks who just came out of 6 weeks of level 5."Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »Restrictions though is a broad brush.
Social distancing, hand washing, mask wearing, banning mass gatherings like concerts, sport events, closing niteclubs...limited seating in cafes/hotels/restaurants/pubs are all understandable and fairly extreme in their own right.
Stopping household visits, 5km limit on movement, closing all retail, hospitality related businesses, cutting all sport for every one, closing gyms, keeping kids apart from their classmates and friends, isolating the elderly are beyond extreme restrictions as these types of restrictions will have a detrimental affect on the mental health of those most affected...for a virus, that the majority would have coped with comfortably.
What we do not know is how many of the restrictions are a costly waste of time ...and as people are directly and in many cases, hugely affected we are perfectly entitled to ask questions and draw our own conclusions and most importantly not rely on the hysteria pumped at us daily for nearly a full year.
We have politicians telling us today that the lockdown is being extended to another unknown date because "the numbers are not what we want them to be". Yet, I haven't seen what those numbers are meant to be. What's the target for coming out of lockdown? What are the exact metrics that will decide when people can get on with their lives or start earning an income again?
This blaise attitude stinks to the high heavens and we shouldn't tolerate it."Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
0 -
1st world problems i know but man I need a manicure... I can't wait for my nail salon to reopen.. looks like it could be the end of Feb when that happens..0
-
Restrictions stop the spread, from preventing people who are infected from giving it to others.
The virus needs hosts, keep hosts apart the virus can't jump to another host.
What part of that is confusing you exactly?
There is absolutely nothing confusing about that, and it’s not the point I’m making. I’m not questioning the fact that restrictions stop the spread — I’m questioning the proportionality of the restrictions we have versus the risk they are designed to mitigate. The risk they are designed to mitigate is not to stop Covid from spreading at all (because the restrictions aren’t strict enough to actually achieve that) — but to stop Covid from spreading to such an extent that it completely debilitates the health service. We aren’t talking about the health service being busy, busier than normal, or facing even very severe strain — these are familiar themes and as critical as they are in importance, they are not what support for the Level 5 style of rests on. What it rests on is the idea of total debilitation — that was the risk which was deemed to be severe enough to justify what has been more or less a near all-out shutdown of how society normally operates.
So it’s the question of what is proportionate — not what eliminates any possibility of Covid spreading. And it’s now also a question of the proportionality of all the problems which lockdown causes. So for example, is it proportionate to impose 5km limits in a society where there is ultimately no crowded places to go? No — it’s pretty daft — and it diminishes the morale of people who are faced with Garda checkpoints to deter them from some form of brief escape in the countryside or parks. Would allowing it cause more infection? Maybe yes. To such an extent that it would cause the calamitous debilitation, the fear on which lockdown support is anchored? It doesn’t appear so.0 -
-
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned a large and growing body of evidence that suggests that lockdowns don't restrict the spread of the virus any more than social distancing and hygiene practices do, but I was unable to post any links. I can post links now so just dropping them here for those interested. Sorry for the post length, but I did say large and growing.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.28.20248936v1
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
“[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
https://www.advance.sagepub.com/articles/preprint/Comment_on_Dehning_et_al_Science_15_May_2020_eabb9789_Inferring_change_points_in_the_spread_of_COVID-19_reveals_the_effectiveness_of_interventions_/12362645
“Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective."
https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2005.02090
“A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before full UK lockdown (24 March 2020), and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a day or two later."
https://advance.sagepub.com/articles/preprint/Comment_on_Flaxman_et_al_2020_The_illusory_effects_of_non-pharmaceutical_interventions_on_COVID-19_in_Europe/12479987
“In a recent article, Flaxman et al. allege that non-pharmaceutical interventions imposed by 11 European countries saved millions of lives. We show that their methods involve circular reasoning. The purported effects are pure artefacts, which contradict the data. Moreover, we demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”
https://www.thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/6.-PREPRINT-LOCKDOWN-ADDED-LITTLE-OR-NOTHING-PROF-BEN-ISRAEL.pdf
"It turns out that a similar pattern – rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies"
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v2
"stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1
"Extrapolating pre-lockdown growth rate trends, we provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, and show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.26.20202267v1
"Allowing for heterogeneity reduces the estimate of ‘counterfactual’ deaths that would have occurred if there had been no interventions from 3.2 million to 262,000, implying that most of the slowing and reversal of COVID-19 mortality is explained by the build-up of herd immunity."
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588
"In the absence of an effective vaccination programme, none of the proposed mitigation strategies in the UK would reduce the predicted total number of deaths"
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047860v3
“A nationwide lockdown is expected to save on average 274 (median 124, interquartile range (IQR): 71-221) lives compared to the ‘testing, tracing, and isolation’ approach. However, the ICER will be on average $45,104,156 (median $ 49.6 million, IQR: 22.7-220.1) to prevent one case of death. Conclusions: A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives with tremendous costs and possible overwhelming economic effects."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652751/
"For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3607803
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.09.20210146v2
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665588
"Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.”
https://www.nber.org/papers/w27719
"The existing literature has concluded that NPI policy and social distancing have been essential to reducing the spread of COVID-19 and the number of deaths due to this deadly pandemic. The stylized facts established in this paper challenge this conclusion."
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3543
“Belarus’s beleaguered government remains unfazed by covid-19. President Aleksander Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994, has flatly denied the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to impose a lockdown, close schools, or cancel mass events like the Belarusian football league or the Victory Day parade. Yet the country’s death rate is among the lowest in Europe—just over 700 in a population of 9.5 million with over 73 000 confirmed cases.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.01.20222315v1
"We observed no consistent changes in risk following school closure.”
https://www.pandata.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Exploring-inter-country-variation.pdf
"We test and find wanting the popular notions that lockdowns with their attendant social distancing and various other NPIs confer protection.”
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.604339/full
"Countries that already experienced a stagnation or regression of life expectancy, with high income and NCD rates, had the highest price to pay. This burden was not alleviated by more stringent public decisions."
https://www.aier.org/article/the-mystery-of-taiwan/
"According to the lockdown narrative, Taiwan did almost everything ‘wrong’ but generated what might in fact be the best results in terms of public health of any country in the world.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.26.20140814v2
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786?journalCode=rnzp20
"Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths. This pattern is visible on each date that key lockdown decisions were made in New Zealand. The apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.”
http://ssbhalla.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Lockdowns-Closures-vs.-COVID19-Covid-Wins-Nov-4.pdf
"While conventional wisdom, to date, has been that lockdowns were successful (ranging from mild to spectacular) we find not one piece of evidence supporting this claim.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341v3
“Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13484
"After subtracting the epidemic and less restrictive NPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of more restrictive NPIs on case growth in any country."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.28.20248936v1
"Our analysis shows that while infection levels decreased, they did so before lockdown was effective, and infection numbers also decreased in neighbour municipalities without mandates."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3764553
"Studies which differentiate between the two types of behavioral change find that, on average, mandated behavior changes accounts for only 9% (median: 0%) of the total effect on the growth of the pandemic stemming from behavioral changes. The remaining 91% (median: 100%) of the effect was due to voluntary behavior changes."0 -
retro:electro wrote: »Do you think Feb? That wouldn’t be too bad. I’m thinking late March
twas on the news earlier - retail reopening maybe end of feb... but its a maybe of course.. fingers crossed..0 -
Advertisement
-
ArthurDayne wrote: »There is absolutely nothing confusing about that, and it’s not the point I’m making. I’m not questioning the fact that restrictions stop the spread — I’m questioning the proportionality of the restrictions we have versus the risk they are designed to mitigate. The risk they are designed to mitigate is not to stop Covid from spreading at all (because the restrictions aren’t strict enough to actually achieve that) — but to stop Covid from spreading to such an extent that it completely debilitates the health service. We aren’t talking about the health service being busy, busier than normal, or facing even very severe strain — these are familiar themes and as critical as they are in importance, they are not what support for the Level 5 style of rests on. What it rests on is the idea of total debilitation — that was the risk which was deemed to be severe enough to justify what has been more or less a near all-out shutdown of how society normally operates.
So it’s the question of what is proportionate — not what eliminates any possibility of Covid spreading. And it’s now also a question of the proportionality of all the problems which lockdown causes. So for example, is it proportionate to impose 5km limits in a society where there is ultimately no crowded places to go? No — it’s pretty daft — and it diminishes the morale of people who are faced with Garda checkpoints to deter them from some form of brief escape in the countryside or parks. Would allowing it cause more infection? Maybe yes. To such an extent that it would cause the calamitous debilitation, the fear on which lockdown support is anchored? It doesn’t appear so.
The 5km restriction is to curb the mass movement of people.
Whatever head room in our health service needs to be kept for essential workers who have no choice but to travel.
I read recently Stockholm officials last month asked people to stop driving stating that they if they were involved in a crash and required critical care they may not get it.
Sweden have to ask, we impose it because our laws allow for it.
Or are you of the opinion a society and economy can function without a health service?
Spoiler: It can't.
There is also a behavioral science aspect of it, if people think it is okay to do X automatically doing Y is not big deal.
We just got a glaring example of this when the government ignored public health advice and went their own way.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement