Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

HansKroenke

froog wrote: »

i picked one of your articles at random. the one i picked above, in the same link you posted says the following:

Although the low death numbers are encouraging, some experts fear that many coronavirus related deaths are registered as cases of pneumonia—UN data show a difference of 5605 between April-June 2019 compared with the same period in 2020.11

This is very telling on how coronavirus deaths are recorded. Two points on it are (1) how much of a death was directly caused by covid and (2) how serious is covid compared to any other illness which kills people. Things to bear in mind whenever reading about covid cases and deaths, it is not as black and white as raw numbers of cases and deaths show.

The above quote is a good example where deaths are not clearly attributable to pneumonia as the UN data indictates covid may have also or alternatively been a factor. I would imagine in Ireland we have similar discrepancies, particularly when it came to the initial wave of deaths when everything was lumped in as covid if there was a sniff of it.

johnboy1298

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Interesting article here on lockdowns

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lockdowns-idUSKBN2842WS

"Both confirmed that lockdowns do reduce transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 and highlighted that a more “targeted” or “proportional” approach of restrictions can mitigate the risk of infection, while balancing other concerns about the economy and mental health."

I'd hardly say our approach has been targeted, balanced or proportional🙄😂

johnboy1298

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, Belarus is the model of government we should be moving towards. A real shining star in the world

We ignored China's faults when we decided their lockdowns were a shining example!

Boggles

SnuggyBear wrote: »

Link please

www.google.com

Windmill100000

johnboy1298 wrote: »

"Both confirmed that lockdowns do reduce transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 and highlighted that a more “targeted” or “proportional” approach of restrictions can mitigate the risk of infection, while balancing other concerns about the economy and mental health."

I'd hardly say our approach has been targeted, balanced or proportional🙄😂

When people are not out and about in contact with each other, the spread of the virus is minimised. I think that we can agree on that much. Whether it is targeted etc is subjective. Some will believe it has been and there will be no swaying on that. Not everyone will agree on those points and that is fair enough.

johnboy1298

johnboy1298 wrote: »

We ignored China's faults when we decided their lockdowns were a shining example!

Yeah - we didn't follow China

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of people seem very invested in lockdowns being effective. This is entirely understandable, given that we're a year into this thing and the idea that they are not effective means a lot of damage has been done and sacrifice made for no benefit. But a desire for a given outcome does not evidence make.

By all means, if the evidence I've presented has been debunked or is contradicted, present the counter-evidence. I'm asking for it.

But, look. I bought an extra freezer and stocked it before most people had even heard of SARS-CoV-2, I spent last February being looked at like I was out of my tree for wearing a mask to the shops, and I endured my friends and family laughing at me when I warned them that a pandemic was beginning and they should start shoring up their immune systems and buying a bit extra with every shop. I've lost friends to Covid. I'm not even close to a "Covid denier" and I won't brook accusations that suggest that I am. What I am is very concerned that we're on the wrong path and doing a lot more harm than good. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to be concerned about.



No, froog, and that's a very mean-spirited post, mate.

Show me the evidence that lockdowns work and I'll gladly take a gander. I'm not going to flout the restrictions that we're all expected to follow in any case because there's something to be said for solidarity. I'm also not very put-out by the restrictions at all. I've a lovely home full of people I love, nobody's income has been affected, we're all healthy, and we're all sort of hermits anyway. But that's not the case for everyone, and they are owed consideration just as much as those in groups vulnerable to Covid-19 are.

Its evidence

sporina

GazzaL wrote: »

Lots of nail technicians are working from home.

probably but right now i would not be comfortable availing of such a service

johnboy1298

Windmill100000 wrote: »

When people are not out and about in contact with each other, the spread of the virus is minimised. I think that we can agree on that much. Whether it is targeted etc is subjective. Some will believe it has been and there will be no swaying on that. Not everyone will agree on those points and that is fair enough.

I agree completely, so why are we stopping people from climbing mountains, hillwalking, cycling, playing golf and travelling to fish or go to the beach and making out that these people are causing the rises? If anything stopping things like these just contributes to people just visiting other houses for something to be at.

johnboy1298

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah - we didn't follow China

OK who decided strict lockdown was the way forward then?

johnboy1298

johnboy1298 wrote: »

OK who decided strict lockdown was the way forward then?

The Chinese government obviously. At our highest level of restrictions, life was closer to normal here than to life in Wuhan during lockdown

Windmill100000

johnboy1298 wrote: »

I agree completely, so why are we stopping people from climbing mountains, hillwalking, cycling, playing golf and travelling to fish or go to the beach and making out that these people are causing the rises? If anything stopping things like these just contributes to people just visiting other houses for something to be at.

They are stopping people going 5km from home so you can still cycle as long as it is within that distance. I'm presuming they are doing the 5km to stop loads of people heading out to outdoor activities in the absence of other things being open. I may well be wrong, but that was my take. No point being in lockdown and having big numbers head off to the same scenic spots and hill walking areas.

I know a good number of people that are currently out of work and out and about everyday. Unfortunately I’m in the same boat myself. I head out everyday and spend time in all the local supermarkets and shops that are open.

It’s not surprising that others are doing the same. Over half a million are not working and every school in the country is closed. People just want to get out and do things.

If people were still working, there’d be less people about.

Tenzor07

Windmill100000 wrote: »

They are stopping people going 5km from home so you can still cycle as long as it is within that distance. I'm presuming they are doing the 5km to stop loads of people heading out to outdoor activities in the absence of other things being open. I may well be wrong, but that was my take. No point being in lockdown and having big numbers head off to the same scenic spots and hill walking areas.

Better off to keep thousands of people in a small area than have them dispersed across the Open Mountains and parks around the country...

johnboy1298

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Chinese government obviously. At our highest level of restrictions, life was closer to normal here than to life in Wuhan during lockdown

You're waffling.

johnboy1298

Windmill100000 wrote: »

They are stopping people going 5km from home so you can still cycle as long as it is within that distance. I'm presuming they are doing the 5km to stop loads of people heading out to outdoor activities in the absence of other things being open. I may well be wrong, but that was my take. No point being in lockdown and having big numbers head off to the same scenic spots and hill walking areas.

I'm not disagreeing with you, that is what the 5km is for, what I'm asking is does that have any benefit?

Silentcorner

johnboy1298 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, that is what the 5km is for, what I'm asking is does that have any benefit?

I don't think you are allowed to ask that....it's just the science....that nobody can find it seems.

johnboy1298

Silentcorner wrote: »

I don't think you are allowed to ask that....it's just the science....that nobody can find it seems.

I've noticed that, there's not much in the way of critical thinking from those who support it!

Boggles

johnboy1298 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, that is what the 5km is for, what I'm asking is does that have any benefit?

Boggles wrote: »

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.

341 out of our 350 ICU beds are currently occupied in our public system, there is no more surge capacity, there is overflow into private, but not much.

Windmill100000

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Better off to keep thousands of people in a small area than have them dispersed across the Open Mountains and parks around the country...

I've not seen large groups of people where I live since Christmas, and I live in a city centre. With only supermarkets and pharmacies open people are not heading out in their thousands anywhere.

It looks like most people are staying home.

Windmill100000

johnboy1298 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, that is what the 5km is for, what I'm asking is does that have any benefit?

I think tbe benefit is obvious. People cant travel to areas likely to draw crowds such as popular walking spots which are likely to be inundated with shops closed.

SAMTALK

I would imagine part of the reason for the 5km restrictions is to stop people going to the likes of wicklow mountains, beaches as we have already seen happening.
Also if the is a large outbreak in one county them I would imagine this would help with the spread to other counties and would go someway to containing virus

johnboy1298

johnboy1298 wrote: »

You're waffling.

Excellent point well made.

Now please, is it possible to show in any way how restrictions introduced here at any point were anywhere close to what was done in China?

Or even Italy, for that matter.

johnboy1298

johnboy1298 wrote: »

I've noticed that, there's not much in the way of critical thinking from those who support it!

The denziens of this thread have thrown up an alternative hypothises that restrictions dont work



Looking at the data how can you reject the null hypothesis?

johnboy1298

Boggles wrote: »

341 out of our 350 ICU beds are currently occupied in our public system, there is no more surge capacity, there is overflow into private, but not much.

This again links to what level of restriction is appropriate, I don't think keeping everyone within 5km is justified for at best a handful of ICU beds being available when infection rates are lower. That might be an appropriate restriction at the minute but it sure wasn't for a lot of the time it has been in place.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

There is science behind the lockdowns?

Go on then, share it with us, a poster was good enough to link multiple studies and papers can you provide us with similar?

Several hours later, and that poster still hasn't provided any concrete evidence about the "science" behind lockdowns. Classic dodge, if one was in any doubt about his integrity there is none now.

Sierra Oscar

Current restrictions extended to March 5th in Northern Ireland.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1352290684154339331

paw patrol

Boggles wrote: »

341 out of our 350 ICU beds are currently occupied in our public system, there is no more surge capacity, there is overflow into private, but not much.

here is a little insider tips from the health industry....
ICU is always full or close to full even when its quiet in the hospitals

Windmill100000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know a good number of people that are currently out of work and out and about everyday. Unfortunately I’m in the same boat myself. I head out everyday and spend time in all the local supermarkets and shops that are open.

It’s not surprising that others are doing the same. Over half a million are not working and every school in the country is closed. People just want to get out and do things.

If people were still working, there’d be less people about.

Well, my experience is different. There are people in the supermarkets of course, but I have never had to queue for more than a few minutes. If your implication is that everyone is walking the aisles of supermarkets out of boredom I would agree yes, some do. I wouldn't say it is the norm though.

In the first lockdown my local Dunnes was keeping track of who went in and who went out. That's not happening in this lockdown, which I presume is indicative of lower numbers heading to shops.

Boggles

paw patrol wrote: »

here is a little insider tips from the health industry....
ICU is always full or close to full even when its quiet in the hospitals

Full at surge capacity?

Nope.