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

Arghus

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I don't usually post in this thread, but anyway..

I'm a bit bemused by this demand of the "proof" or the "science" behind Lockdowns.

If you're battling an infectious disease working it's way through the population, then surely isolating people from each other, which, broadly speaking is what lockdowns are, and limiting social interactions is going to limit and arrest the spread of that infectious disease.

What is there to argue about that? By keeping people apart at a population level you limit the spread of an infectious disease. What more evidence is required. Isn't that self evident?

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Integrity eh?

There is reams of published studies on the effectiveness of restrictions on mortality and infection control. I mean, do you really need a published study, a virus needs hosts, you separate hosts far enough apart, the virus cannot replicate as effectively. You do understand that basic principle, correct?

Now I could link them onto you, but you have no intention of reading them have you?

So instead lets do it this way you are currently living in a country that is currently using them to bring down the instance rate (again).

See Rainds posts if you prefer graphical format.

If any part of that is confusing you, then I'm afraid I'm out of ideas.

ArthurDayne

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.

Again, as I have already said, I understand what the rationale of the 5km rule — I just don’t agree that it’s proportionate to the risk. The movement of people is only really problematic insofar as it involves the congregation of people in very close quarters for a period of time and without any personal measures to mitigate the risk (contact, no mask, whatever).

I live in Dublin, so right in the densest population zone of the country. Over the course of the pandemic I’ve been out and about in the city, the nearby beaches, hills. The biggest congregations you see are young people milling about down at places like Grand Canal Square. Out at the beauty spots people just walk past eachother in the open air, with very low chances of transmission.

Yes, there will be exceptions. Yes, there will be people who take liberties and organise house parties or whatever else. Yes, there may be elevated opportunity for transmission. But to say that such issues have been prevalent enough here that they will precipitate the debilitation of our health service is not a narrative or prediction that has been sustained in the real world — even when restrictions were loosened earlier in 2020. The entire contextual position of Christmas as a major time of year for people to mix and travel home and gather with older relatives has been ignored — and the rise in cases conflated with a need to clamp down on things which did not originally cause any explosion of cases to such degree that our health service would be debilitated.

You’re posturing yourself with these wee snide “spoiler” comments as if you believed you were talking to a complete idiot. I could just as easily argue that it’s rather foolish for someone to completely overlook the power of reputational liability in politics and administration — and to ignore the fact that, maybe ...just maybe...some of the measures are simply about the reputational optics of people who don’t want to be blamed for doing too little. But sure, politicians and civil servants would never act on a motive of career self-preservation would they?

dalyboy

Arghus wrote: »

I don't usually post in this thread, but anyway..

I'm a bit bemused by this demand of the "proof" or the "science" behind Lockdowns.

If you're battling an infectious disease working it's way through the population, then surely isolating people from each other, which, broadly speaking is what lockdowns are, and limiting social interactions is going to limit and arrest the spread of that infectious disease.

What is there to argue about that? By keeping people apart at a population level you limit the spread of an infectious disease. What more evidence is required. Isn't that self evident?

If it’s that simplistic then why are infection numbers continuing to climb ?
Example .. Germany has been locked down 11 weeks at this stage and their numbers are STILL increasing.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Again, as I have already said, I understand what the rationale of the 5km rule — I just don’t agree that it’s proportionate to the risk.

So officials in Stockholm were indulging in self preservation optics when they asked people not to indulge in anything risky, like driving because they couldn't guarantee critical care if there was an RTA?

froog

froog wrote: »

I mean, do you really need a published study, a virus needs hosts, you separate hosts far enough apart, the virus cannot replicate as effectively. You do understand that basic principle, correct?

Of course, the other "basic principle" at play here is that of evolution.

Since zero contact is impossible, countries that have utilised lockdowns have artificially created evolutionary pressure on the virus to mutate in a way that makes it more easily transmissible.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course, the other "basic principle" at play here is that of evolution.

Since zero contact is impossible, countries that have utilised lockdowns have artificially created evolutionary pressure on the virus to mutate in a way that makes it more easily transmissible.

Brasil, UK and SA?

Yeah, the problem there is their extraordinarily low transmission rates forced the virus to mutate.

Arghus

dalyboy wrote: »

If it’s that simplistic then why are infection numbers continuing to climb ?
Example .. Germany has been locked down 11 weeks at this stage and their numbers are STILL increasing.

German cases are trending downwards.

In parts of December they had figures of 30,000 on some days.

Yesterday they had 7500.

To say that their numbers are still rising isn't true.

Edit: I'm actually looking at today's figures, so I'm wrong there. Yesterday's figures were 18688.

I don’t think that anybody has ever argued that lockdown just doesn’t help at all. Most people can acknowledge that it has helped, but just nowhere near as much as lots of people believe and it comes at a dreadful cost.

Take lockdown 1 as an example. Was it only lockdown that reduced the cases? Or did the summer months have an impact? Cases dropped all over Europe.

Take Sweden as an example. No lockdown for months and bodies didn’t pile up on the streets. In fact, their death toll is mid table. Not bad at all for the nation of granny killers.

Look at Ireland right now. It looks like lockdown is working doesn’t it? But we are NOT testing close contacts at the moment. We have told people to just assume they have it if they have flu symptoms. We have been testing way less. And January is typically the quietest month of the year anyways. Is it surprising that cases are falling?

There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that this illness peaks regardless of restrictions. Look at Europe right now.

Then you have to consider the cost of all of this. 460000 on PUP. And that doesn’t include all of the people that were already on social welfare or the teachers/public servants not working and still getting paid. Think of all the hospital screening and treatments that were cancelled and will lead to lots of deaths. And then the social impact. People are miserable with this existence!!!

Ultimately, lockdown is a very costly tool that really doesn’t help anywhere near as much as people think.

Windmill100000

dalyboy wrote: »

If it’s that simplistic then why are infection numbers continuing to climb ?
Example .. Germany has been locked down 11 weeks at this stage and their numbers are STILL increasing.

https://www.thelocal.de/20210121/germnay-sees-significant-decrease-in-daily-covid-19-cases


21 January 202110:54 CET+01:00
The incidence of new coronavirus infections in Germany has reached its lowest level in more than two months, signalling that lockdown measures are working.

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

So officials in Stockholm were indulging in self preservation optics when they asked people not to indulge in anything risky, like driving because they couldn't guarantee critical care if there was an RTA?

Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. Either way, in fairness, you’re asking me a question about something I haven’t seen or read about — and I have no idea who said it and in what context. It would be good to get links for these things or some form of substantiation.

Seeing as we are on the topic, are we now at the point of suggesting that the distance limits are preventing some mass influx of people into critical care from RTAs? There actually seems to be evidence to suggest that the lockdown precipitated more road deaths in 2020, with 9 more people killed on the roads than 2019 (https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40199568.html).

In any case, there isn’t much to suggest that reduced traffic eliminates some huge burden — nor is it the justification employed by the government for why the 5km limits are in place.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Brasil, UK and SA?

Yeah, the problem there is their extraordinarily low transmission rates forced the virus to mutate.

Sorry, I didn't realise evolutionary pressure was a myth now.

Carry on, so.

SnuggyBear

SAMTALK wrote: »

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

What bloody difference does it make if someone goes to beach and back home. It's completely idiotic.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. Either way, in fairness, you’re asking me a question about something I haven’t seen or read about — and I have no idea who said it and in what context. It would be good to get links for these things or some form of substantiation.

Seeing as we are on the topic, are we now at the point of suggesting that the distance limits are preventing some mass influx of people into critical care from RTAs? There actually seems to be evidence to suggest that the lockdown precipitated more road deaths in 2020, with 9 more people killed on the roads than 2019 (https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40199568.html).

First paragraph.

Despite an increase in road fatalities this year, the Road Safety Authority (RSA) has reported a 25% decrease in the number of serious and minor injury collisions compared to 2019

Windmill100000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ultimately, lockdown is a very costly tool that really doesn’t help anywhere near as much as people think.

It most certainly is costly, no one in Ireland or any other country in Iockdown will deny that.

As for those on PUP, they are in a far better position than those made redundant in the last recession who received no such payment. I know several people on it and they are grateful for it and want to be back working again asap.

Given the amount of people complying with restrictions here, especially given the huge spike in cases, the majority of people are following the rules put in place to protect those at risk, whether you think they are unnecessary or not.

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

First paragraph.

Again, you are not answering the questions here. The fact that overall road traffic accidents are down in a year where there was much less traffic on roads is an obvious outcome. But the figures do not suggest that some burgeoning mass influx of critical care patients from RTAs has been avoided thanks to lockdown.

You’re clutching at a straw that I don’t think even the government goes for on this one. The justification for distance limits is, apparently, to prevent the spread of infection — not to cut down on critical care admissions for road accidents.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Again, you are not answering the questions here. The fact that overall road traffic accidents are down in a year where there was much less traffic on roads is an obvious outcome.

Didn't appear to be obvious 10 minutes ago.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

.
Seeing as we are on the topic, are we now at the point of suggesting that the distance limits are preventing some mass influx of people into critical care from RTAs? There actually seems to be evidence to suggest that the lockdown precipitated more road deaths in 2020, with 9 more people killed on the roads than 2019 (https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40199568.html).

In any case, there isn’t much to suggest that reduced traffic eliminates some huge burden — nor is it the justification employed by the government for why the 5km limits are in place.

Anyway it's not just RTAs, it's the mass movement of people and the activities associated with that.

Public ICU's are virtually full.

johnboy1298

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Firstly you scoffed at the Belarus example of success without lockdown, sarcastically saying they are a great political example to follow. You didn't make any argument for why they shouldn't be relevant or why their success has happened.

I then asked you why did we decide to go with lockdown restrictions if we weren't following the example set by China - another great political example. You didn't answer this, but we'll keep going.

Of course we didn't go to the level China did we aren't communist and it wouldn't be accepted. I never said we did go to the level of lockdown China did either but anyway. We followed the lockdown example recommended by WHO based on China's approach. Initially with buy in from everyone our version was a success and we had the option to lift restriction or shut the airports and the border and go for zero covid. We did neither and took a super Conservative approach. The WHO later stated severe restrictions should only be a temporary measure. NPHET is not listening to this bit and will refuse to ever admit otherwise. Now we are where we are.

The strictness of lockdowns is not as much of a determining factor anymore in my opinion. There is lower compliance and fatigue. Examples of both are everywhere. Then, from an approach point of view, travel management from foreign countries, poor contact tracing and over restriction have left us in a bad situation. As I mentioned above other countries are also showing more sensible restrictions and living with covid may be the best way of managing the issue. Blaming people for travelling 10km instead of 5km or visiting there friend at the weekend is just stupid. People need some level of socialising and that's basic enough.

Anyway you seem to have little grasp of this, if you can't come up with a sensible response to the points I make on how best to manage the situation as it is, you just deflect with a new question or waffle, so that's the end of this conversation for me anyway.

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

Didn't appear to be obvious 10 minutes ago.

I don’t know what you mean, I said there were more road deaths in 2020 in 2019. If there were less accidents and more deaths then it’s perfectly reasonable to say that deadliness per collision was actually greater.

Boggles wrote: »

Anyway it's not just RTAs, it's the mass movement of people and the activities associated with that.

Public ICU's are virtually full.

Great to get back on point, it sounds like there’s a slight acceptance there that the RTA point isn’t one you’re going to get too far on.

Mass movement of people is not the problem — its the congregation of people and then the failure to act responsibly around those at risk. Yes, there is a capacity issue in the ICUs, but it wasn’t people heading off beyond the 5km limits nor was it even restaurants and bars which precipitated any massive spike in cases on the scale we witnessed over Christmas. It was, by any application of common sense, the result of people gathering over the most sociable period of the year, particularly with more-at-risk people (older relatives etc). And there is every reason to suspect that the level 5 restrictions pre-Christmas merely achieved little more than creating an almighty wave in the run-up to and during the holidays — something akin to building a dam that isn’t built to last.

But rather than acknowledge this to any degree, we are somehow expected to swallow the narrative that things like people heading beyond 5km limits have suddenly become the issue.

CalamariFritti

The problem with the Irish lockdown and most other European lockdowns was and is that each and every time we jumped the gun.

1. We need to do something.
2. 5 days later fcuk we need to close large gathering
3. 3 days later fcuk its still going up we need to close work and school
4. 5 days later fcuk we need to lockdown

With this kind of panic nonsense you achieve two things. You will never find out what works and what doesn't.
And secondly it will look every single time like only lockdown worked.

It went along those lines each and every time. At no point was any measure given enough time. This was excusable the first time around. Maybe.

When you look at the case curves over time and insert what restrictions were introduced when you'll find that the actual lockdown bit did fvck all with regards to the trajectory of the curve. The first time they could have known that was in March but admittedly you'd need someone who understands statistics. The second time around was inexcusable already. Not only did they ignore 'the science' cos it wasn't their science they actually created the whole Christmas situation in the first place.

Lockdowns is the goto for people who didn't really know what they're at. In over their head. And the worst bit is they're going to do the same cr@p over and over again and expect our applause for it.

average_runner

The hospitality industry needs to pray that the government recommends no foreign holidays in the summer. Otherwise the industry will totally collapse unless all the anti restriction group stay home as they go on about supporting them so much.

Alot of people have booked a foreign hol and domestic hol at the same time. Big problems ahead. Hotels free cancellation policy allows it.

FintanMcluskey

average_runner wrote: »

The hospitality industry needs to pray that the government recommends no foreign holidays in the summer. Otherwise the industry will totally collapse unless all the anti restriction group stay home as they go on about supporting them so much.

Alot of people have booked a foreign hol and domestic hol at the same time. Big problems ahead. Hotels free cancellation policy allows it.

If Ireland is allowed opened up like the continent was last Summer a vacation here would be lovely.

Ireland didn’t make any attempt to open up for an internal vacation until it was pissing rain last August.

So, choice is sunny Spain on the beach or a hotel in Donegal that’s in level 5

Mmmh

Silentcorner

There are two things that concern me.

Varadkar said back in Oct, during his public spat with Houlihan, that we simply couldn't afford another level 5 lockdown, since then we have been in level 5 for 2 and a half months with at least another month to go....how are going to afford this, have we an unlimited supply of money, which begs even more questions?

What is the non covid impact on our population, because I don't know a single person who isn't badly affected by all this, obviously to varying degrees

The following are two articles that paint a very grim picture.

https://www.thejournal.ie/eating-disorders-hospital-admissions-ireland-5331990-Jan2021/

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40201311.html

These issues will escalate the longer we are being locked down and the above is only the tip of the iceberg....is the cure worse than the disease?

average_runner

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

If Ireland is allowed opened up like the continent was last Summer a vacation here would be lovely.

Ireland didn’t make any attempt to open up for an internal vacation until it was pissing rain last August.

So, choice is sunny Spain on the beach or a hotel in Donegal that’s in level 5

Mmmh

But what saving the local pub and hotels etc. What about the jobs you could save.
We be level 2 in the summer.

GazzaL

average_runner wrote: »

The hospitality industry needs to pray that the government recommends no foreign holidays in the summer. Otherwise the industry will totally collapse unless all the anti restriction group stay home as they go on about supporting them so much.

Alot of people have booked a foreign hol and domestic hol at the same time. Big problems ahead. Hotels free cancellation policy allows it.

They can recommend no foreign holidays all they want but it won't stop people from traveling. There are loads of people traveling abroad to "Work From Home" for extended periods too because of the nonsense restrictions in this country. The hospitality industry in Ireland is ****ed unless they grow a pair and open up.

FintanMcluskey

average_runner wrote: »

But what saving the local pub and hotels etc. What about the jobs you could save.
We be level 2 in the summer.

You’ve pulled that from the sky!

Why would they be in level 2 for the Summer?

What have you seen to suggest they will mandate level 2

average_runner

average_runner wrote: »

The hospitality industry needs to pray that the government recommends no foreign holidays in the summer. Otherwise the industry will totally collapse unless all the anti restriction group stay home as they go on about supporting them so much.

Alot of people have booked a foreign hol and domestic hol at the same time. Big problems ahead. Hotels free cancellation policy allows it.

I'm not anti-restriction so much as I'm pro-evaluation. Even so, my plan, once things are opened back up, is to buy and spend local and Irish-owned companies as much as possible, including holidays, groceries, you name it. Not everyone can do it, but those who can, should. The likes of Amazon and Tesco can take the hit.

I'm not from Ireland originally, so when travel opens back up I'll be off home to see my family since it's been well over a year already. Main holiday will be in Ireland though.

average_runner

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You’ve pulled that from the sky!

Why would they be in level 2 for the Summer?

What have you seen to suggest they will mandate level 2

I believe level 3 at start of May. Campsites etc will open as will hotels.

Come June, numbers will be low, over 70's vaccinated. We will move on

SnuggyBear

average_runner wrote: »

I believe level 3 at start of May. Campsites etc will open as will hotels.

Come June, numbers will be low, over 70's vaccinated. We will move on

I'm still out of work in level 3. In my head I was thinking level 2 in May. I don't see why not.

Parabellum9

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You’ve pulled that from the sky!

Why would they be in level 2 for the Summer?

What have you seen to suggest they will mandate level 2

Well by end of March they will supposedly have finished vaccinating the people we are all being told to stay at home to protect. Therefore after March there is no excuse for anything above a level 2 as the people who will catch covid at that point are not at serious risk from it. It remains to be seen if they follow their own logic on that point though, one thing that is very apparent recently is this government are experts at talking out of their mouth and their arse at the same time.