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

charlie14

TomSweeney wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0507/1217546-coronavirus-uk-variant/

You could recycle the headlines every couple of weeks, reading on you see



So vaccines appear to work against them, yet they will still drag the variants (which will be endless) up every few weeks to justify prolonging measures.

In fairness it is not just RTE or the media. The U.K. government have 4 tests that have to be passed before moving to the next phase of reopening. Pretty much the same as here.

The first two are in relation to vaccine.
3. "Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS".
4. The assessment of risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern".

TomSweeney

charlie14 wrote: »

In fairness it is not just RTE or the media. The U.K. government have 4 tests that have to be passed before moving to the next phase of reopening. Pretty much the same as here.

The first two are in relation to vaccine.
3. "Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS".
4. The assessment of risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern".

But the supply of variants is literally infinite, so this makes this neverending ...

charlie14

TomSweeney wrote: »

But the supply of variants is literally infinite, so this makes this neverending ...

The mention in the 4 test required to go to the next stage of opening specifically states variants of concern, not just variants in general. In other words variants that may have the potential to weaken vaccine response.

I would have though it a sensible idea to constantly monitor for such possible variants, and if any do develop to know about them as soon as possible.

pjohnson

paw patrol wrote: »

a horrible comment.
shame on you and those that liked the comment.

Nobody glamorised suicide.
you disgust me.

Constantly claiming an increase in suicides (with zero evidence) does glamourise it. Dear god how clueless are some people.

Even pre-pandemic it was an established fact that a suicide can cause clusters due to it acting as a "confirmation" of sorts for those who were either already suffering from suicidal tendencies or became depressed after the friends suicide. So mindlessly gossiping about a topic as serious as suicide does glamourise it if someone struggling was to hear or read about it.

If people actually did care maybe they should think about the topic before posting carelessly?

Not to mention the fact that some seem to think "increase in those seeking mental health services" = "increase in those with suicidal tendencies". That is once again utter shíte that shows up their own cluelessness and only serves to stigmatise the idea of seeking mental health services. A stigma which (again pre-pandemic) was trying to be disconnected and separated for years. You dont need to be suicidal to seek mental health services. But again this is a fact that is often ignored to suit an agenda.

Stormyteacup

charlie14 wrote: »

The 14 day data from the U.K. first phase of opening and increase in vaccine supply that will leave us at that level of those vaccinated when we go to the same phase of opening would be my guess.

Some here seem to believe it is due to somebody telling a joke that put NPHET in a good mood, but I would find that doubtful

Well as an explanation for current easing, it’s nicely wrapped up in a neat bow.

Like I said, not a bad policy in itself to wait 14 days after UK first phase, but still can’t fathom why we wouldn’t get a even a cursory pointer to that being one of the main criteria for reopening, with a caveat that vaccine delivery remains on schedule.

It stinks of keeping the hoi polloi fearful with a threat of a fourth wave, and in the dark regarding a plan (does anyone buy than NPHET woke up one morning the week before easing of restrictions and decided to accelerate it?) so compliance will continue just in case it’s needed. It’s manipulation on a mass scale... - go on fill your boots.

blowitupref

Graham wrote: »

Where did you see that?

paw patrol

pjohnson wrote: »

Constantly claiming an increase in suicides (with zero evidence) does glamourise it. Dear god how clueless are some people.

Even pre-pandemic it was an established fact that a suicide can cause clusters due to it acting as a "confirmation" of sorts for those who were either already suffering from suicidal tendencies or became depressed after the friends suicide. So mindlessly gossiping about a topic as serious as suicide does glamourise it if someone struggling was to hear or read about it.

If people actually did care maybe they should think about the topic before posting carelessly?

Not to mention the fact that some seem to think "increase in those seeking mental health services" = "increase in those with suicidal tendencies". That is once again utter shíte that shows up their own cluelessness and only serves to stigmatise the idea of seeking mental health services. A stigma which (again pre-pandemic) was trying to be disconnected and separated for years. You dont need to be suicidal to seek mental health services. But again this is a fact that is often ignored to suit an agenda.

weasling will get you nowhere.
you were caught out on the sh1tty baseless lie.

Stormyteacup

pjohnson wrote: »

Constantly claiming an increase in suicides (with zero evidence) does glamourise it. Dear god how clueless are some people.

Even pre-pandemic it was an established fact that a suicide can cause clusters due to it acting as a "confirmation" of sorts for those who were either already suffering from suicidal tendencies or became depressed after the friends suicide. So mindlessly gossiping about a topic as serious as suicide does glamourise it if someone struggling was to hear or read about it.

If people actually did care maybe they should think about the topic before posting carelessly?

Not to mention the fact that some seem to think "increase in those seeking mental health services" = "increase in those with suicidal tendencies". That is once again utter shíte that shows up their own cluelessness and only serves to stigmatise the idea of seeking mental health services. A stigma which (again pre-pandemic) was trying to be disconnected and separated for years. You dont need to be suicidal to seek mental health services. But again this is a fact that is often ignored to suit an agenda.

‘Mindlessly gossiping’? That’s pretty odious, you might want to rethink your phrasing. Are you suggesting posters here are contributing to increasing suicides by discussing it?

I haven’t seen anyone here equating an increase with accessing mental health services as absolute proof of an increase of suicide - however suicidal ideation is a subset of those looking for help, so it’s not a stretch that there’s possibly an increase in suicide ideation in tandem.

I realise suicide is a difficult and uncomfortable topic to address, but you seem determined that anyone of the belief that there has been an increase in suicide as a result of our nations approach to Covid has an agenda.

I think some people will vehemently resist the idea that the measures we implemented to tackle Covid may have caused unnecessary increased harm in non-Covid related areas, disproportionate to measures that would have minimised all-cause mortality. Understandable, as it’s in direct opposition to the reason people agreed with heavy restrictions all along.

Parachutes

pjohnson wrote: »

Constantly claiming an increase in suicides (with zero evidence) does glamourise it. Dear god how clueless are some people.

Even pre-pandemic it was an established fact that a suicide can cause clusters due to it acting as a "confirmation" of sorts for those who were either already suffering from suicidal tendencies or became depressed after the friends suicide. So mindlessly gossiping about a topic as serious as suicide does glamourise it if someone struggling was to hear or read about it.

If people actually did care maybe they should think about the topic before posting carelessly?

Not to mention the fact that some seem to think "increase in those seeking mental health services" = "increase in those with suicidal tendencies". That is once again utter shíte that shows up their own cluelessness and only serves to stigmatise the idea of seeking mental health services. A stigma which (again pre-pandemic) was trying to be disconnected and separated for years. You dont need to be suicidal to seek mental health services. But again this is a fact that is often ignored to suit an agenda.

The only deaths that matter are the covid ones :rolleyes:

If you’re trying to say that these lockdowns haven’t taken an immense toll on people’s mental health, you are simply wrong.

Unfortunately there’s not enough “open uppers” round the place and too many lockdowners happy to stay in the house indefinitely once they get their 350 a week.

gozunda

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

People really need to stop glamorising deaths of those beyond life expectancy.

Definitely the most unsavoury tactic used by those who are bizarrely anti restrictions lockdowners.

FYP

You mean the fallacy that everyone who died was at or beyond their normal life expectancy?

Recent research here suggests that around one in four people who died with Covid-19 would have died during the time period regardless of the pandemic.

Statistically speaking, the remaining people would have lived longer. In other words, they were not people who were going to die anyway, as some have argued.

But more importantly who the feq is "glamorising deaths of those beyond life expectancy" other than those who keep using that as some weird justification why there should be no restrictions or similar...

Parachutes

gozunda wrote: »

FYP

You mean the fallacy that everyone who died was at or beyond their normal life expectancy?

Recent research here suggests that around one in four people who died with Covid-19 would have died during the time period regardless of the pandemic.

Statistically speaking, the remaining people would have lived longer. In other words, they were not people who were going to die anyway, as some have argued.

But more importantly who the feq is "glamorising deaths of those beyond life expectancy" other than those who keep using that as some weird justification why there should be no restrictions or similar...

Having no lives to protect lives is a great strategy.

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

FYP

You mean the fallacy that everyone who died was at or beyond their normal life expectancy?

Recent research here suggests that around one in four people who died with Covid-19 would have died during the time period regardless of the pandemic.

Statistically speaking, the remaining people would have lived longer. In other words, they were not people who were going to die anyway, as some have argued.

But more importantly who the feq is "glamorising deaths of those beyond life expectancy" other than those who keep using that as some weird justification why there should be no restrictions or similar...

Is there a link to that research out of interest?

It seems like a statement that is fairly open to interpretation. One in four seems low versus the fact that life expectancy is slightly lower than the median age of Covid fatalities and the fact that 83% of those fatalities had underlying conditions (almost half of that being chronic heart disease, the primary cause of death of Irish people — https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/covid-19-majority-of-fatalities-had-underlying-conditions-1.4471443). Maybe they are being quite strict on their definition of “during the time period” — so it would be interesting to see whether they took potential morality displacement into consideration.

gozunda

Parachutes wrote: »

Having no lives to protect lives is a great strategy.

Who has a "no lives to protect" strategy...

Necro

pjohnson wrote: »

Constantly claiming an increase in suicides (with zero evidence) does glamourise it. Dear god how clueless are some people.

Even pre-pandemic it was an established fact that a suicide can cause clusters due to it acting as a "confirmation" of sorts for those who were either already suffering from suicidal tendencies or became depressed after the friends suicide. So mindlessly gossiping about a topic as serious as suicide does glamourise it if someone struggling was to hear or read about it.

If people actually did care maybe they should think about the topic before posting carelessly?

Not to mention the fact that some seem to think "increase in those seeking mental health services" = "increase in those with suicidal tendencies". That is once again utter shíte that shows up their own cluelessness and only serves to stigmatise the idea of seeking mental health services. A stigma which (again pre-pandemic) was trying to be disconnected and separated for years. You dont need to be suicidal to seek mental health services. But again this is a fact that is often ignored to suit an agenda.

paw patrol wrote: »

weasling will get you nowhere.
you were caught out on the sh1tty baseless lie.

Stormyteacup wrote: »

‘Mindlessly gossiping’? That’s pretty odious, you might want to rethink your phrasing. Are you suggesting posters here are contributing to increasing suicides by discussing it?

I haven’t seen anyone here equating an increase with accessing mental health services as absolute proof of an increase of suicide - however suicidal ideation is a subset of those looking for help, so it’s not a stretch that there’s possibly an increase in suicide ideation in tandem.

I realise suicide is a difficult and uncomfortable topic to address, but you seem determined that anyone of the belief that there has been an increase in suicide as a result of our nations approach to Covid has an agenda.

I think some people will vehemently resist the idea that the measures we implemented to tackle Covid may have caused unnecessary increased harm in non-Covid related areas, disproportionate to measures that would have minimised all-cause mortality. Understandable, as it’s in direct opposition to the reason people agreed with heavy restrictions all along.

Parachutes wrote: »

The only deaths that matter are the covid ones :rolleyes:

If you’re trying to say that these lockdowns haven’t taken an immense toll on people’s mental health, you are simply wrong.

Unfortunately there’s not enough “open uppers” round the place and too many lockdowners happy to stay in the house indefinitely once they get their 350 a week.

Right, seeing as you all AGAIN want to descend this thread into petty back and forth bickering you can all take a week away from this thread

Clearly mod warnings aren't going to work.

pjohnson
paw patrol
Stormyteacup
Parachutes

All threadbanned for one week.

Edit: gozunda's threadban lifted, caught in the crossfire there, apologies.

thebronze14

is_that_so wrote: »

People go to mass and go home, supporters on the other hand ...

Where the feck do you go if there's nowhere open to go! Never got this all along. Also their excuse for not letting people play sport was the gathering after. 90% of the time in normal times I just went home after a match anyway!

gozunda

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Is there a link to that research out of interest?

It seems like a statement that is fairly open to interpretation. One in four seems low versus the fact that life expectancy is slightly lower than the median age of Covid fatalities and the fact that 83% of those fatalities had underlying conditions (almost half of that being chronic heart disease, the primary cause of death of Irish people — https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/covid-19-majority-of-fatalities-had-underlying-conditions-1.4471443). Maybe they are being quite strict on their definition of “during the time period” — so it would be interesting to see whether they took potential morality displacement into consideration.

The research has already been much discussed here.

But no I don't think the statement is "fairly open to suggestion" as you put it.

The research was carried out researchers at by Maynooth University

Detailed here: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/research/spotlight-research/just-bad-flu-how-death-notices-debunk-covid-19-myth

And the finding detailed by Dr Mccarthy on that research from a RTE article

Dr McCarthy said it could suggest that around one in four people who died with Covid-19 would have died during the time period anyway.

Statistically speaking, the remaining people would have lived longer. In other words, they were not people who were going to die anyway, as some have argued.

https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/0420/1211072-covid-19-excess-deaths-mortality/

Other than that I can only suggest you take up any reservations with regard to what it says in the Irish Times with him.

moonage

I definitely see light at the end of the tunnel.

It's an oncoming train.

charlie14

Stormyteacup wrote: »

You just have a peculiar knack of agreeing with what I’ve said but still managing simultaneously to make an argument against what I’ve said.

Of course CT was your go to, but I left myself open to that by using the word manipulation. I still stand by it.

The dogs in the street may have known we might have been watching the uk to see what happened and working to secure vaccine delivery schedule.

The issue I have is that no one thought to let the general public know that they need not necessarily be bracing themselves for a fourth wave and that positive news from UK and vaccine manufacturers would signal a better than anticipated easing of restrictions.

But no, as I contend - better to leave people believe fear-inducing headlines, no need to intervene and set the record straight. Bitta terror never hurt anyone.

It`s difficult to know what you actually believe.
At one point you did not believe it was NPHET and the government following the science of the U.K. data that resulted in the phased reopening plan. It looked as if you believed, as others here voiced, that it was all due to members of NPHET being in a good mood that day.


Your contentions are based from anthing I can see on some half baked conspiacy theory that the government and NPHET had some fiendish masterplan to keep us all in terror for some unknown reason.It`s nonsense.

As I have said, you like others have been so long complaining and theorising on lockdown that it looks as if you ended up missing what was going on in the world with vaccinations.

FintanMcluskey

gozunda wrote: »

The research has already been much discussed here.

But no I don't think the statement is "fairly open to suggestion" as you put it.

The research was carried out researchers at by Maynooth University

Detailed here: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/research/spotlight-research/just-bad-flu-how-death-notices-debunk-covid-19-myth

And the finding detailed by Dr Mccarthy on that research from a RTE article



https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/0420/1211072-covid-19-excess-deaths-mortality/

Other than that I can only suggest you take up any reservations with regard to what it says in the Irish Times with him.

Would you consider many of the 30,000 deaths in Ireland each year as premature?

Or perhaps them all are premature deaths?

normanoffside

Tony Holohan says vaccinated Grandparents can hug their Grandchildren from Monday.
Not, Today tomorrow or Sunday but on Monday it becomes safe.
It's great to have him protecting us.

#NPHETSCIENCE

https://twitter.com/breakingnewsie/status/1390710153188560896

normanoffside

normanoffside wrote: »

Tony Holohan says vaccinated Grandparents can hug their Grandchildren from Monday.
Not, Today tomorrow or Sunday but on Monday it becomes safe.
It's great to have him protecting us.

#NPHETSCIENCE

https://twitter.com/breakingnewsie/status/1390710153188560896

Is it possible that people can actually read the articles they reference prior to misrepresenting them?

afro man

normanoffside wrote: »

Tony Holohan says vaccinated Grandparents can hug their Grandchildren from Monday.
Not, Today tomorrow or Sunday but on Monday it becomes safe.
It's great to have him protecting us.

#NPHETSCIENCE

https://twitter.com/breakingnewsie/status/1390710153188560896

Ive news for Tony i have been hugging my grandkids for months

normanoffside

Even LIDL is now trolling Tony over earlier comments about Sausages, Charcoal and Antigen tests.

He has become a parody

https://twitter.com/lidl_ireland/status/1390765363684651019

Real Donald Trump

afro man wrote: »

Ive news for Tony i have been hugging my grandkids for months

Now now, we have listen to the nice man on the television.

normanoffside

afro man wrote: »

Ive news for Tony i have been hugging my grandkids for months

You should have waited until next Monday :mad:

Dr. Bre

Some power trip they are on. You can now hug people

normanoffside

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Some power trip they are on. You can now hug people

What's worse is that people are thanking him for it like he's some king throwing crumbs to his starving people.

https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1390667814432911374

gozunda

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Would you consider many of the 30,000 deaths in Ireland each year as premature?

Or perhaps them all are premature deaths?

Eh? What has that got to do with anything?

normanoffside

It looks like Bray is the safest place to be from Monday. Even though we know outdoor transmission is next to nothing, these circles should keep us safe.

https://twitter.com/bray_ie/status/1390735791748485120

PTH2009

normanoffside wrote: »

It looks like Bray is the safest place to be from Monday. Even though we know outdoor transmission is next to nothing, these circles should keep us safe.

https://twitter.com/bray_ie/status/1390735791748485120

Only in Ireland

And here I was thinking we could have concerts and stuff back soon. Sure we're not allowed hug people till we're vaccinated

What has this country become