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

namloc1980

Hurrache wrote: »

And where's the argument that it doesn't work, not coming from me anyway.

You linked to that guy scare mongering about increasing case numbers. Why so?

namloc1980

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

With the low number of hospitalizations and no risk of death for the young and vaccinated, are we saying that it's now the equivalent of the flu? So we're counting the number of people who have an exotic flu to justify closing everything?

The UK will be essentially treating it like any other respiratory illness from the 19th July. We'll be still hiding under the duvet this time next year.

Hurrache

timmyntc wrote: »

He is scaremongering though.

The UK are seeing big increases in cases, but very modest increases in hospital or deaths. This is proof that vaccines work.

Same goes for Israel - he posted about an 800% increase in cases, but that increase comes from such a low base its incredibly disingenuous to frame things like that.

If we went from 1 case to 8 cases thats an 800% increase too.

Besides UK, USA and Israel have all taken the stance that there will be deaths in future, but with vaccines the overall risk of strain on health system or mass deaths just isnt a thing anymore.

Chicken littles are the ones being scared, only thing that matters are the numbers, not published by him, and any comment can be disregarded that he makes outside of the figures coming from the various monitors, universities and health organisations.

But then again, everyone's an actual expert aren't they, apart from the experts themselves.

Dunno why peoples first reply to those numbers were that vaccines work, nobody has said otherwise,

Tchaikovsky

namloc1980 wrote: »

The UK will be essentially treating it like any other respiratory illness from the 19th July. We'll be still hiding under the duvet this time next year.

Bizarre isn't it? I mean, we're looking like a nation of pussies right now.

bloopy

Hurrache wrote: »

To avoid this
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1410529154978701319

I think the UK at the moment has more cases, not sure if it's total or daily, than the entire EU.

How many cases per 100000 is that for each country?
The chart jumps from 1 to 10 to 100 with equal size distances between each number.
It is slightly easier to figure out Israel but the others are in quite a large range.

FileNotFound

Hurrache wrote: »

You should propose your cure for any disease, just don't test for it.

C'mon would ya with that nonsense that people tried to use last year. Are you saying that they've decided to test more lately, and that's the only reason the numbers are increasing?

While I support testing like mad, I have wondered how bad seasonal flu would look if we every tested for it like this. We might not even class it as seasonal.


Testing everyone we can is the right thing to do, but cases are really only a concern if they translate into mortality or hospital figures.

I guess we will get to see the Uk rise to 80k+ a day soon - if the NHS isn't seeing any strain then the conversation should switch to risk.

Hurrache

bloopy wrote: »

How many cases per 100000 is that for each country?
The chart jumps from 1 to 10 to 100 with equal size distances between each number.
It is slightly easier to figure out Israel but the others are in quite a large range.

It's from the Financial Times Covid-19 page, details are there I think.

Ballynally

growleaves wrote: »

I can't keep track of all the falsehoods so I'm not sure who is saying that, is anyone is.

I just look at the numbers and at this point dont believe what any expert claims, especially the official ones. I cant separate the chaff from the corn anymore, knowing that many use stats to push a message. So, my default is disbelief until i can check the actual data.
There are a few red flags out there, like:"we are just following the Science" and:" the experts say".

is_that_so

Hurrache wrote: »

It's quite funny that people who don't want to see the data brush it off because they think the person posting it is a 'drama queen' or 'scaremonger' in order to ignore the data, actual real data and figures, that aren't made up or published by him in the first place.

None of the data is his.

Data is data. He's selective and fashions data in very emotive ways and I've pointed out the problem with him on this. There are many others who can deliver the same data, with more details and far less drama but each to their own.

Hurrache

FileNotFound wrote: »

Testing everyone we can is the right thing to do, but cases are really only a concern if they translate into mortality or hospital figures.

While it's the main concern, I wouldn't say it's only really a concern if it doesn't end up as a hospital number.

The long term affects, however low or high the likelihood is, is a serious concern for probably most people. They wouldn't be grateful that it's alright just because they didn't end up in hospital if they're unfortunate to fall victim long term.

Hurrache

Ballynally wrote: »

So, my default is disbelief until i can check the actual data.
There are a few red flags out there, like:"we are just following the Science" and:" the experts say".

But you don't believe in the data, so you're in a death spiral.

ErnieG

bloopy wrote: »

The chart jumps from 1 to 10 to 100 with equal size distances between each number.

It's a log chart, which is an appropriate choice of chart type for the data set.

is_that_so

FileNotFound wrote: »

While I support testing like mad, I have wondered how bad seasonal flu would look if we every tested for it like this. We might not even class it as seasonal.


Testing everyone we can is the right thing to do, but cases are really only a concern if they translate into mortality or hospital figures.

I guess we will get to see the Uk rise to 80k+ a day soon - if the NHS isn't seeing any strain then the conversation should switch to risk.

Really not financially feasible for the caseload and deaths of 200-500 annually.

franciscanpunk

Hurrache wrote: »

To avoid this
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1410529154978701319

I think the UK at the moment has more cases, not sure if it's total or daily, than the entire EU.

Am i missing something or is the scale between 0-10 and 10-100 the same size\proportion?

ceadaoin.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That lad is possibly the biggest scaremonger going.

I bet you'd be one of the first to take the piss out of someone sharing something from the likes of Gemma O'Doherty or Ivor Cummins but that lad is just the other side of the same coin.

Dr ding dong only appears when he can post scary things.

Deeper Blue

Any chance linking to Eric Feigl Ding tweets could be banned from the thread?

namloc1980

Hurrache wrote: »

While it's the main concern, I wouldn't say it's only really a concern if it doesn't end up as a hospital number.

The long term affects, however low or high the likelihood is, is a serious concern for probably most people. They wouldn't be grateful that it's alright just because they didn't end up in hospital if they're unfortunate to fall victim long term.

Can I just ask, do you consider there is any acceptable risk level at all with Covid?

Hurrache

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Dr ding dong only appears when he can post scary things.

Can't beat an oul bit of casual racism.

FileNotFound

is_that_so wrote: »

Really not financially feasible for the caseload and deaths of 200-500 annually.

Well we say 200 - 500 annually but what would it be if we applied the same rules as covid.

I am not diminishing the threat of covid in any way - was just a thought.

Hurrache

Deeper Blue wrote: »

Any chance linking to Eric Feigl Ding tweets could be banned from the thread?

Is it too difficult for you to not actually read him comments and actually look at the charts that don't actually come from him? I find it pretty easy anyway.

Doctor Jimbob

Hurrache wrote: »

It's quite funny that people who don't want to see the data brush it off because they think the person posting it is a 'drama queen' or 'scaremonger' in order to ignore the data, actual real data and figures, that aren't made up or published by him in the first place.

None of the data is his.

It’s quite funny that people post Eric Feigl-Ding tweets and expect to be taken seriously.

Hurrache

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can I just ask, do you consider there is any acceptable risk level at all with Covid?

You did ask, doesn't mean I'll answer as it's of no relevance to the increase in the delta variant.

is_that_so

FileNotFound wrote: »

Well we say 200 - 500 annually but what would it be if we applied the same rules as covid.

I am not diminishing the threat of covid in any way - was just a thought.

You'd have to do a CBA on it v the annual jab. I doubt it would match up but that's not to say we can't bring some of what we've done with COVID to bear on it.

Hurrache

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It’s quite funny that people post Eric Feigl-Ding tweets and expect to be taken seriously.

The selective ignorance of facts by people is amazing.

- What, he tweeted that, then it's all lies.
- Er, he just screenshot'd graphs put together by the likes of The Finanical Times, John Hopkins University, various health organisations etc.
- Nope, don't want to know! I call bull****!
- I've been meaning to ask, and it's just a coincidence I'm asking now, but are you actually a doctor?

Doctor Jimbob

Hurrache wrote: »

The selective ignorance of facts by people is amazing.

- What, he tweeted that, then it's all lies.
- Er, he just screenshot'd graphs put together by the likes of The Finanical Times, John Hopkins Uinversity, various health organisations etc.
- Nope, don't want to know! I call bull****!

I never said it was lies. Carry on making up conversations in your head if it makes you happy though.

muddypuppy

franciscanpunk wrote: »

Am i missing something or is the scale between 0-10 and 10-100 the same size\proportion?

As someone explained before it's in logarithmic scale, which is good to show exponential growth in small graphs.

namloc1980

Hurrache wrote: »

You did ask, doesn't mean I'll answer as it's of no relevance to the increase in the delta variant.

It's extremely relevant in the context of us continuing to destroy the domestic economy in this country by having thousands of businesses shut down for close on 16 months and our debt heading for €250bn.

FileNotFound

is_that_so wrote: »

You'd have to do a CBA on it v the annual jab. I doubt it would match up but that's not to say we can't bring some of what we've done with COVID to bear on it.

What we have done for covid should never be repeated until we have a real threat.

Anyone who thinks trying to implement any of this long term is really stretching - while I hate the term nanny state, it is imperative we do not let one develop.

Sobit1964

Hurrache wrote: »

To avoid this
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1410529154978701319

I think the UK at the moment has more cases, not sure if it's total or daily, than the entire EU.

Stop posting that discredited and debunked fear monger - his time in the sun is gladly over.

Ballynally

MOH wrote: »

If you look through Holohan's last couple of letters it's ridiculous.

May 26: 89 total confirmed cases of Delta (B.1.617.2).

June 17: 180 total confirmed cases of Delta. So known Delta cases have doubled, yet "In summary, the current epidemiological situation in Ireland continues to give rise to a broadly positive outlook."

June 28: 220 total confirmed cases of Delta. Similar rate of increase to previous (in absolute terms - low in percentage terms). And suddenly this is the worst hurricane to ever hit Ireland.
The positive update from the previous letter about vaccine progress has been dropped.
We also have a new note that "Taqpath S-gene PCR target results by specimen week show that the prevalence of S-gene positivity (proxy for Delta) has increased from 28% in week 24 to 55.5% in week 25."
No idea what that means, I'm guessing it's the percentage of positive cases that have been classed as the Delta variant? Or at least some measure of how prevalent it is. Yet despite this doubling, the 7-day average has increased by just 4%. It's also worth noting that at some point the previous week the 7-day average hit the lowest since mid-December.
Plus hospitalisations and ICU cases haven't increased.

But everyone to panic stations.

Also worth noting that there were a total of 7 outbreaks associated with pubs/cafes/restaurants, compared to 14 associated with schools, which have been repeatedly declared not a major contributor to Covid spread.

It's all been hyperbole all along. Everything has to be the best or the worst or the most extreme in some other way.
The CMO and the Taoiseach for some reason thought it was a great idea to tell everyone just before we opened up at Christmas that we had the best situation in Europe, which even at the time struck me as a ludicrous thing to tell people if you wanted to maintain caution.]END QUOTE.

It is all down to scale.
I went to Holland in summer 2020. Very low passenger numbers, quite airports, people still very afraid and some friends around me frowning at my decision.
Come xmas, with the likelyhood of a lockdown in the new year i estimated a ****load of people travelling all over the place with only the advice to self isolate. At Xmas! I decided not to book a flight to see my relatives with all that in mind. Et voila..
So, on the one hand there is Ireland with a halt on easing restrictions and on the other hand countries that have, albeit w some restrictions, opened up.
But then i see large crowds at football matches and i think they are pushing their luck w the Delta variant.