Reflection on the pandemic: questions about the authorities' response.

Stormyteacup

Age Action are demanding a public enquiry similar to the one in the UK, which started its hearings several weeks ago;

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/11/06/older-people-still-living-lockdown-lives-after-establishing-routines-during-covid-19/

They reference the figure that one third of deaths occurred in nursing homes as a reason for a public enquiry, as well as some EU research on mental health stats for over 60s.

‘While some research suggests older people didn’t suffer the same degree of mental health issues as younger people during the pandemic, a report by EU research agency Eurofound earlier this year found 21 per cent of people in Ireland aged 60 and over said they were suffering “potentially clinically significant levels of depressive symptoms”. This is double the proportion it was before the pandemic.”

The inquiry in the UK seems vast, and they plan to open a public portal online where people can log their experiences.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-covid-inquiry-begins-vowing-expose-any-culpable-conduct-2022-10-04/

shesty

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119842398#Comment_119842398

The biggest question is WILL we actually learn anything.

I mean two years of our lives with the problems in our healthcare system being laid wide open and stuck in the faces of those in power seems to have achieved very little, so I am sceptical that a review will actually teach us anything.

I think a review has to happen though. Huge mistakes were made. Elements of the whole situation could have been handled better, particularly as time went on. And the media need to be raked over the coals for some of their behaviour (which they won't be because those in power were happy to use the media to keep the country in line with the decision makers on the message being given out - I suspect that was a very conscious decision that was made).

Silentcorner

The media were kept afloat by Government advertising, local and national media. They acted in concert for two years, it got obvious quiet quickly how we were conditioned to acquiesce, they pumped fear at us incessantly, then floated the notion of Government actions, then the government acted and around and around it went, some people will never live a normal life again. It was completely shameful.

Does anyone remember one journalist who asked a difficult question of Nphet or politicians during the entire pandemic?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119845890#Comment_119845890

That was Jemima Burke. Her brother is currently in Mount Joy.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119845890#Comment_119845890

There are people living normal lives today because of the restrictions and vaccines that the government were responsible for - who would be dead had we listened to the open the pubs and anti vax brigade.

I saw other kinds of fear being pumped out, absolute nonsense about great resets and anti-vax propaganda.

normanoffside

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119845890#Comment_119845890

Yeah Sarah Carey used to ask questions of Tony on numbers of hospitalised who caught it in hospital and also around Antigen testing. He used to get visibly annoyed with her and was quite bullying at times.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119846440#Comment_119846440

You haven't produced a shred of evidence for any of your points yet think others lack credibility...

Silentcorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119846707#Comment_119846707

When someone repeatedly attempts to dismiss others by using meaningless, sneering terms like Anti Vax, or the Open the pubs brigade, then you have no credibility.

I don't have evidence, or data, all I have is an opinion on the data/evidence presented to us the public, and it doesn't take a lot to determine how misleading the data/evidence was/is.

The only point I have made related to data is the excess deaths we are currently experiencing isn't yet avail, the only evidence I have is anecdotal which is pretty meaningless, however, it's hardly a stretch to suggest that if the hospital system is shut down for things like Cancers, heart disease, which are the biggest killers in our population, then you are going to get increased excess deaths.

Goldengirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119845890#Comment_119845890

Yes. Frequently. Do you not?

I agree with @shesty.. Elements of the media were awful and just swallowed whatever they were given in the briefings whole, and regurged " the main points" with very poor attention to context or any thought to the effects of repeating the same stuff /same guests every day/week.

Programmes like Clare Byrne's with " fun" snippets ( sarcasm here) teaching people how to, without any discussion as to whether this stuff meant anything or was still useful and all in strict time slots, were pathetic and should have been taken off the air sooner.

I agree with @ody@odyssey06 that a tribunal that focuses blame on individuals would probably not ever happen as the reason to call one would be if this country had transgressed from the norms of pandemic restrictions as per the WHO or other OECD countries which we generally did not.

Mistakes and aberrations happened all over, in response to Covid, not just in Ireland. Some had worse outcomes, others less so, but all need to be forensically looked at now and standards set for future pandemics.

Mistakes were made here, definitely yes, and these need to be examined honestly and learnt from.

The best way to do that is an enquiry that focuses on problems and solutions, not crucifying anybody in particular.

All that happens in the latter is lots of lawyers getting paid a lot of money and an increasingly irrelevant report years down the line that is consigned to the archives.

Unless criminal or negligent behaviour is alleged as in some other jurisdictions, of course.

But the burden of proof for that would be that it was knowingly done or contrary to standards or norms elsewhere.

Edit. Tagged ody by accident and can't delete, apologies.

Beasty

Silentcorner threadbanned

Beasty

Saviola1978? threadbanned

Stormyteacup

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119846747#Comment_119846747

It’s not a stretch at all, as you say, and the British Heart Foundation gives the figure of 30,000 preventable deaths since March 2020.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2022/november/extreme-heart-care-disruption-linked-to-excess-deaths-involving-heart-disease

That’s for coronary issues, and our Taoiseach has acknowledged that missed cancer diagnoses will lead to early deaths.

On the one hand we have a claim that people are alive today that wouldn’t have been were it not for restrictions, and on the other we have people that will die needlessly on account of restrictions. The idea of a balance sheet is distasteful, I get it, but it’s vital to drill down into the data we have now. Regardless if no one is accountable, that information should be in the public sphere and there’s no need for the bloated legal profession to participate, but it’s likely inevitable as an enquiry will (should) have the power to compel witnesses and evidence and much of that will be authorities contesting handing over of said evidence and compelling of witnesses.

edited to add: the bit about lawyering up is from the UK re their enquiry where it’s reported some government departments have engaged legal professionals for guidance, per the articles linked earlier.

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119847759#Comment_119847759

This is surely due to ageing population or heatwave, or some other natural cause of course. It cannot be because the prolonged and vastly unjustified lockdowns and restrictions have caused an incalculable damage to people’s quality of life and health.

I mean, there is no data that confirms that the lockdowns had any negative effects that would outweigh the tens of thousands of deaths of wealthy vulnerable that they have successfully protected, right?

Nothing to look at here, move on lads.

darconio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119848914#Comment_119848914

You are obviously looking for a threadban 😂

walus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119850557#Comment_119850557

The only thing I’m looking for is the truth.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119846254#Comment_119846254

You can't prove a negative. That's like saying:

"If I wear this purple hat, I am safe from badgers."

"What credible evidence do you have for that?"

"Well, I'm wearing it and there are no badgers attacking me right now."

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119857515#Comment_119857515

No badgers needed.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/06/covid-19-vaccines-saved-estimated-20-million-lives-1-year

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-more-than-20-000-lives-could-have-been-saved-if-first-lockdown-was-introduced-a-week-earlier-report-says-12340094

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

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119857523#Comment_119857523

People think that if they can take their opinions and put them into a model that it proves it empirically.

Wrong! The models have been significantly off the mark for the last 2.5 years.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119857605#Comment_119857605

This is just a set of clever sounding words strung together amounting to nothing. How exactly are you meant to empirically prove the effect of a lockdown in a country, short of setting up two parallel universes. You are talking nonsense about stuff you don't understand, as you are unable to come up with any real criticisms of the study by expert reaearchers.

And for the situations where we do have data, you are still wrong.

• In the period July to December 2021, the age-adjusted risk of death involving coronavirus (COVID-19) was 93.4% lower for people who had received a third dose, or booster, at least 21 days ago compared with unvaccinated people. 
• In the period July to December 2021, the age-adjusted risk of death involving COVID-19 was 81.2% lower for people who had received a second dose at least 21 days ago compared with unvaccinated people; for January to June 2021, this was 99.5% lower.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31december2021

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119857640#Comment_119857640

Exactly, which means that you cannot prove that lockdown saved x number of lives. The only way you can attempt to do that is based on modelling and if there is one thing I can tell you with really high confidence, because I've done it for a living for years, I can tell you with complete certainty that the person who decides what the assumptions are gets to decide what the output is. We're fooled into believing that the calculation is the thing, that's not the thing, it's the assumptions. The assumptions that you input will determine what the output is, and the assumptions are not math, assumptions are just opinion. So all this is an opinion put through a math filter so that when it's done it looks like it was maths or science or facts, but it was just opinions that have been laundered through a model.

The only way you can continue to believe in the modelling is if you believe that the lockdown has been 100% effective, social distancing and facemasks have been adhered to the letter and absolutely stopped this virus from spreading. I find those things to be non-credible.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119858146#Comment_119858146

Your posts are nothing more than the rehashing of canards about covid discredited multiple times on this forum.

And there you go with a strawman fallacy about something having to be 100% effective to have an effect. A statement utterly without foundation.

There are various forms of scientific proof and evidence outside your very narrow definition. What you are looking for is a standard of evidence that cannot be obtained in the real world, and therefore that leaves you free to challenge it and demand a standard of proof you know it is not possible to obtain. You are writing yourself a blank cheque.

Once again, you make absolutely zero attempt to engage with the actual data and studies used to support the conclusions about lockdowns saving lives. It is not just all an opinion, nor is it just modelling.

Proof has been provided showing that lockdowns saved lives. If you don't accept it as proof, that is your decision. But don't fool yourself for one minute into thinking that if a review is conducted into the pandemic handling, that they will be using your definition of proof. They won't be. They will be referring to studies and data similar to what I have posted to the thread.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119858203#Comment_119858203

Everything you're basing your "proof" on is based on models and then you say that real world evidence cannot be obtained. Models have to be to be tied to real world data and the only models that are really any use to science are models that have predictive values and predict what is going to happen in the future and then you compare that with what actually happens, and, as we now know and have known since the beginning is that those models were profoundly wrong. Models that look back at what happened in the past are not useful because there are millions of ways you model a past curve mathematically, the problem with that is you don't know which variables are true and which are the right variables to be looking at. So when you say that lockdowns work, that's SD works, that the deaths would have been this or that or that hospitals would have been overwhelmed, that's just an opinion based on a narrative that started at the beginning of covid and that narrative in my view is fallacious and caused huge amount of damage.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119858388#Comment_119858388

Your claim is actually that not one single death was prevented by lockdowns! You have provided zero evidence for any of your claims, yet demand a standard of evidence from others that is simply not practicable in a pandemic - where variants were emerging, and global situation was changing.

The proof that lockdowns work has been provided. I am not the one saying lockdowns work. I have provided the studies from scientific experts showing that the data and evidence that lockdowns reduced deaths. You will have to break it to all these scientific experts that any models using past data are worthless! This is simply the fantasy of a armchair expert.

So the point I made earlier counts double:

Proof has been provided showing that lockdowns saved lives. If you don't accept it as proof, that is your decision. But don't fool yourself for one minute into thinking that if a review is conducted into the pandemic handling, that they will be using your definition of proof. They won't be. They will be referring to studies and data similar to what I have posted to the thread.

Beasty

Following discussion with user Silentcorner threadban lifted

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119858505#Comment_119858505

I never made any of those claims but nice try putting words into my mouth.

Your "proof" is based on modelling which has been consistently and emphatically wrong because it is based on a series of incorrect prevailing narratives, specifically the alleged efficacy of novel interventions (both of the pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical varieties) and a lack of careful consideration of their collateral harms.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119860871#Comment_119860871

Nope, you said all modelling that used past data rather than predictive was worthless.

Good luck in trying that case in front of this hypothetical inquiry. You'll be laughed out the door.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119860933#Comment_119860933

We'll break this down into baby steps.

Where did I say that "not one single death was prevented by lockdowns" and can you show me where I've spoken about or called for an inquiry?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119861288#Comment_119861288

Re: inquiry - read the opening post of the thread. It is referenced in multiple posts in the thread.

Ok, so now you do believe deaths were prevented by lockdowns and vaccines? Or are you denying they prevented deaths?

Because when I posted this you responded with nonsense about badgers. So it seemed reasonable to assume you disagree with the assertion that they saved lives. But maybe you just have a thing about badgers. Who knows when confronted with posts like the below.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119846254#Comment_119846254

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119857515#Comment_119857515

political analyst

How could the European Central Bank (ECB) think that the lockdown and the resulting spend on financial assistance to businesses were preferable over having a more nuanced response to further waves of infection? It's obvious that our government wouldn't have spent so much money on that if the ECB hadn't approved - talk about digging a hole!

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119865308#Comment_119865308

It wasn't a purely economic decision.