China Coronavirus

Started by lurganblue, January 23, 2020, 09:52:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Angelo

Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 07:35:46 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 19, 2020, 12:54:33 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 02:05:10 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 01:50:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 01:38:21 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 01:27:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 12:51:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 17, 2020, 10:10:57 PM
Life can be very long, short is 38, the age a very good club mate of mine that died recently. Angelo, you are full of shit and a reincarnation of the WUM's we've had on here for years

The narrative of what you said is that its ok for people who are young, fit and healthy to die providing its not from Covid?

There are huge negative consequences of lockdowns and restrictions, we saw rises in cases of domestic violence during the first lockdown, mental health issues are almost certain to become a bigger issue with it, the economic issues it brings, the threat to people's livelihoods, jobs, ability to provide for their families, the social isolation people who live alone or elderly people feel.

At what point do we focus on the above? At what point do we look at the latest data and trends being reported on covid, a plumetting fatality, rate, the underlying health conditions the vast majority of people who die from it have, the median and mean age of those who die and what their life expectancy would be.

Some of you are so entrenched into your thinking that you are completely unwilling to look at the big picture?

I could be petty like you and say that you guys are happy to see domestic violence and suicide rise because of what you are are advocating.

you have provided no alternative that does not lead to the same or similar issues, all you provided was the unrealistic hope that people adhere to the guidance which it is clear they have not and therefore will not do.

you keep repeating the same questions over and over again without saying how any alternative you are suggesting would address them.

no one is saying there are no socio-economic challenges with lockdowns, i dont think anyone wants a lockdown but in the absence of a credible alternative which you havent provided most people see it as neccessary.

how we stop the same thing happening after these restrictions/lockdown is what needs to be dentified. I dont k ow what they are though. i hope a gradual opening of the socio-economic enviroment and adherance to guidance would work but it clearly hasnt.

Neither have you.

The same negative economic and societal issues will return now during lockdown and will probably return a worse effect.

It's a trade off, the fatality of the virus has plummeted at double digit multiples. It is my view that the impacts of lockdown and excessive restrictions will have more negative consequences than what we had in place prior to this second wave on society as a whole.

There's a reason why a large group of people aren't complying now, they don't fear the virus. The first wave had resonance because we saw the images from Lombardy and Madrid, people had a genuine fear that this could shoot fit and healthy people down. The data tends to point at this risk being remote, probably as remote as the flu which we live with every single winter.

i have, i am advocating lockdown again and in the absence of something better and as of now i am.not aware of what that would be another lockdown and another as needs require.

the alternative is herd immunity and i have already provided my reason for not purposing that course inclusing socio-economic reasons.

i have also mentioned that comparing restrictions/lockdown fataility rates with potential herd immunity fatality rates is not comparing like with like. i dont know how much early detection and how much better we are at treating covid is or if the strain has weakened but i think you can agree if hospitals get overwhelm, which they will with herd immunity, they are close with the last 7 months restrictions that more people will die.

you camnot compare the flu those rates are us nearly alwyas having capacity, having a vaccine and living pre covid lives.

if we lived pre covid lives now, how soon would the hosiptals get overwhelmed  and thr fatality rate start to increase!!

Who is mentioning pre-Covid lives?

I think we should have stuck with the way we were living after coming out of the first lockdown.

The bottom line is that people don't fear the virus now, if the problem is a compliance problem then more restrictions aren't going to help when compliance is the problem.

What % of cases requite hospitalisation since we have moved into the second wave. Why have governments not catered for this sufficiently particularly when you look at some of the money being thrown about, surely the health service is the thing that requires the most investment in the immediate term.

you have being comparing against the flu so i assumed you were at least trying im some way to like with like...

what we are doing  now is seeing the grow in numbers of people with covid to the point where lockdowns are being re introduced to prevent the hospitals being overwhelmed. It would be interesting to know what peoples opinions of covid in ireland are but i dont think you can make a sweeping statement like people dont fear the virus now....

the socio-economic impact of a situation where the hospitals are overwhelmed (we need to deal with what we got, not what health system we should have) would be way worst that rolling lockdowns. 

i am all for living with covid if the numbers can be kept low but from what we have seen that is not possible, there will come a point where we need to lockdown again to prevent hospitals beong overehelmed and other services being curtailed.

What I'm comparing with the flu is how we live with a virus that kills, causes massive health problems and puts the health system under immense pressure every single year without making any sort of societal or economic changes.

I don't think it's a case of keeping the numbers low, are the cases kept low for flu every winter? Not really.

It's a case of what sort of impact it will have? We are seeing signs now that the virus does not seem to be anywhere near as fatal as we may have initially thought it was.

one final time then i give up..

you are comparing the flu figures which has a vaccine, which is seasonal and which our hosiptals can nearly always cope with and everyone lived their "normal" pre covid lives.... to

we dont have a vaccine, its not seasonal and twice it has got close to overwhelming hosiptals and we have seriously changed the way we live our lifes.

to get even close to comparing the full consquences of covid and make at least a decent comparsion to the flu numbers we would need to go back to our lives pre covid and see how many die then.

However, we are not stupid and lockeddown as the level of death if we continued our normal routine would have been way higher than it was back in March/April..

can you compare the flu fatality rate with covid if there was no restrictions and we went about our lives as we did pre march?

There are 4 options that i can see

1. do nothing different...
2. herd immunity
3. live with covid (undefined but as close as i can figure you are suggesting)
4. lockdown to protect health service being overwhelm.if required.

what are the socio-economic and health implications of these?

We lockeddown as we nothing very little and experience ln other countries told us it protected the health system being overwhelmed.

3. we then tried to live with covid, but it hasnt worked despite the slow opening up and restrictions still on what we did pre covid, we imposed further restrictions and they dont appear to have worked either. You are proposing we continue with something similar to this when it hasnt worked, we are getting closer to an overwhelm healthcare system again and all the socio-economic and heath issues this would cause. you completing ignore this part, it appears only lockdown has a socio economic impact in your eyes.. which is wrong.

1. thousands would likely died
2. we cannot silo the vulnerable, we have tired during living with covid but have failed.

4. loxkdown if required - this is where we are now as living with covid didnt work imo. we didnt protect the vulnerbale, we didnt keep numbers down, we are going to overwhelm the healthcare system. As a result there will be socio econmic impacts which i havent ignored.

What have the effects of us living with Covid been?

As far as I've seen the fatality rate since we gradually reopened up was something like 0.4%. The average age of people who died is in their 80s, most with underlying health conditions so there's a lot of contention about what is really the cause of death here.

Look at what Slovakia are doing now, mass testing the entire nation in a very short space of time, grabbing the bull by the horns to see if they can deal with it. How do we know living with Covid didn't work? Are multiple lockdowns and potential of living in this state of flux long term a viable solution do you think because governments haven't shown us any other alternative yet.

before i can fully answer can u advice what level 1-5 would we be at? to get better sense i.e attendance at sports events, restrict movement between counties, opening hrs of pubs.

what happened since the last lockdown is we are gradually closing down again and numbers becoming unmanageable for the health system.. you appear to have trouble looking forward and seeing the trend or accept what the outcomes of an overwhelm health system are over the longer term.

it already clear the elderaly and vulnerable are expendable to you. no thoughts on menral health of their familes...

we know living with covid hasnt worked as we have had to further restrict, we couldnt protect nursing homes, numbers are increasing, health sytem under added pressure...

slovakia is interesting but it has its flaws.

you might have missed this with your spats with others.

you stilll have not provided detail on how you proposed to live with covid firstly, and secondly protect the health service from being overwhelmed causing all the issues  you keep claiming covid tunnel vision are denying. 

What evidence do you have that long term your approach(still undefined) will help all those you claim lockdown will hurt better than rolling lockdowns. do you not expect a socio-economic impact.

I have, multiple times - as we were before we came out of the first lockdown and went into the second lockdown.

Hospitals get overwhelmed by seasonal flus. Down south in particular, the basketcase health service down there regularly has 7/800 waiting on hospital trolleys during the flu season.

I have the same evidence that those who advocate for lockdown to quell Covid do. It's my opinion, we will find out in time.

There are plenty of data on domestic violence and the rise in it during lockdown, we know of the economic damage it has done, there are plenty of testimonies from people who have family members with mental of physical disabilities and how lockdown and restrictions have cut off support and made caring for these people more difficult not to mention the effect it has on these people. There are reports on the impact it can have on people's mental health etc so it's insane to ignore these factors.

At the minute we have 0.11% of active cases in ICU up north, it's something similar down south. At what point and I'm asking you this do we say that we need to stop focusing on Covid and start focusing on the repercussions of the decisions we are making to deal with Covid and the consequences of this?

Maybe you'll do me the courtesy of addressing that question?

GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Angelo

Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 07:40:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 19, 2020, 07:33:18 PM
This is an interesting read.

https://twitter.com/GrahamNeary/status/1317880298554744836

talk about tunnel vision.. you appear to have only a problem with experts when it doesnt suit your narrative. stockbokers opinion is an interesting read..

All I've said is that there are some interesting observations from the data presented. That is raw data on death rates in the 26. It's an interesting observation that excess rates have not really seen a great rise and that death rates in April were similar to flu seasons in January in prior years.

Would you have been surprised to read that? By all means dispute the figures if you can but they do seem to paint a rather hysteric reaction to Covid.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Milltown Row2

Aye but who's best Federer or Nadal? I think Federer as he's had a better spread against better players
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Angelo

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 19, 2020, 08:00:13 PM
Aye but who's best Federer or Nadal? I think Federer as he's had a better spread against better players

Better players?

Federer only did it against chumps in the post-Sampras pre-Nadal/Djokovic era.

It's a non-contest. Rafa hands down.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

PadraicHenryPearse

Quote from: Angelo on October 19, 2020, 07:43:55 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 07:35:46 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 19, 2020, 12:54:33 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 02:05:10 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 01:50:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 01:38:21 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 01:27:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 12:51:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 17, 2020, 10:10:57 PM
Life can be very long, short is 38, the age a very good club mate of mine that died recently. Angelo, you are full of shit and a reincarnation of the WUM's we've had on here for years

The narrative of what you said is that its ok for people who are young, fit and healthy to die providing its not from Covid?

There are huge negative consequences of lockdowns and restrictions, we saw rises in cases of domestic violence during the first lockdown, mental health issues are almost certain to become a bigger issue with it, the economic issues it brings, the threat to people's livelihoods, jobs, ability to provide for their families, the social isolation people who live alone or elderly people feel.

At what point do we focus on the above? At what point do we look at the latest data and trends being reported on covid, a plumetting fatality, rate, the underlying health conditions the vast majority of people who die from it have, the median and mean age of those who die and what their life expectancy would be.

Some of you are so entrenched into your thinking that you are completely unwilling to look at the big picture?

I could be petty like you and say that you guys are happy to see domestic violence and suicide rise because of what you are are advocating.

you have provided no alternative that does not lead to the same or similar issues, all you provided was the unrealistic hope that people adhere to the guidance which it is clear they have not and therefore will not do.

you keep repeating the same questions over and over again without saying how any alternative you are suggesting would address them.

no one is saying there are no socio-economic challenges with lockdowns, i dont think anyone wants a lockdown but in the absence of a credible alternative which you havent provided most people see it as neccessary.

how we stop the same thing happening after these restrictions/lockdown is what needs to be dentified. I dont k ow what they are though. i hope a gradual opening of the socio-economic enviroment and adherance to guidance would work but it clearly hasnt.

Neither have you.

The same negative economic and societal issues will return now during lockdown and will probably return a worse effect.

It's a trade off, the fatality of the virus has plummeted at double digit multiples. It is my view that the impacts of lockdown and excessive restrictions will have more negative consequences than what we had in place prior to this second wave on society as a whole.

There's a reason why a large group of people aren't complying now, they don't fear the virus. The first wave had resonance because we saw the images from Lombardy and Madrid, people had a genuine fear that this could shoot fit and healthy people down. The data tends to point at this risk being remote, probably as remote as the flu which we live with every single winter.

i have, i am advocating lockdown again and in the absence of something better and as of now i am.not aware of what that would be another lockdown and another as needs require.

the alternative is herd immunity and i have already provided my reason for not purposing that course inclusing socio-economic reasons.

i have also mentioned that comparing restrictions/lockdown fataility rates with potential herd immunity fatality rates is not comparing like with like. i dont know how much early detection and how much better we are at treating covid is or if the strain has weakened but i think you can agree if hospitals get overwhelm, which they will with herd immunity, they are close with the last 7 months restrictions that more people will die.

you camnot compare the flu those rates are us nearly alwyas having capacity, having a vaccine and living pre covid lives.

if we lived pre covid lives now, how soon would the hosiptals get overwhelmed  and thr fatality rate start to increase!!

Who is mentioning pre-Covid lives?

I think we should have stuck with the way we were living after coming out of the first lockdown.

The bottom line is that people don't fear the virus now, if the problem is a compliance problem then more restrictions aren't going to help when compliance is the problem.

What % of cases requite hospitalisation since we have moved into the second wave. Why have governments not catered for this sufficiently particularly when you look at some of the money being thrown about, surely the health service is the thing that requires the most investment in the immediate term.

you have being comparing against the flu so i assumed you were at least trying im some way to like with like...

what we are doing  now is seeing the grow in numbers of people with covid to the point where lockdowns are being re introduced to prevent the hospitals being overwhelmed. It would be interesting to know what peoples opinions of covid in ireland are but i dont think you can make a sweeping statement like people dont fear the virus now....

the socio-economic impact of a situation where the hospitals are overwhelmed (we need to deal with what we got, not what health system we should have) would be way worst that rolling lockdowns. 

i am all for living with covid if the numbers can be kept low but from what we have seen that is not possible, there will come a point where we need to lockdown again to prevent hospitals beong overehelmed and other services being curtailed.

What I'm comparing with the flu is how we live with a virus that kills, causes massive health problems and puts the health system under immense pressure every single year without making any sort of societal or economic changes.

I don't think it's a case of keeping the numbers low, are the cases kept low for flu every winter? Not really.

It's a case of what sort of impact it will have? We are seeing signs now that the virus does not seem to be anywhere near as fatal as we may have initially thought it was.

one final time then i give up..

you are comparing the flu figures which has a vaccine, which is seasonal and which our hosiptals can nearly always cope with and everyone lived their "normal" pre covid lives.... to

we dont have a vaccine, its not seasonal and twice it has got close to overwhelming hosiptals and we have seriously changed the way we live our lifes.

to get even close to comparing the full consquences of covid and make at least a decent comparsion to the flu numbers we would need to go back to our lives pre covid and see how many die then.

However, we are not stupid and lockeddown as the level of death if we continued our normal routine would have been way higher than it was back in March/April..

can you compare the flu fatality rate with covid if there was no restrictions and we went about our lives as we did pre march?

There are 4 options that i can see

1. do nothing different...
2. herd immunity
3. live with covid (undefined but as close as i can figure you are suggesting)
4. lockdown to protect health service being overwhelm.if required.

what are the socio-economic and health implications of these?

We lockeddown as we nothing very little and experience ln other countries told us it protected the health system being overwhelmed.

3. we then tried to live with covid, but it hasnt worked despite the slow opening up and restrictions still on what we did pre covid, we imposed further restrictions and they dont appear to have worked either. You are proposing we continue with something similar to this when it hasnt worked, we are getting closer to an overwhelm healthcare system again and all the socio-economic and heath issues this would cause. you completing ignore this part, it appears only lockdown has a socio economic impact in your eyes.. which is wrong.

1. thousands would likely died
2. we cannot silo the vulnerable, we have tired during living with covid but have failed.

4. loxkdown if required - this is where we are now as living with covid didnt work imo. we didnt protect the vulnerbale, we didnt keep numbers down, we are going to overwhelm the healthcare system. As a result there will be socio econmic impacts which i havent ignored.

What have the effects of us living with Covid been?

As far as I've seen the fatality rate since we gradually reopened up was something like 0.4%. The average age of people who died is in their 80s, most with underlying health conditions so there's a lot of contention about what is really the cause of death here.

Look at what Slovakia are doing now, mass testing the entire nation in a very short space of time, grabbing the bull by the horns to see if they can deal with it. How do we know living with Covid didn't work? Are multiple lockdowns and potential of living in this state of flux long term a viable solution do you think because governments haven't shown us any other alternative yet.

before i can fully answer can u advice what level 1-5 would we be at? to get better sense i.e attendance at sports events, restrict movement between counties, opening hrs of pubs.

what happened since the last lockdown is we are gradually closing down again and numbers becoming unmanageable for the health system.. you appear to have trouble looking forward and seeing the trend or accept what the outcomes of an overwhelm health system are over the longer term.

it already clear the elderaly and vulnerable are expendable to you. no thoughts on menral health of their familes...

we know living with covid hasnt worked as we have had to further restrict, we couldnt protect nursing homes, numbers are increasing, health sytem under added pressure...

slovakia is interesting but it has its flaws.

you might have missed this with your spats with others.

you stilll have not provided detail on how you proposed to live with covid firstly, and secondly protect the health service from being overwhelmed causing all the issues  you keep claiming covid tunnel vision are denying. 

What evidence do you have that long term your approach(still undefined) will help all those you claim lockdown will hurt better than rolling lockdowns. do you not expect a socio-economic impact.

I have, multiple times - as we were before we came out of the first lockdown and went into the second lockdown.

Hospitals get overwhelmed by seasonal flus. Down south in particular, the basketcase health service down there regularly has 7/800 waiting on hospital trolleys during the flu season.

I have the same evidence that those who advocate for lockdown to quell Covid do. It's my opinion, we will find out in time.

There are plenty of data on domestic violence and the rise in it during lockdown, we know of the economic damage it has done, there are plenty of testimonies from people who have family members with mental of physical disabilities and how lockdown and restrictions have cut off support and made caring for these people more difficult not to mention the effect it has on these people. There are reports on the impact it can have on people's mental health etc so it's insane to ignore these factors.

At the minute we have 0.11% of active cases in ICU up north, it's something similar down south. At what point and I'm asking you this do we say that we need to stop focusing on Covid and start focusing on the repercussions of the decisions we are making to deal with Covid and the consequences of this?

Maybe you'll do me the courtesy of addressing that question?

as we were before we came out of the first lockdown is lockdown!!!!!

also between lockdown 1 and now there has been varying  degrees of restricts. what are you proposing????

i have never denied the implications of lockdown i still havent seen you show how your unclear approach effects them.

you are very selective with experts you accept and experts you dont.

.i dont know how many more times i can answer your question. we stop focusing on covid when the impact of covid stops the health system being overwhelmed cauaing untold damage to all those you are concerned about and those you are not like the elderly and vulnerable.

Captain Obvious

Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 19, 2020, 07:43:55 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 07:35:46 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 19, 2020, 12:54:33 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 02:05:10 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 01:50:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 01:38:21 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 18, 2020, 01:27:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2020, 12:51:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 17, 2020, 10:10:57 PM
Life can be very long, short is 38, the age a very good club mate of mine that died recently. Angelo, you are full of shit and a reincarnation of the WUM's we've had on here for years

The narrative of what you said is that its ok for people who are young, fit and healthy to die providing its not from Covid?

There are huge negative consequences of lockdowns and restrictions, we saw rises in cases of domestic violence during the first lockdown, mental health issues are almost certain to become a bigger issue with it, the economic issues it brings, the threat to people's livelihoods, jobs, ability to provide for their families, the social isolation people who live alone or elderly people feel.

At what point do we focus on the above? At what point do we look at the latest data and trends being reported on covid, a plumetting fatality, rate, the underlying health conditions the vast majority of people who die from it have, the median and mean age of those who die and what their life expectancy would be.

Some of you are so entrenched into your thinking that you are completely unwilling to look at the big picture?

I could be petty like you and say that you guys are happy to see domestic violence and suicide rise because of what you are are advocating.

you have provided no alternative that does not lead to the same or similar issues, all you provided was the unrealistic hope that people adhere to the guidance which it is clear they have not and therefore will not do.

you keep repeating the same questions over and over again without saying how any alternative you are suggesting would address them.

no one is saying there are no socio-economic challenges with lockdowns, i dont think anyone wants a lockdown but in the absence of a credible alternative which you havent provided most people see it as neccessary.

how we stop the same thing happening after these restrictions/lockdown is what needs to be dentified. I dont k ow what they are though. i hope a gradual opening of the socio-economic enviroment and adherance to guidance would work but it clearly hasnt.

Neither have you.

The same negative economic and societal issues will return now during lockdown and will probably return a worse effect.

It's a trade off, the fatality of the virus has plummeted at double digit multiples. It is my view that the impacts of lockdown and excessive restrictions will have more negative consequences than what we had in place prior to this second wave on society as a whole.

There's a reason why a large group of people aren't complying now, they don't fear the virus. The first wave had resonance because we saw the images from Lombardy and Madrid, people had a genuine fear that this could shoot fit and healthy people down. The data tends to point at this risk being remote, probably as remote as the flu which we live with every single winter.

i have, i am advocating lockdown again and in the absence of something better and as of now i am.not aware of what that would be another lockdown and another as needs require.

the alternative is herd immunity and i have already provided my reason for not purposing that course inclusing socio-economic reasons.

i have also mentioned that comparing restrictions/lockdown fataility rates with potential herd immunity fatality rates is not comparing like with like. i dont know how much early detection and how much better we are at treating covid is or if the strain has weakened but i think you can agree if hospitals get overwhelm, which they will with herd immunity, they are close with the last 7 months restrictions that more people will die.

you camnot compare the flu those rates are us nearly alwyas having capacity, having a vaccine and living pre covid lives.

if we lived pre covid lives now, how soon would the hosiptals get overwhelmed  and thr fatality rate start to increase!!

Who is mentioning pre-Covid lives?

I think we should have stuck with the way we were living after coming out of the first lockdown.

The bottom line is that people don't fear the virus now, if the problem is a compliance problem then more restrictions aren't going to help when compliance is the problem.

What % of cases requite hospitalisation since we have moved into the second wave. Why have governments not catered for this sufficiently particularly when you look at some of the money being thrown about, surely the health service is the thing that requires the most investment in the immediate term.

you have being comparing against the flu so i assumed you were at least trying im some way to like with like...

what we are doing  now is seeing the grow in numbers of people with covid to the point where lockdowns are being re introduced to prevent the hospitals being overwhelmed. It would be interesting to know what peoples opinions of covid in ireland are but i dont think you can make a sweeping statement like people dont fear the virus now....

the socio-economic impact of a situation where the hospitals are overwhelmed (we need to deal with what we got, not what health system we should have) would be way worst that rolling lockdowns. 

i am all for living with covid if the numbers can be kept low but from what we have seen that is not possible, there will come a point where we need to lockdown again to prevent hospitals beong overehelmed and other services being curtailed.

What I'm comparing with the flu is how we live with a virus that kills, causes massive health problems and puts the health system under immense pressure every single year without making any sort of societal or economic changes.

I don't think it's a case of keeping the numbers low, are the cases kept low for flu every winter? Not really.

It's a case of what sort of impact it will have? We are seeing signs now that the virus does not seem to be anywhere near as fatal as we may have initially thought it was.

one final time then i give up..

you are comparing the flu figures which has a vaccine, which is seasonal and which our hosiptals can nearly always cope with and everyone lived their "normal" pre covid lives.... to

we dont have a vaccine, its not seasonal and twice it has got close to overwhelming hosiptals and we have seriously changed the way we live our lifes.

to get even close to comparing the full consquences of covid and make at least a decent comparsion to the flu numbers we would need to go back to our lives pre covid and see how many die then.

However, we are not stupid and lockeddown as the level of death if we continued our normal routine would have been way higher than it was back in March/April..

can you compare the flu fatality rate with covid if there was no restrictions and we went about our lives as we did pre march?

There are 4 options that i can see

1. do nothing different...
2. herd immunity
3. live with covid (undefined but as close as i can figure you are suggesting)
4. lockdown to protect health service being overwhelm.if required.

what are the socio-economic and health implications of these?

We lockeddown as we nothing very little and experience ln other countries told us it protected the health system being overwhelmed.

3. we then tried to live with covid, but it hasnt worked despite the slow opening up and restrictions still on what we did pre covid, we imposed further restrictions and they dont appear to have worked either. You are proposing we continue with something similar to this when it hasnt worked, we are getting closer to an overwhelm healthcare system again and all the socio-economic and heath issues this would cause. you completing ignore this part, it appears only lockdown has a socio economic impact in your eyes.. which is wrong.

1. thousands would likely died
2. we cannot silo the vulnerable, we have tired during living with covid but have failed.

4. loxkdown if required - this is where we are now as living with covid didnt work imo. we didnt protect the vulnerbale, we didnt keep numbers down, we are going to overwhelm the healthcare system. As a result there will be socio econmic impacts which i havent ignored.

What have the effects of us living with Covid been?

As far as I've seen the fatality rate since we gradually reopened up was something like 0.4%. The average age of people who died is in their 80s, most with underlying health conditions so there's a lot of contention about what is really the cause of death here.

Look at what Slovakia are doing now, mass testing the entire nation in a very short space of time, grabbing the bull by the horns to see if they can deal with it. How do we know living with Covid didn't work? Are multiple lockdowns and potential of living in this state of flux long term a viable solution do you think because governments haven't shown us any other alternative yet.

before i can fully answer can u advice what level 1-5 would we be at? to get better sense i.e attendance at sports events, restrict movement between counties, opening hrs of pubs.

what happened since the last lockdown is we are gradually closing down again and numbers becoming unmanageable for the health system.. you appear to have trouble looking forward and seeing the trend or accept what the outcomes of an overwhelm health system are over the longer term.

it already clear the elderaly and vulnerable are expendable to you. no thoughts on menral health of their familes...

we know living with covid hasnt worked as we have had to further restrict, we couldnt protect nursing homes, numbers are increasing, health sytem under added pressure...

slovakia is interesting but it has its flaws.

you might have missed this with your spats with others.

you stilll have not provided detail on how you proposed to live with covid firstly, and secondly protect the health service from being overwhelmed causing all the issues  you keep claiming covid tunnel vision are denying. 

What evidence do you have that long term your approach(still undefined) will help all those you claim lockdown will hurt better than rolling lockdowns. do you not expect a socio-economic impact.

I have, multiple times - as we were before we came out of the first lockdown and went into the second lockdown.

Hospitals get overwhelmed by seasonal flus. Down south in particular, the basketcase health service down there regularly has 7/800 waiting on hospital trolleys during the flu season.

I have the same evidence that those who advocate for lockdown to quell Covid do. It's my opinion, we will find out in time.

There are plenty of data on domestic violence and the rise in it during lockdown, we know of the economic damage it has done, there are plenty of testimonies from people who have family members with mental of physical disabilities and how lockdown and restrictions have cut off support and made caring for these people more difficult not to mention the effect it has on these people. There are reports on the impact it can have on people's mental health etc so it's insane to ignore these factors.

At the minute we have 0.11% of active cases in ICU up north, it's something similar down south. At what point and I'm asking you this do we say that we need to stop focusing on Covid and start focusing on the repercussions of the decisions we are making to deal with Covid and the consequences of this?

Maybe you'll do me the courtesy of addressing that question?

as we were before we came out of the first lockdown is lockdown!!!!!

also between lockdown 1 and now there has been varying  degrees of restricts. what are you proposing????

i have never denied the implications of lockdown i still havent seen you show how your unclear approach effects them.

you are very selective with experts you accept and experts you dont.

.i dont know how many more times i can answer your question. we stop focusing on covid when the impact of covid stops the health system being overwhelmed cauaing untold damage to all those you are concerned about and those you are not like the elderly and vulnerable.

That's a lot of quoting lads.

PadraicHenryPearse

it is, still havent got a straight answer either.. :'(

RadioGAAGAA

Quote from: Angelo on October 19, 2020, 05:06:57 PM
Those people with Covid tunnel vision have absolutely no interest in looking at the consequences of using lockdowns and restrictions to fight it, maybe you should look at the bigger picture for once.

Current case fatality rate here is 4% (time weighted for day of contraction).

I was going to say that is overly pessimistic and take 1% instead. But, if we followed your course (which you don't outline, but the assumption must be that it is light touch), then the health services would collapse and you would see 4% as a minimum death rate over the long term

Then with your world of minimal restrictions, how many get the virus? Half the population before herd immunity effects kick in? (Half being optimistic, usual thought train is around 70% of populace needs to be immune.)

So, half the population of the north is 1.8 million. Half of that is 900k. 4% of that is 36k people.

In 2018, 15,922 people died in the north. You are advocating doubling the annual death rate in response to worries over intangible forecasts elsewhere.


Big picture? You don't have a f**king clue. Not surprising the man that cannot grasp the difference between fractions and percentages cannot play with big numbers.
i usse an speelchekor

Milltown Row2

Getting the popcorn ready for the next response
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Itchy

I don't believe level 5 or level 6 or level 47 will make a blind bit of difference at this stage. There is no enforcement of level 2 or level 3. What happens after 6 weeks with no improvement?

PadraicHenryPearse

Quote from: Itchy on October 19, 2020, 08:43:31 PM
I don't believe level 5 or level 6 or level 47 will make a blind bit of difference at this stage. There is no enforcement of level 2 or level 3. What happens after 6 weeks with no improvement?

now thats a topic worthy of discussion. what is possible after lockdown to help keep covid under control if anything. Doing the same is very very unlikely to work and maybe expecting social behaviour to change enough is also unlikely... anyone any ideas?


Milltown Row2

Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 08:54:07 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 19, 2020, 08:43:31 PM
I don't believe level 5 or level 6 or level 47 will make a blind bit of difference at this stage. There is no enforcement of level 2 or level 3. What happens after 6 weeks with no improvement?

now thats a topic worthy of discussion. what is possible after lockdown to help keep covid under control if anything. Doing the same is very very unlikely to work and maybe expecting social behaviour to change enough is also unlikely... anyone any ideas?

Enforce the rules?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Cunny Funt

#8922
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 08:54:07 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 19, 2020, 08:43:31 PM
I don't believe level 5 or level 6 or level 47 will make a blind bit of difference at this stage. There is no enforcement of level 2 or level 3. What happens after 6 weeks with no improvement?

now thats a topic worthy of discussion. what is possible after lockdown to help keep covid under control if anything. Doing the same is very very unlikely to work and maybe expecting social behaviour to change enough is also unlikely... anyone any ideas?

The Wuhan strategy.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/chinas-coronavirus-lockdown-strategy-brutal-but-effective

Itchy

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 19, 2020, 08:57:16 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 08:54:07 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 19, 2020, 08:43:31 PM
I don't believe level 5 or level 6 or level 47 will make a blind bit of difference at this stage. There is no enforcement of level 2 or level 3. What happens after 6 weeks with no improvement?

now thats a topic worthy of discussion. what is possible after lockdown to help keep covid under control if anything. Doing the same is very very unlikely to work and maybe expecting social behaviour to change enough is also unlikely... anyone any ideas?

Enforce the rules?

It seems we are not capable of that. Saturday after Saturday gangs of fuckwits protest in dublin in full view of gardai who do nothing.

PadraicHenryPearse

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 19, 2020, 08:57:16 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on October 19, 2020, 08:54:07 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 19, 2020, 08:43:31 PM
I don't believe level 5 or level 6 or level 47 will make a blind bit of difference at this stage. There is no enforcement of level 2 or level 3. What happens after 6 weeks with no improvement?

now thats a topic worthy of discussion. what is possible after lockdown to help keep covid under control if anything. Doing the same is very very unlikely to work and maybe expecting social behaviour to change enough is also unlikely... anyone any ideas?

Enforce the rules?

not sure we are capable as a society of following the rules and not possible to enforce but we could do better  but not sure we would not be back in the same place agianst though.

logistically i dont think we could do a wuhan