China Coronavirus

[Franko]

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.

YOU proved this to be wrong YOURSELF a few days ago.  (If you want me to re-post it, I will - but it was an absolute redner moment for you, so I'm sure you remember)

The fact that you keep repeating it shows that you are either a wilful liar or dangerously stupid.

Any posts you make here should be read with this in mind.

Incorrect. The fatality rates in the 2nd wave of Covid are currently much lower in the 26 than they were in the 2017/18 seasonal flu.

It will be interesting to see how they hold up. I think it was you who was making completely unfounded claims about a novel virus that you know nothing about. I can post that up to remind people that you shouldn't be listened to.

My only claim was that it is worse than the flu.

Thankfully, you detailed out a lovely (albeit mathematically flawed) example, drawn from your own extensive knowledge on the subject matter, which proved it to be correct.

And like I said, the fact that you keep repeating this means you are either;

1. A liar
2. Thick as champ
3. Both of the above

Your claim was something you haven't the foggiest idea about.

I pointed out the data from the second wave which contradicts your idiocy. Stupidity and arrogance and dangerous bedfellows and you are a prime example of that.

You posted the numbers.  Not some 'scientist', not me, YOU.

The numbers clearly proved that Covid killed as many people in 10 weeks as flu had in a year.

So which bracket are you in?

1. A liar
2. Thick as champ
3. Both of the above

[Angelo]

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.

YOU proved this to be wrong YOURSELF a few days ago.  (If you want me to re-post it, I will - but it was an absolute redner moment for you, so I'm sure you remember)

The fact that you keep repeating it shows that you are either a wilful liar or dangerously stupid.

Any posts you make here should be read with this in mind.

Incorrect. The fatality rates in the 2nd wave of Covid are currently much lower in the 26 than they were in the 2017/18 seasonal flu.

It will be interesting to see how they hold up. I think it was you who was making completely unfounded claims about a novel virus that you know nothing about. I can post that up to remind people that you shouldn't be listened to.

My only claim was that it is worse than the flu.

Thankfully, you detailed out a lovely (albeit mathematically flawed) example, drawn from your own extensive knowledge on the subject matter, which proved it to be correct.

And like I said, the fact that you keep repeating this means you are either;

1. A liar
2. Thick as champ
3. Both of the above

Your claim was something you haven't the foggiest idea about.

I pointed out the data from the second wave which contradicts your idiocy. Stupidity and arrogance and dangerous bedfellows and you are a prime example of that.

You posted the numbers.  Not some 'scientist', not me, YOU.

The numbers clearly proved that Covid killed as many people in 10 weeks as flu had in a year.

So which bracket are you in?

1. A liar
2. Thick as champ
3. Both of the above

So the numbers who die from flu every year are completely acceptable to you?

That's interesting as the fatality rate of Covid is coming very much in line with flu in this second wave. In fact in the 26, the fatality rate of Covid is significant lower than flu during this second wave.

I just find it odd the people who are so precious about the dangers of Covid don't seem to care a jot about the people who lose their lives from flu on an annual basis.

[RedHand88]

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.

YOU proved this to be wrong YOURSELF a few days ago.  (If you want me to re-post it, I will - but it was an absolute redner moment for you, so I'm sure you remember)

The fact that you keep repeating it shows that you are either a wilful liar or dangerously stupid.

Any posts you make here should be read with this in mind.

Incorrect. The fatality rates in the 2nd wave of Covid are currently much lower in the 26 than they were in the 2017/18 seasonal flu.

It will be interesting to see how they hold up. I think it was you who was making completely unfounded claims about a novel virus that you know nothing about. I can post that up to remind people that you shouldn't be listened to.

My only claim was that it is worse than the flu.

Thankfully, you detailed out a lovely (albeit mathematically flawed) example, drawn from your own extensive knowledge on the subject matter, which proved it to be correct.

And like I said, the fact that you keep repeating this means you are either;

1. A liar
2. Thick as champ
3. Both of the above

Your claim was something you haven't the foggiest idea about.

I pointed out the data from the second wave which contradicts your idiocy. Stupidity and arrogance and dangerous bedfellows and you are a prime example of that.

You posted the numbers.  Not some 'scientist', not me, YOU.

The numbers clearly proved that Covid killed as many people in 10 weeks as flu had in a year.

So which bracket are you in?

1. A liar
2. Thick as champ
3. Both of the above

So the numbers who die from flu every year are completely acceptable to you?

That's interesting as the fatality rate of Covid is coming very much in line with flu in this second wave. In fact in the 26, the fatality rate of Covid is significant lower than flu during this second wave.

I just find it odd the people who are so precious about the dangers of Covid don't seem to care a jot about the people who lose their lives from flu on an annual basis.

Of course we care, thats why there's a massive vaccination program every autumn (currently ongoing). Unfortunately there is no COVID vaccine yet, so we have to take the measures until such times that there is.

The argument that Covid-19 is not to be taken seriously really is ridiculous and one which has been proven wrong a long time ago.

[Angelo]

Of course we care, thats why there's a massive vaccination program every autumn (currently ongoing). Unfortunately there is no COVID vaccine yet, so we have to take the measures until such times that there is.

The argument that Covid-19 is not to be taken seriously really is ridiculous and one which has been proven wrong a long time ago.

Who is saying it's not to be taken seriously?

People seem to getting Covid tunnel vision though and they cannot see the woods from the trees.

The fact is that introducing a second lockdown, excessive restrictions and potential future lockdowns on the line to fight Covid is going to cause more damage than good down the line should not be conflated with saying that Covid shouldn't be taken seriously.

And that's what so many people are losing sight of.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

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.

[Angelo]

How can you know it will cause more damage than good?

How can you know it won't?

[imtommygunn]

#angelofact

[Angelo]

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.

[Angelo]

How can you know it will cause more damage than good?

How can you know it won't?

You've stated it as a "fact". I haven't.

Poor choice of wording, my opinion would be it will.

We don't know though but with the current data that's coming through all across Europe on how the fatality rate is dropping in double digit multiples I think this course of action is excessive and will do more damage than good.

People are completely consumed by Covid fear and ignoring the damages of the measures being taken to curb it.

Is there a focus on domestic violence incidents seeing a 50% increase during lockdown? What if 2 years down the line we see an increase in suicides in 2020 by 80%? These things aren't going to be established for years down the line and when we have that information at hand it could be increasingly obvious that lockdowns caused more harm on a societal whole than Covid did or would have.

[Franko]

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.

YOU proved this to be wrong YOURSELF a few days ago.  (If you want me to re-post it, I will - but it was an absolute redner moment for you, so I'm sure you remember)

The fact that you keep repeating it shows that you are either a wilful liar or dangerously stupid.

Any posts you make here should be read with this in mind.

Incorrect. The fatality rates in the 2nd wave of Covid are currently much lower in the 26 than they were in the 2017/18 seasonal flu.

It will be interesting to see how they hold up. I think it was you who was making completely unfounded claims about a novel virus that you know nothing about. I can post that up to remind people that you shouldn't be listened to.

My only claim was that it is worse than the flu.

Thankfully, you detailed out a lovely (albeit mathematically flawed) example, drawn from your own extensive knowledge on the subject matter, which proved it to be correct.

And like I said, the fact that you keep repeating this means you are either;

1. A liar
2. Thick as champ
3. Both of the above

Your claim was something you haven't the foggiest idea about.

I pointed out the data from the second wave which contradicts your idiocy. Stupidity and arrogance and dangerous bedfellows and you are a prime example of that.

You posted the numbers.  Not some 'scientist', not me, YOU.

The numbers clearly proved that Covid killed as many people in 10 weeks as flu had in a year.

So which bracket are you in?

1. A liar
2. Thick as champ
3. Both of the above

So the numbers who die from flu every year are completely acceptable to you?

That's interesting as the fatality rate of Covid is coming very much in line with flu in this second wave. In fact in the 26, the fatality rate of Covid is significant lower than flu during this second wave.

I just find it odd the people who are so precious about the dangers of Covid don't seem to care a jot about the people who lose their lives from flu on an annual basis.

Straw man
Move goalposts
Fatality rate
Fatality rate
Straw man

Option 3 it is then.

[johnnycool]

Going really simple on this one, the ICU bed situation is not really the result of a Covid problem, it's cut upon cut upon cut to the NHS over many years / decades. Nobody was prepared for something like this I suppose.

The simple answer is create more ICU units, is it not? But with regards to how long that would take / staff. I have no idea.

As previously pointed out, the Chinese threw a hospital up in days. It can be done, if they want to. There is still a host of Cuban doctors and nurses going around the world helping out in the hot spots, these people are there if they are truly wanted.

Sure we'll get JCB and McClaren to rattle up a few ventilators in their spare time.

The reality is there's X number of ICU beds in the here and now and it'll take years for specialist doctors and nurses to be trained up to be able to function in that environment. It normally takes one specialist ICU nurse per bed, 24 hours a day let alone the number of specialist doctors in there as well.

So, yes the NHS has been underfunded for years and in the case of the wee six badly mismanaged for decades and wee Robin isn't going to be able to solve that anytime soon so what can he do but try and mitigate the losses and body count as best he can.
Yes, the treatments seem to have improved but we're still seeing the ICU's filling up rather quickly in the last number of days and with the lag in this disease that trend will in all likelihood increase for the next week or so.

It's far from ideal, but are you prepared to sacrifice your vulnerable family members to keep the pubs open?

This sort of bullshit "to keep the pubs open".

It's not about pubs, what about elderly people who live alone who now live their last few years of their lives in fear, isolation, afraid to open the door. People whose only real social outlet might have been mass on a Sunday morning or a few pints on Fri/Sat night or a bingo night etc? What sort of quality of life is that for them? What about all the youths who should be living life carefree as every generation before them was able to at that generation? What about people who lose their jobs and livelihoods? What about other services and supports for the vulnerable in our society which have been cut and stopped as a result of Covid tunnel vision. Recovering addicts and the likes who no longer have their support systems in place, people with mental health problems who have their support systems interfered with, people with physical and mental disabilities who no longer can get the support and treatment they would in normal circumstances?

The negative impacts of lockdowns and restrictions have absolutely enormous far-reaching consequences for the whole population so at which point are we actually going to look at Covid and say the extent at which we have become consumed by trying to fight it has been counter-productive?

All those points are valid, but are you prepared to lose an elderly parent or relation in the pursuit of it?

Simple question really.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

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.

[Angelo]

Going really simple on this one, the ICU bed situation is not really the result of a Covid problem, it's cut upon cut upon cut to the NHS over many years / decades. Nobody was prepared for something like this I suppose.

The simple answer is create more ICU units, is it not? But with regards to how long that would take / staff. I have no idea.

As previously pointed out, the Chinese threw a hospital up in days. It can be done, if they want to. There is still a host of Cuban doctors and nurses going around the world helping out in the hot spots, these people are there if they are truly wanted.

Sure we'll get JCB and McClaren to rattle up a few ventilators in their spare time.

The reality is there's X number of ICU beds in the here and now and it'll take years for specialist doctors and nurses to be trained up to be able to function in that environment. It normally takes one specialist ICU nurse per bed, 24 hours a day let alone the number of specialist doctors in there as well.

So, yes the NHS has been underfunded for years and in the case of the wee six badly mismanaged for decades and wee Robin isn't going to be able to solve that anytime soon so what can he do but try and mitigate the losses and body count as best he can.
Yes, the treatments seem to have improved but we're still seeing the ICU's filling up rather quickly in the last number of days and with the lag in this disease that trend will in all likelihood increase for the next week or so.

It's far from ideal, but are you prepared to sacrifice your vulnerable family members to keep the pubs open?

This sort of bullshit "to keep the pubs open".

It's not about pubs, what about elderly people who live alone who now live their last few years of their lives in fear, isolation, afraid to open the door. People whose only real social outlet might have been mass on a Sunday morning or a few pints on Fri/Sat night or a bingo night etc? What sort of quality of life is that for them? What about all the youths who should be living life carefree as every generation before them was able to at that generation? What about people who lose their jobs and livelihoods? What about other services and supports for the vulnerable in our society which have been cut and stopped as a result of Covid tunnel vision. Recovering addicts and the likes who no longer have their support systems in place, people with mental health problems who have their support systems interfered with, people with physical and mental disabilities who no longer can get the support and treatment they would in normal circumstances?

The negative impacts of lockdowns and restrictions have absolutely enormous far-reaching consequences for the whole population so at which point are we actually going to look at Covid and say the extent at which we have become consumed by trying to fight it has been counter-productive?

All those points are valid, but are you prepared to lose an elderly parent or relation in the pursuit of it?

Simple question really.

Whatever is the greater good.

It's like asking would you be prepared to lose a younger relative to suicide in pursuit of driving Covid down or lose your job and livelihood etc?

The more and more data we get on Covid does seem to downplay it and I think you can see that the general public are growingly losing their fear factor with the virus which is why it's on the rise. If people feared it would they be taking risks that allow them to catch or spread it? Why don't they fear it?

[imtommygunn]

It is not remotely like asking that at all.

[Angelo]

It is not remotely like asking that at all.

Not true.

We are dealing in hypotheticals here, nobody know but it is clear that people are losing sight of the bigger picture when it comes to Covid.

If the fatality rate is dropping so rapidly across Europe why are we creating so many societal and economic consequences in our bid to combat Covid.

People cannot see outside of the Covid bubble.