Masks

MadYaker

Yes: surgical

is_that_so wrote: »

You're not looking hard enough: two seconds it took me!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/global-report-china-reports-biggest-covid-19-surge-in-months-as-australia-sets-new-infections-record

That's from the 27th July, those restrictions are not still in place, apart from the mask wearing. Some festivals have been cancelled and visits to nursing homes appear to be restricted but apart from that I think its just masks. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3098483/hong-kong-expecting-26-new-covid-19-cases

And lots and lots of testing.

3xh

MadYaker wrote: »

I'm sorry but anyone who listens to tubridy for any reason is an idiot so there's no point in them listening to NPHET anyway because they won't understand what's being said.

Like in the last paragraph. Thinking that the only reason cases have increased is because we are doing more testing shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Loads of people take really a simplistic view of something that's actually fairly complicated.

We agree on Tubridy then.

People listening to him being idiots etc is one thing yet their views and opinions on not flying and vilifying those who do, needing to wear a mask nearly everywhere, quarantining yourself for 2 weeks upon return from abroad, ban all tourists, close bars, etc. all get amplified and spouted in public arenas like here, radio chat shows, letters to the editor, WhatsApp groups and so on.

It then becomes the norm, the consensus. People on the fence or easily influenced regurgitate it for fear of offending with an alternative view.

And the Government picks up on it and acts accordingly.

I’m intrigued about your last point though regarding increased cases and increased testing.
You’re hardly saying published positive case numbers are up because actual positive case numbers are up only? Doing more testing will eventually find more cases. That is a fact.

Consider this; we could have 5000 true, actual cases in Ireland and find 200 of them.
The next week we could have 3000 true, actual cases and find 400 of them. Yet the second example will be sold as a doomsday 100% increase in cases, time to shut down the economy again.

My point is, the aforementioned biased media only ‘emphasise’ the positive case number itself and not explain further to the masses how going from say, 100 positives from 3,000 tests last week to 200 positives from 13,000 tests this week is not so bad. Yes, of course, I want zero. Ultimately.

But those figures can be shown and suggested by media to mean many things. The likes of RTÉ would allude to the ‘100% increase in people testing positive for coronavirus in the past week’ to scare the daylights out of people who can’t decipher stats.

Yet it’s taken a >4-fold increase in testing to double the positive cases. That is a significant fact that is often left in the shadows.

dwayneshintzy

Yes: to protect myself and others

MadYaker wrote: »

That's from the 27th July, those restrictions are not still in place, apart from the mask wearing. Some festivals have been cancelled and visits to nursing homes appear to be restricted but apart from that I think its just masks. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3098483/hong-kong-expecting-26-new-covid-19-cases

And lots and lots of testing.

Since the start of July things have started to be restricted, actually. There was a 28 day period of 0 local infections going into July; restaurant restrictions had been totally lifted, cinemas opened, public sports pitches opened, schools back, etc. However, since the new outbreak at the start of July restaurants have been limited to seatings of 4 (and then 2), public areas (beaches, pitches, etc) have been closed, students aren't going in to school and mask usage has been mandated outdoors (including for exercise). Those restriction re-introduced at the start of July haven't yet been lifted.

is_that_so

No: other

MadYaker wrote: »

That's from the 27th July, those restrictions are not still in place, apart from the mask wearing. Some festivals have been cancelled and visits to nursing homes appear to be restricted but apart from that I think its just masks. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3098483/hong-kong-expecting-26-new-covid-19-cases

And lots and lots of testing.

Sigh. No issue being challenged but at least know what you're talking about and do the Google stuff yourself! It's really not that hard.

Restrictions including a ban on dining at restaurants from 6pm and the mandating of masks in all outdoor public areas are set to remain in force for a further seven days until August 25, the government said in a statement on Monday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hongkong/hong-kong-records-44-new-coronavirus-cases-as-social-distancing-restrictions-extended-idUSKCN25D0WR

Sconsey

No: other

GT89 wrote: »

If you are expected another 30 years then you are probably not gonna die of covid. Nearly everyone who died of cv19 were in their 80s which is same as the life expectancy in Ireland so it's hardly like they all had 30 years to live. Can't read your article as it's behind a paywall btw and I don't trust the msm anyway.

So we say once someone hits 80 they are a lost cause, good riddance to them. It doesn't suit your lifestyle to make a really small effort to support them. Occasionally wearing a mask is that big of an imposition to you. Thanks God you are in the vast minority.

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

Good news about masks

https://www.ecowatch.com/cloth-masks-2647029510.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

gozunda

Yes: surgical

GT89 wrote: »

If you are expected another 30 years then you are probably not gonna die of covid. Nearly everyone who died of cv19 were in their 80s which is same as the life expectancy in Ireland so it's hardly like they all had 30 years to live. Can't read your article as it's behind a paywall btw and I don't trust the msm anyway.

Is that so? "Nearly everyone"?Jaysus!

I don't think you've a great grasp of statistics or logic tbh

Let's look at those stats properly and refrain from making things up Ok?

From the Health Protection Surveillance Centre

"Number of deaths in all COVID-19 cases by sex and age group notified in Ireland up to midnight
16/08/2020"

The attached table shows that 44.96% of deaths due to Covid were in the the 85+ yrs age bracket.

That means that 55.04% of all deaths due to Covid occured in people under 85 years of age.

It is true that risk of death rises with age - but it is also true to say that death due to Covid can occur at any age.

That's the nasty thing about this pandemic - there are no guarantees of outcomes on the individual level.

It remains for each of us - as they say in the movies "Hope you stay lucky punk"

Additional: Not forgetting that "Death" is not the only health related risk from contracting Covid19.

For Any individual who contracts Covid - there is a now a recognised and significant risk of developing a range of serious medical complications. Look it up and "long term Covid" if you are unfamiliar with these issues.

Jim_Hodge

Yes: homemade

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Good news about masks

https://www.ecowatch.com/cloth-masks-2647029510.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

Viral load has been a known factor since March. It's the biggest argument for the use of masks.

i_surge

patnor1011 wrote: »

Nope. There are countries without restrictions and with very few people wearing masks for quite some time already. No "wildfire spread" over there. It will not be different here too.


If this is "highly contagious killer" so is common cold or flu. The masks serve as a constant reminder of wrong policy being applied. It has more to do with saving faces of people who threw us under the bus instead of doing something meaningful on this one.

What like Brazil? They were on track for a top 5 deaths per capita last i checked, just about to outdo the uk for bad leadership.

Jim_Hodge

Yes: homemade

Sconsey wrote: »

So we say once someone hits 80 they are a lost cause, good riddance to them. It doesn't suit your lifestyle to make a really small effort to support them. Occasionally wearing a mask is that big of an imposition to you. Thanks God you are in the vast minority.

I wouldn't think he's in anything but a minority of one. This can't be anything but a wind up. Others have half decent arguments against masks, some have genuine health reasons, but he's just trying to rile or having a laugh. Nobody could be so deluded or heartless in real life.

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

Viral load has been a known factor since March. It's the biggest argument for the use of masks.

Well, clearly some people are missing this and needs to read it.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

gozunda wrote: »

Is that so? "Nearly everyone"?Jaysus!

I don't think you've a great grasp of statistics or logic tbh

Let's look at those stats properly and refrain from making things up Ok?

From the Health Protection Surveillance Centre

"Number of deaths in all COVID-19 cases by sex and age group notified in Ireland up to midnight
16/08/2020"

The attached table shows that 44.96% of deaths due to Covid were in the the 85+ yrs age bracket.

That means that 55.04% of all deaths due to Covid occured in people under 85 years of age.

It is true that risk of death rises with age - but it is also true to say that death due to Covid can occur at any age.

That's the nasty thing about this pandemic - there are no guarantees of outcomes on the individual level.

It remains for each of us - as they say in the movies "Hope you stay lucky punk"

Interesting stat. I would like to know how many of those who died had two or more underlying conditions and how many actually died OF COVID-19. I think those stats are absolutely essential as how to deal with this going forward.

i_surge

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Interesting stat. I would like to know how many of those who died had two or more underlying conditions and how many actually died OF COVID-19. I think those stats are absolutely essential as how to deal with this going forward.

The died "of" covid is such a red herring that antimask fools cling to for dear life trying to pretend it is more than a marginal error in the death count.

Newsflash, all the stats are rife with error due to different methodologies of collection but if you zoom out they paint a very clear picture.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

i_surge wrote: »

The died "of" covid is such a red herring that antimask fools cling to for dear life trying to pretend it is more than a marginal error in the death count.

Newsflash, all the stats are rife with error due to different methodologies of collection but if you zoom out they paint a very clear picture.

That’s a pretty hostile post for a question.... And it’s not really a red herring of a question given we’ve already knocked 600 deaths off that list. I’d like to see a better breakdown of the stats.

I guess someone else might answer.

i_surge

Hunky Monster wrote: »

That’s a pretty hostile post for a question.... And it’s not really a red herring of a question given we’ve already knocked 600 deaths off that list. I’d like to see a better breakdown of the stats.

I guess someone else might answer.

It is a red herring in the scheme of things.

Tell me how is relevant?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

i_surge wrote: »

It is a red herring in the scheme of things.

Tell me how is relevant?

Tell me how it’s not relevant?

i_surge

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Tell me how it’s not relevant?

I won't be playing that game

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

i_surge wrote: »

I won't be playing that game

So a friend of a friend had terminal cancer, he died a few weeks ago, I didn’t know the man but apparently he died and tested positive for covid after the fact.

That’s just one example where it wasn’t a factor.

I would like to know how many of those there are amongst those stats. How many had days/weeks to live and tested positive after. How many were simply just too old to fight this (like influenza or pneumonia)

I don’t think that’s a wild question to ask and I’ve no idea why it triggers you so much.

i_surge

Hunky Monster wrote: »

So a friend of a friend had terminal cancer, he died a few weeks ago, I didn’t know the man but apparently he died and tested positive for covid after the fact.

That’s just one example where it wasn’t a factor.

I would like to know how many of those there are amongst those stats. How many had days/weeks to live and tested positive after. How many were simply just too old to fight this (like influenza or pneumonia)

I don’t think that’s a wild question to ask and I’ve no idea why it triggers you so much.

Are you using it to support an anti-mask or anti-police state argument?

I'm a bit weary dealing with that stupidity and sorry if that doesn't include you. If it does, no apology

odyssey06

Hunky Monster wrote: »

So a friend of a friend had terminal cancer, he died a few weeks ago, I didn’t know the man but apparently he died and tested positive for covid after the fact.
That’s just one example where it wasn’t a factor.
I would like to know how many of those there are amongst those stats. How many had days/weeks to live and tested positive after. How many were simply just too old to fight this (like influenza or pneumonia)
I don’t think that’s a wild question to ask and I’ve no idea why it triggers you so much.

The question has already been asked and answered as best as we can using excess mortality figures there is 1200-1300 increase.
Nursing homes have a pretty good idea of how many residents they lose per month... there were clear spikes.
You seem to be aware of this already from earlier posts on the subject and therefore re-raising it on this thread is just obfuscation.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

i_surge wrote: »

Are you using it to support an anti-mask or anti-police state argument?

I'm a bit weary dealing with that stupidity and sorry if that doesn't include you. If it does, no apology

It’s just a question. You’re not able to answer as it’s not in the stats you showed but it does show a lot of people over 70 dying. It would be nice to know.

Zaph

GT89 wrote: »

If you are expected another 30 years then you are probably not gonna die of covid.

True, but at the same time Covid isn't factored into those statistical models, it's a bit of a spanner in the works. So would you be happy if you or one of your loved ones who you could reasonably expect to be around for another 30-odd years had their life cut short because of this new virus?

GT89 wrote: »

Nearly everyone who died of cv19 were in their 80s which is same as the life expectancy in Ireland so it's hardly like they all had 30 years to live.

As has already been pointed out by another poster, a significant number of those who died were not in their 80s. People in their 20s and children have died from it. Statistically the mortality rate increases with age, but that's the same for pretty much every illness. It doesn't mean that younger people don't die from those illnesses either. Ireland has the 4th highest prevalence of asthma in the world. I am one of 380,000 asthmatics in the country, that's one in thirteen of the population. One in five children develop it at some stage, but most grow out of it. Now imagine if you had a kid with asthma, you'd do everything you possibly could to keep them safe, right? Because let's face it, an airborne pathogen that attacks the lungs is not going to be any fun for an asthmatic. And how can you minimise the chances of your kid, or me, or any other asthmatic from becoming infected? Well a simple mask seems like a pretty good start don't you think? It probably won't be 100% effective, but short of living in a plastic bubble I'd imagine nothing is. But it will improve a person's chances of not contracting it, and that's the best any of us can hope for. And I'm only using asthma as an example, there are plenty of people with COPD, diabetes, various immunocompromised conditions, etc. in the same boat. Is it too much to ask that people aren't so selfish and that they wear a mask for the benefit of those who are more vulnerable than them? Do you think I enjoy wearing a mask? Of course I don't, it can get hot and it makes my glasses fog up something rotten, but at the same time it's a relatively minor inconvenience considering what the alternative could be.

GT89 wrote: »

Can't read your article as it's behind a paywall btw and I don't trust the msm anyway.

It's not behind a paywall, so that suggests you've already used up your allocation of free articles in the Irish Times this week. But notwithstanding that, perhaps you could tell me what the IT has to gain from recounting one woman's experience of her post-Covid recovery?

MadYaker

Yes: surgical

3xh wrote: »

We agree on Tubridy then.

People listening to him being idiots etc is one thing yet their views and opinions on not flying and vilifying those who do, needing to wear a mask nearly everywhere, quarantining yourself for 2 weeks upon return from abroad, ban all tourists, close bars, etc. all get amplified and spouted in public arenas like here, radio chat shows, letters to the editor, WhatsApp groups and so on.

It then becomes the norm, the consensus. People on the fence or easily influenced regurgitate it for fear of offending with an alternative view.

And the Government picks up on it and acts accordingly.

I’m intrigued about your last point though regarding increased cases and increased testing.
You’re hardly saying published positive case numbers are up because actual positive case numbers are up only? Doing more testing will eventually find more cases. That is a fact.

Consider this; we could have 5000 true, actual cases in Ireland and find 200 of them.
The next week we could have 3000 true, actual cases and find 400 of them. Yet the second example will be sold as a doomsday 100% increase in cases, time to shut down the economy again.

My point is, the aforementioned biased media only ‘emphasise’ the positive case number itself and not explain further to the masses how going from say, 100 positives from 3,000 tests last week to 200 positives from 13,000 tests this week is not so bad. Yes, of course, I want zero. Ultimately.

But those figures can be shown and suggested by media to mean many things. The likes of RTÉ would allude to the ‘100% increase in people testing positive for coronavirus in the past week’ to scare the daylights out of people who can’t decipher stats.

Yet it’s taken a >4-fold increase in testing to double the positive cases. That is a significant fact that is often left in the shadows.

The % of tests coming back positive has increased also. That points to an increase in community transmission. I struggle to see what point you are making here. Are you saying community transmission hasn't increased at all and it's all down to more testing?

3xh

MadYaker wrote: »

The % of tests coming back positive has increased also. That points to an increase in community transmission. I struggle to see what point you are making here. Are you saying community transmission hasn't increased at all and it's all down to more testing?

So the % of tests coming back positive has increased. As have the actual number of tests carried out. So I’d ask; are they in line?!

This is the thing with stats and is exactly my point above in how certain groupings/sides twist and portray certain figures a certain way.

If the % ‘hit’ has increased by say, 5% (in other words from 100 cases one week to 105 cases the next week) but tests carried out increased by 100% (in other words from 6,000 to 12,000), I wouldn’t be so concerned, no. Especially if the increase in cases (community transmission or otherwise) is a few weeks after sectors of the economy are opened up.

I just feel people immediately latch on to any increase they hear. They can’t think critically and just swallow the big doomsday headline ‘increase’ they hear from RTÉ and such.

gozunda

Yes: surgical

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Interesting stat. I would like to know how many of those who died had two or more underlying conditions and how many actually died OF COVID-19. I think those stats are absolutely essential as how to deal with this going forward.

First thing is correlation does not imply causation
However let's run with that

Take two very common listed comorbidities of Covid19. And for argument sake lets take hypertension (high blood pressure) and smoking.

Hypertension

For 2020 it has been estimated that the number of adults aged 45+ years with hypertension (high blood pressure) is 1220,000. Ie 63.1%

(This figure includes stats for both clinically diagnosed and estimates for undiagnosed cases.)

Thats a lot of at risk individuals.

Lets add Smoking.

It has been estimated that more than one in five people aged 15 or over in Ireland are smokers ie nearly 100,000 individuals who smoke. Then there are those who have given up smoking but may have suffered some damage to their lungs etc.

From the literature - those with either / or both comorbidities face significant risks in relation to health outcomes in relation to contracting Covid 19.

Don't smoke - I hear you say? Absolutley sure you aren't one of the generation who suffered from second hand smoke in all their years in pubs etc prior to the smoking ban?

Don't have hypertension? When's the last time you were checked?

Still sure? - grand so. It remains the two above examples of risk factors means that there large numbers of people who may be at increased risk if they contact Covid 19.

You can do the same exercise for a whole range of other conditions (known and unknown) and for all ages of people

The picture It doesn't get any better unfortunately ...

v638sg7k1a92bx

3xh wrote: »

So the % of tests coming back positive has increased. As have the actual number of tests carried out. So I’d ask; are they in line?!

This is the thing with stats and is exactly my point above in how certain groupings/sides twist and portray certain figures a certain way.

If the % ‘hit’ has increased by say, 5% (in other words from 100 cases one week to 105 cases the next week) but tests carried out increased by 100% (in other words from 6,000 to 12,000), I wouldn’t be so concerned, no. Especially if the increase in cases (community transmission or otherwise) is a few weeks after sectors of the economy are opened up.

I just feel people immediately latch on to any increase they hear. They can’t think critically and just swallow the big doomsday headline ‘increase’ they hear from RTÉ and such.

The real metrics for an epidemic and deaths and ICU admissions while accounting for the lag. By this rate we should have seen people presenting in ICU by now so it begs the questions as to where this second wave is going to come from?

v638sg7k1a92bx

i_surge wrote: »

The died "of" covid is such a red herring that antimask fools cling to for dear life trying to pretend it is more than a marginal error in the death count.

Newsflash, all the stats are rife with error due to different methodologies of collection but if you zoom out they paint a very clear picture.

Here's another newsflash, very few people are getting sick or dying from this virus.

v638sg7k1a92bx

odyssey06 wrote: »

The question has already been asked and answered as best as we can using excess mortality figures there is 1200-1300 increase.
Nursing homes have a pretty good idea of how many residents they lose per month... there were clear spikes.
You seem to be aware of this already from earlier posts on the subject and therefore re-raising it on this thread is just obfuscation.

Approx 1,000 of those people died in care homes.

odyssey06

Kendrick Jolly Ibex wrote: »

The real metrics for an epidemic and deaths and ICU admissions while accounting for the lag. By this rate we should have seen people presenting in ICU by now so it begs the questions as to where this second wave is going to come from?

It will come if the virus gets from the current demographic into the vulnerable in the community... the more cases we have the more likely that is.

Ten of Swords

Tickers, forum banned for ignoring threadban