Covid 19 Part XXIV-37,063 ROI (1,801 deaths) 12,886 NI (582 deaths) (02/10) Read OP

RGARDINR

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I thought Boots were already giving out the flu jab

I know it might be silly but if all the governments agrelled around the world say for 3 wks we had a total worldwide lockdown say what China had in Wuhan. Every country had the police and army out for those 3 wks and anyone out of the house except 1 per household to say get food etc. All businesses closed understand some have to open but majority closed and anyone out heavily fined or jailed. Would the virus be gone then? Instead of this rolling waves situation that might last years. Just proper try to stamp it out.

hmmm

I like the "circuit breaker" schemes that are being discussed.

Essentially 2 week hard lockdowns, flagged in advance - usually around the school holidays. Stay at home as much as possible, everything shut, businesses have time to prepare. They won't finish the virus, but they will significantly disrupt its spread. Repeat every couple of months until we find a way out (hopefully with a vaccine).

It will be disruptive and have an economic cost, but better than the disruption caused by unplanned shutdowns.

political analyst

is_that_so wrote: »

Herd immunity is pie in the sky, there is not shred of evidence of it anywhere nor a realistic hope that it will occur.


Anecdotal data coming up! Spoke to someone who works in a nursing home, don't know where. They arranged to get the residents out into the sun on one of the nice days recently because they were sad and depressed they couldn't see their families. That I imagine is replicated up and down the country. Lives can be put in danger in other ways by "protecting" people.

How? PPE, hand sanitiser and social distancing are enough to resolve that issue. Didn't you read all of what I quoted?

Paddygreen

Oranage2 wrote: »

The weekly numbers are also increasing at an alarming rate, 2 months ago we had around a 100 cases a week, we have that now before I have breakfast

Terrifying numbers . It is like the Grim Reapers Telly Bingo every time I tune in to our national Broadcaster. Really sobering.

SusanC10

hmmm wrote: »

I like the "circuit breaker" schemes that are being discussed.

Essentially 2 week hard lockdowns, flagged in advance - usually around the school holidays. Stay at home as much as possible, everything shut, businesses have time to prepare. They won't finish the virus, but they will significantly disrupt its spread. Repeat every couple of months until we find a way out (hopefully with a vaccine).

It will be disruptive and have an economic cost, but better than the disruption caused by unplanned shutdowns.

Where has this been discussed ?
Do you have a Link ?
Interesting concept.

BringBackMick

hmmm wrote: »

I like the "circuit breaker" schemes that are being discussed.

Essentially 2 week hard lockdowns, flagged in advance - usually around the school holidays. Stay at home as much as possible, everything shut, businesses have time to prepare. They won't finish the virus, but they will significantly disrupt its spread. Repeat every couple of months until we find a way out (hopefully with a vaccine).

It will be disruptive and have an economic cost, but better than the disruption caused by unplanned shutdowns.

Yea certainly some benefit around it, my concern is with the lag in its effect it will be prolonged longer than needed, just like our initial lockdown.

If it was just going to be 2 weeks hard lock down and then back to level 2 then fair enough but knowing us the hard 2 week lock down would linger for 4-6 weeks as we would be too nervous to open up when cases still high,

Gruffalux

SusanC10 wrote: »

Where has this been discussed ?
Do you have a Link ?
Interesting concept.

Does sound interesting. 2 weeks at Halloween, then 2 weeks at Christmas. Thats just me putting dates on it because I have not heard of it.

is_that_so

political analyst wrote: »

How? PPE, hand sanitiser and social distancing are enough to resolve that issue. Didn't you read all of what I quoted?

I did and I pointed out what you're ignoring, the human cost. We can't just lock up or "protect" people in the pursuit of pure epidemiological solutions.

GooglePlus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You mean peer reviewed evidence? A biochemist is only proficient in biochemistry. I wouldn't never take medical advice from a biochemist like you wouldn't take biochemistry assay information from a health care professional.

She didn't come to the figures for what levels of Vitamin D should be seen as adequate, inadequate and deficient, this was the U.S. Endocrine Society, made up of mostly medical doctors with a specialisation in metabolism and the endocrine system. Old medicine was the wrong term to use but my blood tests provided by St.Vincents advised a much lower level as being sufficient compared to the above.

Rhonda Patrick is a post-doctoral fellow at UCSF-Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute and a biochemist, so she is exposed to the medical field also.

political analyst

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0923/1166912-covid19-committee-coronavirus/

A Swedish expert told the committee that controlled spread of the coronavirus should be allowed among people aged under 60.

In his opening statement, Dr Johan Giesecke, former chief epidemiologist in Sweden, said Ireland should concentrate on the old and frail with frequent testing of staff and residents in care homes.

He told politicians that we should wait at least a year to start comparing countries' Covid-19 strategies.

Dr Giesecke also warned that the pandemic is only at the beginning.

He advised against building a strategy on the imminent advent of a vaccine because we might have to wait for it and it may not be very effective in those who need it most.

Dr Giesecke said intensive contact tracing and testing of contacts will be needed.

He told the committee that Covid-19 has surprised people many times and may again.

Dr Giesecke said the pandemic will hurt the poorer and marginalised most and there was a threat to democracy with some people having power they did not have before.

If a Swedish epidemiologist thinks it's safe to let controlled spread of the virus take place among those who are not in the vulnerable categories, then how can it not be safe? He's a professional and so he knows what he's talking about.

seamus

hmmm wrote: »

I like the "circuit breaker" schemes that are being discussed.

Essentially 2 week hard lockdowns, flagged in advance - usually around the school holidays. Stay at home as much as possible, everything shut, businesses have time to prepare. They won't finish the virus, but they will significantly disrupt its spread. Repeat every couple of months until we find a way out (hopefully with a vaccine).

It will be disruptive and have an economic cost, but better than the disruption caused by unplanned shutdowns.

It's an idea alright. Tough call though; can we really expect the virus to do what we want it to do? Can we even accurately model this?

8 weeks open everything, 2 week hard lockdown. With sufficient planning it's doable but still equates to a 25% loss in business for companies.

You're also left with the unknown - what happens if you're halfway through lockdown week 1 and new cases are still going through the roof? You can't extend lockdown, you'll fvck it all up. So you might end up doing a full reopening at the worst possible time.

Seems like a very big experiment for anyone who goes for it.

igCorcaigh

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0923/1166912-covid19-committee-coronavirus/



If a Swedish epidemiologist thinks it's safe to let controlled spread of the virus take place among those who are not in the vulnerable categories, then how can it not be safe? He's a professional and so he knows what he's talking about.

It's still just someone's opinion, and other professionals will disagree.

is_that_so

hmmm wrote: »

I like the "circuit breaker" schemes that are being discussed.

Essentially 2 week hard lockdowns, flagged in advance - usually around the school holidays. Stay at home as much as possible, everything shut, businesses have time to prepare. They won't finish the virus, but they will significantly disrupt its spread. Repeat every couple of months until we find a way out (hopefully with a vaccine).

It will be disruptive and have an economic cost, but better than the disruption caused by unplanned shutdowns.

If they run past two weeks, as some measures have here, they will most likely fail as an option people would continue to support. It's basically the Red Zone ZeroCovid approach and that time period cannot be guaranteed by anyone.

hmmm

SusanC10 wrote: »

Where has this been discussed ?
Do you have a Link ?
Interesting concept.

Here's a few UK links:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/circuit-breaker-lockdown-coronavirus-uk-what-boris-johnson-b500116.html
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/health/coronavirus/leaked-circuit-breaker-lockdown-plans-list-measures-which-could-be-placed-scotland-2978395

SeaBreezes

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

You must be also very concerned about the shutdown of cancer screening services, deaths from undetected strokes/heart disease and lockdown related suicides this year I take it.

This horrible virus also.causes blood clotting in asymptomatic cases hence the increase in strokes/heart attacks and (anecdotally from those who had it) savage depression.

And not all cancer screening services were shut down?

political analyst

igCorcaigh wrote: »

It's still just someone's opinion, and other professionals will disagree.

Fair enough.

But what cannot be denied is that another national lockdown in any nation would mean less money for that nation's health service.

Furthermore, politicians and physicians don't have the right to threaten to bring about another lockdown, which is blackmail!

is_that_so

political analyst wrote: »

How? PPE, hand sanitiser and social distancing are enough to resolve that issue. Didn't you read all of what I quoted?

They're not really, they give the impression of some people being in perpetual imprisonment. Additionally, you are talking about a huge number of "vulnerable" people between obesity, diabetes and heart disease alone.

SPDUB

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0923/1166912-covid19-committee-coronavirus/



If a Swedish epidemiologist thinks it's safe to let controlled spread of the virus take place among those who are not in the vulnerable categories, then how can it not be safe? He's a professional and so he knows what he's talking about.

Except there is vulnerable people below 60 so what do you do with them.

is_that_so

SPDUB wrote: »

Except there is vulnerable people below 60 so what do you do with them.

PPE, hand sanitiser and distancing apparently.

hmmm

seamus wrote: »

It's an idea alright. Tough call though; can we really expect the virus to do what we want it to do? Can we even accurately model this?

All of this is new, I'm not sure we've ever tried to do this with a virus to this extent. I'm sure some countries will try it - you have to wish them well really, we'd all like to know what works.

I don't think it would be 2 weeks close everything, then open everything for 6 weeks. More like 2 weeks hard shutdown, 6 weeks social distancing & masks etc., repeat.

igCorcaigh

I don't see how the vulnerable groups can be sufficiently sequestered from the rest of society.

Community transmission will inevitably get in to those vulnerable groups.

Boggles

SPDUB wrote: »

Except there is vulnerable people below 60 so what do you do with them.

If you happen to live in a multi generational household, I guess Mum and Dad are going in the attic.

bazermc

Any department of health briefing this evening. Feels like ages since we had one.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

https://twitter.com/C1aranMurray/status/1308767945624035328?s=20

I see juking the stats at work! In other words, COVID only exists in anyone who gets hospitalised!

Goldrickssan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://twitter.com/C1aranMurray/status/1308767945624035328?s=20

Should have been like this anyway.
These high case numbers give some people a boner and others a reason to believe the sky is falling and we're all going to die.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

https://twitter.com/C1aranMurray/status/1308767945624035328?s=20

Belgium just announced that PCR tests will no longer be relied upon as a guage of the prevalence of the virus, hospitalisations will.

No they didn't.

From the article.

The authorities are working on an “epidemic barometer” at a national, provincial and regional level, to make sure that everyone understands the course of the epidemic better. The levels will be determined mainly – but not exclusively – by the number of people admitted to hospital.

Paddygreen

Paddygreen wrote: »

Terrifying numbers . It is like the Grim Reapers Telly Bingo every time I tune in to our national Broadcaster. Really sobering.

I had to post this over on the Liveline thread (where a lot is tongue-in-cheek) as it sounds just like something Joe Duffy would say

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

No they didn't.

From the article.

Seems clear to me. I supplied the link and I agree from the extract you supplied, hospitilisations are the now the main barometer. Thanks Boggles.:cool:

billybonkers

Deleted User wrote: »

https://twitter.com/C1aranMurray/status/1308767945624035328?s=20

That link does not even mention PCR?

Arghus

bazermc wrote: »

Any department of health briefing this evening. Feels like ages since we had one.

Supposedly we were, but there seems to be no mention of it, or else they are keeping it very quiet.