Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

normanoffside

Eod100 wrote: »

I'd prefer travelers to have this mild inconvenience then risk importing virus in large quantities especially if coming from a high risk country. It's also better for them than having to restrict movements for full 14 days.

That's all well and good but this is our current policy and it doesn't really work. Most people also ignore the advice.

Irish People are going to go come home for Christmas from all over the world and foreigners working in Ireland are going to go home for Christmas and come back afterwards.

It's about time we had a testing policy on travel which helps both reduce risk and minimise inconvenience on travellers

ax530

AdamD wrote: »

I'm not misunderstanding anything. The likelihood of somebody having Covid at any given moment of time is extremely low. The likelihood of somebody who has just tested negative for covid actually having it is negligable. That's why this policy is overkill. We're not talking about close contacts or people we actually have reason to suspect for having it here, just anyone who's been on a flight.

Know someone who tested negative for covid, two days later had some symptoms did not think it was covid due to the test result.
Another few days later got the close contact notification from work contact and tested positive. This positive test was 6 or 7 days after the first test.
Believe the contact where covid transmitted was a two days prior to the first test.

Is possible to be exposed to covid, test negative, head off on holidays ect with negative result and then get symptoms and spread virus.

Eod100

normanoffside wrote: »

That's all well and good but this is our current policy and it doesn't really work. Most people also ignore the advice.

Irish People are going to go come home for Christmas from all over the world and foreigners working in Ireland are going to go home for Christmas and come back afterwards.

It's about time we had a testing policy on travel which helps both reduce risk and minimise inconvenience on travellers

I agree. I'm in favour of the new policy. I meant in the way it's better for both parties.

bb1234567

bb1234567 wrote: »

You'd think that Lombardy would have gotten a break due to high immunity but no, it is yet again the epicentre of Italy's outbreak. It is one of 4 regions of Italy deemed 'Scenario 4' where the current situation could "could quickly lead to a high number of cases and clear signs of overload of welfare services, without the possibility of tracing the origin of new cases."

https://www.thelocal.it/20201103/coronavirus-what-is-italys-scenario-4-and-which-regions-are-already-in-it

Would be interesting to know which parts of Lombardy are recording most new cases, 65% of people in Bergamo had antibodies in May so if places like this which had widepread outbreaks in the first wave are recording thousands of new cases then that is worrying as it means the herd immunity threshhold is extremely high or that reinfection is likely occurring

Dont think the Bergamo antibody study was comprehensive and randomised, but was more focused on specific areas with high impact. Estimates are that 30% were exposed. Milan is the epicentre of the current outbreak in the area

Eod100

Deleted User wrote: »

Dont think the Bergamo antibody study was comprehensive and randomised, but was more focused on specific areas with high impact. Estimates are that 30% were exposed. Milan is the epicentre of the current outbreak in the area

Guess also if immunity diminishes over time might not be as effective after 3 months or 6 say. Assuming the risk of reinfection is low but this could also be an issue to less extent.

Eod100

Not exactly news but Dr de Gascun saying hoping some reports from 3rd stage of clinical trails due out by end of this month but cautious that it will work 100% or 100% of people will take it up so measures in place for forseeable future.

DaSilva

Eod100 wrote: »

NPEHT at the Transport Committee now on off chance anyone is interested:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/cr3-live/

Thanks for the link, very interesting. It's sad to see the discussion around any alternative forms of testing are still presented as being a replacement to PCR rather than in addition, and required as having the same specificity and sensitivity as PCR effectively guaranteeing nothing lives up to the standard.

I really can't understand this position where they prefer no testing over a poorer form of test.

seamus

normanoffside wrote: »

That's all well and good but this is our current policy and it doesn't really work. Most people also ignore the advice.

Irish People are going to go come home for Christmas from all over the world and foreigners working in Ireland are going to go home for Christmas and come back afterwards.

It's about time we had a testing policy on travel which helps both reduce risk and minimise inconvenience on travellers

I think it's important that this point is focussed on quite strongly.

What will happen, without a doubt whatsoever is that anyone who arrives back for Xmas, will not observe their restriction requirements. One of the major outbreaks in July or August occured because someone arrived in the country and "went to see their family before going into isolation". And of course, spread it to them.

Nobody is going to land on 20th December and isolate. Even if they nominate their parents' house as the place where they isolate, there will be a host of visitors.

So, unless we're willing to accept Xmas-related covid spread as a thing and deal with it, we need a stricter travel regime. Whether that's a closing the airports for the month of December, mandatory quarantine in the Citywest hotel, or a rapid test regime, something is going to have to be done.

hmmm

Study of New York city from a respected lab suggests an IFR of 0.97 during their epidemic. That's bad news, good news is people are hopefully retaining some immunity.
https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1323588045124313088

Eod100

DaSilva wrote: »

Thanks for the link, very interesting. It's sad to see the discussion around any alternative forms of testing are still presented as being a replacement to PCR rather than in addition, and required as having the same specificity and sensitivity as PCR effectively guaranteeing nothing lives up to the standard.

I really can't understand this position where they prefer no testing over a poorer form of test.

No worries. Yeah was thinking the same, their rationale seemed to be it's only a snapshot in time and also that it would give people false assurances. But think that assumes people restrict their movements for 14 days as it stands. Would a combination of 2 negative tests work?

Maybe it's about capacity in system too but they didn't refer to that so who knows.

MelbourneMan

seamus wrote: »

I think it's important that this point is focussed on quite strongly.

What will happen, without a doubt whatsoever is that anyone who arrives back for Xmas, will not observe their restriction requirements. One of the major outbreaks in July or August occured because someone arrived in the country and "went to see their family before going into isolation". And of course, spread it to them.

Nobody is going to land on 20th December and isolate. Even if they nominate their parents' house as the place where they isolate, there will be a host of visitors.

So, unless we're willing to accept Xmas-related covid spread as a thing and deal with it, we need a stricter travel regime. Whether that's a closing the airports for the month of December, mandatory quarantine in the Citywest hotel, or a rapid test regime, something is going to have to be done.

Hello. I see this misreading of risk and travel happening frequently, and mean to write a fuller explanation on it to facilitate a more correct understanding.

But briefly, travel in itself has very little indeed to do with transmission of the virus. People irrationally overestimate the risk of the 'outsider'. The key element is the number of interactions of people. Certainly, reducing international travel reduces interactions. But so too does closing cinemas, shoe shops, or gyms.

I shall come back to this point, and shall include it in the 'Key Points' posting I mean to put together to close off many of the recurring issues raised and, in many cases, poorly or erroneously answered.

Eod100

Eod100 wrote: »

Not exactly news but Dr de Gascun saying hoping some reports from 3rd stage of clinical trails due out by end of this month but cautious that it will work 100% or 100% of people will take it up so measures in place for forseeable future.

No vaccine works 100%. A lot of the caution is down to the fact that the early release of the data means the the sample is not large enough to draw a conclusion that 90% are protected, even if it is the case that they are. The released results may state something like "Based on results vaccine is effective in providing immunity in 66% of subjects". This does not mean it is ineffective in 34%. It means its at least 66% effective. Such a result would be generated if after 34 people who took part in the trial got covid, 30 had received the placebo and 4 the vaccine.

At a later stage in the trial once we reached 340 infections, 300 in the placebo and 40 in the vaccine group, the effectivity could be stated as at least 85%. Same raw proportion, but because of the larger sample size, you have increased confidence in the true proportion.

By reporting earlier in the trial, we sacrifice the power of the study to detect a very large effect. It does not mean that the is only a small effect however.

GazzaL

seamus wrote: »

I think it's important that this point is focussed on quite strongly.

What will happen, without a doubt whatsoever is that anyone who arrives back for Xmas, will not observe their restriction requirements. One of the major outbreaks in July or August occured because someone arrived in the country and "went to see their family before going into isolation". And of course, spread it to them.

Nobody is going to land on 20th December and isolate. Even if they nominate their parents' house as the place where they isolate, there will be a host of visitors.

So, unless we're willing to accept Xmas-related covid spread as a thing and deal with it, we need a stricter travel regime. Whether that's a closing the airports for the month of December, mandatory quarantine in the Citywest hotel, or a rapid test regime, something is going to have to be done.

There's already been some fantastic solutions proposed on here:
1. Make the visitors stand at the end of the garden.
2. Awnings and heaters. Get those installed before Christmas and you can have Christmas dinner with the extended family outside with the pissing rain blowing in on you.

TonyMaloney

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. I see this misreading of risk and travel happening frequently, and mean to write a fuller explanation on it to facilitate a more correct understanding.

But briefly, travel in itself has very little indeed to do with transmission of the virus. People irrationally overestimate the risk of the 'outsider'. The key element is the number of interactions of people. Certainly, reducing international travel reduces interactions. But so too does closing cinemas, shoe shops, or gyms.

I shall come back to this point, and shall include it in the 'Key Points' posting I mean to put together to close off many of the recurring issues raised and, in many cases, poorly or erroneously answered.

Yes. I too will one day return and eviscerate all of my opponents with facts.

I just can't be arsed right now.

seamus

MelbourneMan wrote: »

But briefly, travel in itself has very little indeed to do with transmission of the virus. People irrationally overestimate the risk of the 'outsider'. The key element is the number of interactions of people. Certainly, reducing international travel reduces interactions. But so too does closing cinemas, shoe shops, or gyms.

I suspect you'll probably find a considerable degree of crossover between "people coming home for Xmas" and "people with a high number of interactions with people".

MelbourneMan

seamus wrote: »

I suspect you'll probably find a considerable degree of crossover between "people coming home for Xmas" and "people with a high number of interactions with people".

Exactly. That aspect seems to be overlooked by many of the wider population though, and people miss that travel itself can certainly be facilitated if counterbalanced by interactions elsewhere.

caveat emptor

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Exactly. That aspect seems to be overlooked by many of the wider population though, and people miss that travel itself can certainly be facilitated if counterbalanced by interactions elsewhere.

So like a lockdown in the new year? Is that enough to counterbalance it? Making over 100 thousand people unemployed and making people stay 5 km from their house but anyone can come in from an international destination or indeed travel to that location and return no bother.


Clear as mud.

GazzaL

caveat emptor wrote: »

So like a lockdown in the new year? Is that enough to counterbalance it? Making over 100 thousand people unemployed and making people stay 5 km from their house but anyone can come in from an international destination or indeed travel to that location and return no bother.


Clear as mud.

Go away for a holiday and you can go wherever you like when you come back.

wadacrack

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. I see this misreading of risk and travel happening frequently, and mean to write a fuller explanation on it to facilitate a more correct understanding.

But briefly, travel in itself has very little indeed to do with transmission of the virus. People irrationally overestimate the risk of the 'outsider'. The key element is the number of interactions of people. Certainly, reducing international travel reduces interactions. But so too does closing cinemas, shoe shops, or gyms.

I shall come back to this point, and shall include it in the 'Key Points' posting I mean to put together to close off many of the recurring issues raised and, in many cases, poorly or erroneously answered.

You are under estimating the risk of travel. It leads to new chains of transmission and is ultimately countries like Taiwan and New Zealand who had strict protocols in place are in a much better position than many countries. If we put in similar protocol's in place in June/July we would be in a far better position. China have been picking up loads of cases at their airports

SleetAndSnow

Contact traced at 7 on Sunday while the positive case was still on the phone, very fast. Test 11:30 Yesterday, result at 9:30 this morning so under 24 hours which I thought was very quick, same with 2 other members of my family. Interestingly two of us got a text from the HSE saying our test was negative while the other got it direct from our GP?? Found that strange!

Still waiting on one result, hoping its not a bad sign!

OwenM

wadacrack wrote: »

You are under estimating the risk of travel. It leads to new chains of transmission and is ultimately countries like Taiwan and New Zealand who had strict protocols in place are in a much better position than many countries. If we put in similar protocol's in place in June/July we would be in a far better position. China have been picking up loads of cases at their airports

Everything except cowering in your home leads to new chains, you can't ask people to do this forever when the finish line is receding all the time.

Cluedo Monopoly

wadacrack wrote: »

You are under estimating the risk of travel. It leads to new chains of transmission and is ultimately countries like Taiwan and New Zealand who had strict protocols in place are in a much better position than many countries. If we put in similar protocol's in place in June/July we would be in a far better position. China have been picking up loads of cases at their airports

Yes and NZ is facing an economic depression in the years ahead.

Paddygreen

Eod100 wrote: »

Guess also if immunity diminishes over time might not be as effective after 3 months or 6 say. Assuming the risk of reinfection is low but this could also be an issue to less extent.

Some experts recommend we will have to get our shots every six months or so, so we can update our health passports so in turn we will be allowed do things, like socially distanced socialising for example. Masks, , working from home (if you still have a job) and social distancing will be permanent going forward of course, just in case, fingers crossed and a prayer to St Anthony (the patron saint of lost causes) before we light a candles in the window (preferably not real candles, just in case).. we have to do what we are told to stay safe guys.

is_that_so

wadacrack wrote: »

You are under estimating the risk of travel. It leads to new chains of transmission and is ultimately countries like Taiwan and New Zealand who had strict protocols in place are in a much better position than many countries. If we put in similar protocol's in place in June/July we would be in a far better position. China have been picking up loads of cases at their airports

It only creates the potential of new chains of transmission. As we've seen here it's the subsequent behaviour that does the damage. We couldn't unilaterally lock down our border, a matter of being in the EU.

caveat emptor

Wow, the jobless /unemployment figures are crazy.

From the guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/nov/03/coronavirus-live-news-france-sees-record-new-cases-who-warns-its-not-too-late-to-take-critical-action

SortingYouOut

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Yes and NZ is facing an economic depression in the years ahead.

Well they'll have plenty of company, us included. The only thing that's good for a global depression is a world war.

owlbethere

That video posted this morning from Caveat Emptor from protestors gathering in a large crowd on the luas

The protestors like to prance around protesting about the lockdown pretending to care about other people shouting about peoples businesses locked down and peoples mental health. I saw pretending to care because the video shows just that.

Many people would have used the luas for genuine reasons to get from A to B around Dublin, perhaps to attend to hospital appointments, or go to work. I know many places are closed in lockdown bu there is still a lot of work going on and many places have online shopping and that will require some people to staff and package orders.

The protestors have put many people in jeopardy by carrying their protest into an inclosed environment. The very people they like to claim to represent.

Kermit.de.frog

I'd imagine every day is a bank holiday for those "protestors". A lockdown has minimal, if no, impact on them.

Paddygreen

Paddygreen wrote: »

Some experts recommend we will have to get our shots every six months or so, so we can update our health passports so in turn we will be allowed do things, like socially distanced socialising for example. Masks, , working from home (if you still have a job) and social distancing will be permanent going forward of course, just in case, fingers crossed and a prayer to St Anthony (the patron saint of lost causes) before we light a candles in the window (preferably not real candles, just in case).. we have to do what we are told to stay safe guys.

St Jude is the lost causes dept. (and hopeless cases too I think)

St. Anthony helps you locate something you have lost. He is my go-to man when that happens me.

St. Margaret is also the champion of the lowest wrung in societies ladder.

Thankfully I have not had the need to pray to St Jude or St Margaret, yet!

KrustyUCC

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'd imagine every day is a bank holiday for those "protestors". A lockdown has minimal, if no, impact on them.

True