Covid 19 Part XXX-113,332 ROI(2,282 deaths) 81,251 NI (1,384 deaths) (05/01) Read OP

TonyMaloney

clubberlang12 wrote: »

We didn't have 881 seriously ill people with Covid. We had 881 who tested "positive", and positive results are not an absolute indication of the virus being active in the subject at time of test(we can get into a whole different argument about the validation of PCR positive results regarding subject being actively sick or infectious, but I'm sure the thread doesn't need that).

We also know not all admissions who test positive are admitted because of Covid issues, and may be admitted for something entirely different with no Covid symptoms at all but test positive after admission. We also know that patients can contract Covid while in hospital as we have witnessed from hospital outbreaks, which in turn increases Covid positive confirmed cases in hospitals, despite not being admitted for Covid issues.

To say 881 seriously ill people were hospitalised is a very misleading and untrue statement.

Oh stop being so pious

If you're in hospital you're usually seriously ill. Some wouldn't be particularly ill. You got me on a very pedantic point. Well played.

Plumbthedepths

clubberlang12 wrote: »

We didn't have 881 seriously ill people with Covid. We had 881 who tested "positive", and positive results are not an absolute indication of the virus being active in the subject at time of test(we can get into a whole different argument about the validation of PCR positive results regarding subject being actively sick or infectious, but I'm sure the thread doesn't need that).

We also know not all admissions who test positive are admitted because of Covid issues, and may be admitted for something entirely different with no Covid symptoms at all but test positive after admission. We also know that patients can contract Covid while in hospital as we have witnessed from hospital outbreaks, which in turn increases Covid positive confirmed cases in hospitals, despite not being admitted for Covid issues.

To say 881 seriously ill people were hospitalised is a very misleading and untrue statement.

Excellent response.

SpacialNeeds

bb1234567 wrote: »

It's a big pity that claim culture has led to breakdown of trust between medical patients and health staff where it is so vitally important. Although I had maybe wrongly thought it was very difficult for doctors or GP's to become legally liable even in cases of wrong doing or mistakes?

The insurance companies don't appreciate claims being made. As a medical professional if you're causing claims to be made, you'll be investigated by your hospital at best and let go from your position if it is found to be a failing in your professional conduct.

There's a very fine line between an unfortunate medical inevitability and missed indicators of future issues. Staff aren't going to want to bring that on themselves.

It's the same as in a large number of industries. Car dealers, teachers, shop assistants, any public-facing job has much greater risk of legal threats lately because everyone wants to make a quick few bob and as somebody dealing with the great unwashed, you're exposed. It's just unfortunate that the consequence is that you can't trust your doctor anymore, and vice versa.

On another note, my (ex) family doctor has literally killed two elderly people by overprescribing medication and nearly killed another (except that their family stepped in and got a second opinion). He's still operating with impunity.

clubberlang12

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Oh stop being so pious

If you're in hospital you're usually seriously ill. Some wouldn't be particularly ill. You got me on a very pedantic point. Well played.

If 10 people are in hospital for a operation on a broken and dislocated thumb........are the 10 seriously ill? Is one even seriously ill? Not all admissions are because of illness/sickness.

The only pedantic point was yours in trying to over inflate your argument using a false narrative.

Don't take facts so personally in future.

TonyMaloney

clubberlang12 wrote: »

If 10 people are in hospital for a operation on a broken and dislocated thumb........are the 10 seriously ill? Is one even seriously ill? Not all admissions are because of illness/sickness.

The only pedantic point was yours in trying to over inflate your argument using a false narrative.

Don't take facts so personally in future.

I haven't taken anything personally, I'm just bored by your semantic argument.

I concede. Well done. Lets not talk about this boring crap any more, and get back to the actual issues at hand.

Stheno

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I haven't taken anything personally, I'm just bored by your semantic argument.

I concede. Well done. Lets not talk about this boring crap any more, and get back to the actual issues at hand.

Does that mean an end to the endless graphs?
Great news if so

bb1234567

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Oh stop being so pious

If you're in hospital you're usually seriously ill. Some wouldn't be particularly ill. You got me on a very pedantic point. Well played.

It's not really pedanticism, it's a valid point, 40%(can't remember if it was 35% or 45% so I'll go with 40) of people who were in hospital in Autumn with COVID either contracted it in hospital or arrived for different reasons and tested positive. However , it doesn't mean COVID did not exacerbate the other health issues they were hospitalised for, or that COVID did not make recovery harder for the sick people in hospital who unfortunately became infected there. It's complete supposition on my part, however it could well be true in some of the cases so can't just completely dismiss that cohort as experiencing no COVID issues without further information. Either way, definitely cannot take 'hospitalised with COVID' at such face value.

As for the graphs you post I don't see why anybody has to be rude about that, I thought they are interesting even if I didn't have anything to add about them.

TonyMaloney

Stheno wrote: »

Does that mean an end to the endless graphs?
Great news if so

Thanks for that

you're clearly a very thoughtful and nice person

TonyMaloney

bb1234567 wrote: »

It's not really pedanticism, it's a valid point, 40%(can't remember if it was 35% or 45% so I'll go with 40) of people who were in hospital in Autumn with COVID either contracted it in hospital or arrived for different reasons and tested positive. However , it doesn't mean COVID did not exacerbate the other health issues they were hospitalised for, or that COVID did not make recovery harder for the sick people in hospital who unfortunately became infected there. It's complete supposition on my part, however it could well be true so can't just completely dismiss the proportion as experiencing no COVID issues without further information. Either way, definitely cannot take 'hospitalised with COVID' at such face value.

Right. And that's why I conceded the point.

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to what I'm trying to say - that our hospitals are in real jeopardy again - but please everyone continue to beat me about the head for something I already admitted to.

Eivor

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Oh stop being so pious

If you're in hospital you're usually seriously ill. Some wouldn't be particularly ill. You got me on a very pedantic point. Well played.

Not necessarily seriously I’ll with covid

TonyMaloney

Eivor wrote: »

Not necessarily seriously I’ll with covid

Right. And not necessarily even seriously ill.

I concede the point.

bb1234567

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Right. And that's why I conceded the point.

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to what I'm trying to say - that our hospitals are in real jeopardy again - but please everyone continue to beat me about the head for something I already admitted to.

Nobody is saying those things, it just changes everything though. If it takes 1000 'hospitalised with COVID' patients to overwhelm the system when in reality it is actually 600 conevntional COVID patients along with others who would have been there anyway it just changes how we approach and consider the COVID impact on healthcare, and highlights how easily swamped our healthcare is with COVID or not.

Stheno

bb1234567 wrote: »

Nobody is saying those things, it just changes everything though. If it takes 1000 'hospitalised with COVID' patients to overwhelm the system when in reality it is actually 600 conevntional COVID patients along with others who would have been there anyway it just changes how we approach and consider the COVID impact on healthcare, and highlights how easily swamped our healthcare is with COVID or not.

There are over 1400 empty beds in the system at the moment

After Christmas that will go down when normal service resumes though

TonyMaloney

bb1234567 wrote: »

Nobody is saying those things, it just changes everything though. If it takes 1000 'hospitalised with COVID' patients to overwhelm the system when in reality it is actually 600 conevntional COVID patients along with others who would have been there anyway it just changes how we approach and consider the COVID impact on healthcare, and highlights how easily swamped our healthcare is with COVID or not.

I agree with this.

On the 27th of March we had 380 covid cases in hospital with varying degrees of illness.
By the 4th of April we had 829 cases in hospital.

We appear to be on a similar trajectory to March, with large and growing numbers of admissions.
We had closed almost all businesses on the 24th of March, and were under stay at home orders by the 27th.

This time around restrictions are MUCH looser and are coming significantly later. So I'm looking at all this and I'm wondering is there anything to suggest that we're not in a worse state than ever before?

And that's not even factoring in inter generational mingling over Christmas.

speckle

stephenjmcd wrote: »

The current proposed mass vaccination centres with more to follow

Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin... list follows.....

Stephen where did you find this list I coudnt find it in the pdf link. thanks

awec

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I agree with this.

On the 27th of March we had 380 covid cases in hospital with varying degrees of illness.
By the 4th of April we had 829 cases in hospital.

We appear to be on a similar trajectory to March, with large and growing numbers of admissions.
We had closed almost all businesses on the 24th of March, and were under stay at home orders by the 27th.

This time around restrictions are MUCH looser and are coming significantly later. So I'm looking at all this and I'm wondering is there anything to suggest that we're not in a worse state than ever before?

And that's not even factoring in inter generational mingling over Christmas.

We have no real idea what the true spread of the virus was in March.

TonyMaloney

awec wrote: »

We have no real idea what the true spread of the virus was in March.

Yeah but the hospitalisation rate was crystal clear, which is what I'm talking about.

Wolf359f

Going by the recent 14 day Epi reports, From 10 Dec to 23 Dec, 60% testing positive had symptoms.
The next report from 13 to 26 Dec, that drops to 49%, a pretty substantial drop over 3 days.
It could signal as some here have deduced, that the massive increase in testing was down to people being cautious and requesting tests before Christmas.
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/covid-1914-dayepidemiologyreports/

stephenjmcd

speckle wrote: »

The current proposed mass vaccination centres with more to follow

Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin... list follows.....

Stephen where did you find this list I coudnt find it in the pdf link. thanks

Sorry my bad, theres a second doc, I linked only one of them.

Both are here

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/bf337-covid-19-vaccination-strategy-and-implementation-plan/

Stheno

Wolf359f wrote: »

Going by the recent 14 day Epi reports, From 10 Dec to 23 Dec, 60% testing positive had symptoms.
The next report from 13 to 26 Dec, that drops to 49%, a pretty substantial drop over 3 days.
It could signal as some here have deduced, that the massive increase in testing was down to people being cautious and requesting tests before Christmas.
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/covid-1914-dayepidemiologyreports/

It also implies a lot of people may have told fibs to get.a.test!

In March, we were hospitalising all of the first patients who tested positive so we could monitor them closely.

It’s not surprising that we had higher numbers in hospital back then.

It would be wonderful if NPHET could tell us how many are in hospital who require treatment for Covid. But I imagine it might not look great for them.

TonyMaloney

Wolf359f wrote: »

Going by the recent 14 day Epi reports, From 10 Dec to 23 Dec, 60% testing positive had symptoms.
The next report from 13 to 26 Dec, that drops to 49%, a pretty substantial drop over 3 days.
It could signal as some here have deduced, that the massive increase in testing was down to people being cautious and requesting tests before Christmas.
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/covid-1914-dayepidemiologyreports/

Well spotted

Happydays2020

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Yeah but the hospitalisation rate was crystal clear, which is what I'm talking about.

Indeed and treatment has also improved. We will see a sharp rise in hospitalisations and mortalities in the next 4/5 weeks before it stabilises. Hopefully it will be only be on the scale of the normal winter flu which overruns hospitals year on year.

Wolf359f

Stheno wrote: »

It also implies a lot of people may have told fibs to get.a.test!

True. Also going by here, the private testing was swamped with appointments.
Now, that could account for the massive increase in the Unknown status of symptoms at testing. Private testing may not record that detail. It also means the positivity rate could be artificially high as basically only positive private test results are reported and not the number of private tests conducted.

Happydays2020

Wolf359f wrote: »

True. Also going by here, the private testing was swamped with appointments.
Now, that could account for the massive increase in the Unknown status of symptoms at testing. Private testing may not record that detail. It also means the positivity rate could be artificially high as basically only positive private test results are reported and not the number of private tests conducted.

And maybe this sensible behaviour (which was institutionalised in other countries) will mean that further cases and mortalities have been avoided.

Icantthinkof1

Wolf359f wrote: »

Going by the recent 14 day Epi reports, From 10 Dec to 23 Dec, 60% testing positive had symptoms.
The next report from 13 to 26 Dec, that drops to 49%, a pretty substantial drop over 3 days.
It could signal as some here have deduced, that the massive increase in testing was down to people being cautious and requesting tests before Christmas.
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/covid-1914-dayepidemiologyreports/

The drop in people requesting tests without symptoms in the report from the 13th-26th of Dec may just be the close contacts of those who tested positive and might not have developed symptoms yet themselves.
No GP’s are sending someone for tests if they had no symptoms unless they are/ were close contacts unless of course they went for a private test which are included in that report (I think)

TonyMaloney

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1343557888388829185?s=20

Wolf359f

Happydays2020 wrote: »

And maybe this sensible behaviour (which was institutionalised in other countries) will mean that further cases and mortalities have been avoided.

As much as people criticize the Government's handling (justified on many issues) and some reckless behavior by people etc... we are still far below our hospital peak from the first wave, plenty of EU countries have vastly surpassed their March/April peak in cases, hospitalizations and unfortunately deaths.

thebronze14

My wedding is pencilled in for June bank holiday. Hope that once the most vulnerable people are vaccinated we can get back to normal but I'd say there will still be restrictions! I fear June may be too soon

niallo27

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Well spotted

Anything positive at all out there.

Stheno

Wolf359f wrote: »

As much as people criticize the Government's handling (justified on many issues) and some reckless behavior by people etc... we are still far below our hospital peak from the first wave, plenty of EU countries have vastly surpassed their March/April peak in cases, hospitalizations and unfortunately deaths.

There was a stat in the Irish Times recently that said ICU Covid patients here are 50% less likely to die than in the UK, no idea why

Stheno

TonyMaloney wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1343557888388829185?s=20

40 deaths in 4 days

Jaded Walker

Just on the below, delighted to inform you all the result was negative.

Jaded Walker wrote: »

Had to bring my young man, he's 6, for a swab test yesterday. We don't think he has it, just a precaution. I was shocked at the number of people getting tested. It was well done, didn't have to leave the car. It only took about ten minutes from arrival to exit.

Avoation1091

Jaded Walker wrote: »

Just on the below, delighted to inform you all the result was negative.

Thats great news

Sierra Oscar

thebronze14 wrote: »

My wedding is pencilled in for June bank holiday. Hope that once the most vulnerable people are vaccinated we can get back to normal but I'd say there will still be restrictions! I fear June may be too soon

It's hard to know with the restrictions on numbers for weddings. If you had asked me a couple of months ago I would have said the allowed numbers will surely have increased to 100 by June. Now I'm not so sure, even with the vaccine being rolled out. I wouldn't be surprised if we are still at 50 or even 25 come June.

Realistically weddings are one of the greatest risk factors, even more so than funerals. Large gatherings, intimate affairs with drink and music, the gathering of two separate extended families and people from across the country.

It's really, really tough on those planning weddings currently. There's such a massive difference between having 50 and 100 at a wedding but it's not something that will be known until much closer to the wedding itself.

Acey10

Does anyone know if there's a live briefing tonight?

niallo27

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It's hard to know with the restrictions on numbers for weddings. If you had asked me a couple of months ago I would have said the allowed numbers will surely have increased to 100 by June. Now I'm not so sure, even with the vaccine being rolled out. I wouldn't be surprised if we are still at 50 or even 25 come June.

Realistically weddings are one of the greatest risk factors, even more so than funerals. Large gatherings, intimate affairs with drink and music, the gathering of two separate extended families and people from across the country.

It's really, really tough on those planning weddings currently. There's such a massive difference between having 50 and 100 at a wedding but it's not something that will be known until much closer to the wedding itself.

If we are still at 25 in June for weddings it means the vaccine rollout has been a complete disaster by the HSE, so yes I agree with you, if will probably be 25.

What Username Guidelines

Jaded Walker wrote: »

Just on the below, delighted to inform you all the result was negative.

Great to hear, brought my 5 year old and even though I was 99.9% certain it was nothing, it’s a great relief all the same

CIARAN_BOYLE

Stheno wrote: »

There was a stat in the Irish Times recently that said ICU Covid patients here are 50% less likely to die than in the UK, no idea why

Either they are sending more of the most elderly to icu or we have a lower threshold to move someone to icu.

jackofalltrades

thebronze14 wrote: »

My wedding is pencilled in for June bank holiday. Hope that once the most vulnerable people are vaccinated we can get back to normal but I'd say there will still be restrictions! I fear June may be too soon

Why would you go back to normal while the vast majority of people haven't been immunised and we're nowhere near herd immunity?
The numbers of infected would sky rocket out of control.

Just wait another couple of months and offer the vaccine to everyone that wants it, at the same time adjusting restrictions based on case numbers.

Jim_Hodge

According to the Department of Health, Northern Ireland's figures for the past two days.

1, 634 individuals have tested positive for COVID-19 in the past 48 hours. Sadly a further 20 deaths have been reported.

KrustyUCC

Why would life not go back to normal once the most vulnerable and hcw are vaccinated?

If the most vulnerable are not dying and the hcw can stay working then case numbers won't really matter

niallo27

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Why would life not go back to normal once the most vulnerable and hcw are vaccinated?

If the most vulnerable are not dying and the hcw can stay working then case numbers won't really matter

People are so terrified by case numbers, if will take a long time to change that mentality and I'm sure nphet will want restrictions until the end of next year at least.

lukas8888

Acey10 wrote: »

Does anyone know if there's a live briefing tonight?

Next one is next Monday if i remember correctly what was said at the last one.

vienne86

1159 positive swabs, 12.63% positivity rate in last 24 hours.

What Username Guidelines

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Why would life not go back to normal once the most vulnerable and hcw are vaccinated?

If the most vulnerable are not dying and the hcw can stay working then case numbers won't really matter

Yeah, the worry I have is that if the vaccine does not stop transmission but does stop severe illness, how can we disconnect the idea of case numbers versus hospitalisations. We’ve been primed to react to case numbers and it’s difficult to tie cases to hospitalisations as we’ve had varying percentages per wave that depends on testing availability.

In theory you could have 100% vaccinated and 20,000 cases a day with next-to-no hospitalisations, what are the limits to reopen everything? Even when we had 4 cases during the summer and Tony was concerned, what does he want to see before he’s no longer concerned?

aisling86

vienne86 wrote: »

1159 positive swabs, 12.63% positivity rate in last 24 hours.

One would imagine there isn't much of a backlog so will be interesting to see how this corresponds to cases later today.

mirrorwall14

vienne86 wrote: »

1159 positive swabs, 12.63% positivity rate in last 24 hours.

Ah feck. That’s high positivity

KrustyUCC

Jeez that's a high positivity rate

KrustyUCC

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Yeah, the worry I have is that if the vaccine does not stop transmission but does stop severe illness, how can we disconnect the idea of case numbers versus hospitalisations. We’ve been primed to react to case numbers and it’s difficult to tie cases to hospitalisations as we’ve had varying percentages per wave that depends on testing availability.

In theory you could have 100% vaccinated and 20,000 cases a day with next-to-no hospitalisations, what are the limits to reopen everything? Even when we had 4 cases during the summer and Tony was concerned, what does he want to see before he’s no longer concerned?

I'd love to know the answer to that myself

Tony will always be concerned about something