Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Boggles

Beasty wrote: »

5 in our household. My wife contracted it 3 weeks ago. She had been in close contact with the rest of us extensively. We were not tested, and none of us showed any symptoms. We had to stay at home for 2 weeks, and I suspect 1, 2, maybe all 4 of us could have had it but were asymptomatic. Alternatively we all must have some kind of protective shield as based on everything we hear about this we should probably all have got it.

As close contacts we ended up staying at home for a week longer than my wife (as she was "freed" 10 days after her symptoms started) - if we did have it we had virtually no chance of spreading it further within those 2 weeks

Your wife may have been an extremely poor "spreader".

One or 2 ye might have had it all ready.

Or ye could have all got it.

I'd be beyond curious and be tempted to get a test done.

Edit: That first sentence doesn't sound right but you know what I mean.

darconio

Arghus wrote: »

Yeah you can pick up the virus on buses, in shops, schools, cars, on the street, in work, cinemas, park - just about anywhere really.

But, absolutely no way could you pick it up in an enclosed space with poor ventilation, no masks, shared bathroom facilties, people in close proximity and lots talking and shouting over other.

That's clearly as safe as it gets.

Here we go as soon as we thought we are sure about something somebody bring his/her own experience to dispute its credibility

Beasty wrote: »

5 in our household. My wife contracted it 3 weeks ago. She had been in close contact with the rest of us extensively. We were not tested, and none of us showed any symptoms. We had to stay at home for 2 weeks, and I suspect 1, 2, maybe all 4 of us could have had it but were asymptomatic. Alternatively we all must have some kind of protective shield as based on everything we hear about this we should probably all have got it.

As close contacts we ended up staying at home for a week longer than my wife (as she was "freed" 10 days after her symptoms started) - if we did have it we had virtually no chance of spreading it further within those 2 weeks

I mean if this is not close contact....

froog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s some serious gymnastic right there.

The community cases vs hospital acquired cases is an irrelevant metric.

The most relevant information is hospital cases source of infection. Community or hospital acquired.

After all, isn’t this about protecting hospitals?

600 is roughly a third of 1,949, which is how many were in hospital with covid when that story broke.

extrapolating that out to say a third of all covid cases are caught in hospitals is just wrong if you even think about it for a few seconds.

Beasty

Boggles wrote: »

Your wife may have been an extremely poor "spreader".

The fact we locked her in a room and slid slices of ham and cheese under the door might have helped....

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Yeah you can pick up the virus on buses, in shops, schools, cars, on the street, in work, cinemas, park - just about anywhere really.

But, absolutely no way could you pick it up in an enclosed space with poor ventilation, no masks, shared bathroom facilties, people in close proximity and lots talking and shouting over other.

That's clearly as safe as it gets.

Argus, I have no idea how you continue to make these claims with nothing to back them up only your own thoughts.

We know we can catch the virus anywhere but how many cases have been linked to parks?

I did ask you earlier to explain your statement “ people have been dying at an unprecedented rate for the last month as a direct result. ”

You continue to make bizzare claims and when questioned or asked for proof you start talking in riddles or passive aggressive nothingness

I’ve seen you make claims before that this thread is a mess, I don’t see how you would have a right to suggest that

Arghus

darconio wrote: »

Here we go as soon as we thought we are sure about something somebody bring his/her own experience to dispute its credibility



I mean if this is not close contact....

Yeah, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Beasty's story proves that there's a individual twist to everyones story.

Some people don't pick it up when you would have expected them too, others don't know how they got it.

But there's no dispute that you can catch it easily and a pub/restaurant environment ticks all the boxes for an environment that would be a relatively easy one for transmission.

Irish Steve

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s some serious gymnastic right there.

The community cases vs hospital acquired cases is an irrelevant metric.

The most relevant information is hospital cases source of infection. Community or hospital acquired.

After all, isn’t this about protecting hospitals?

If it could be relied on, and that's not clear at the moment, the ideal scenario would be that all staff and all patients presenting at hospital would be subjected to an antigen test that (supposedly) is effectively an instant result, and that should be done very regularly, possibly even every shift if it's as cheap as was mentioned in another thread. There would be no harm in giving the test to patients every day for the first few days after admission, to keep a check on potential cases.

That's not an option here at the moment, and I don't know what the accuracy is like.

Giving people a PCR test at a hospital is expensive, and not any more likely to catch the cases where people are asymptomatic and still in the early phases of incubating the virus.

So, in some cases, and we don't have figures, there will be people presenting at hospitals who already have Covid, but don't know they have it, to then define them as hospital cases is not really accurate, but getting a more accurate figure is not going to help much at this stage.

mandrake04

Deleted User wrote: »

That guardian article says that "In a year marked by devastating bushfires and the coronavirus pandemic, the number of lives lost to suicide in New South Wales has unexpectedly fallen by a “remarkable” 5%." for the 12 months to November.

It also says that "Figures from the NSW health department and Victorian coroner’s courts earlier in the year indicated the suicide numbers were likely to remain relatively static compared with previous years. The latest coroner’s court figures from Victoria, covering the year to the end of September, show almost no change in the numbers compared with the two previous years."

NSW was under strict lockdown from July to October. So somehow, between September and November, suicides decreased 5% for the whole year after being on track to match the prior year. Which in fact suggests that exiting lockdown reduced the number of suicides.

No mention of Peru there. Where did you find that info?

Your man on Twitter doesn't seem to have accounted for this, from the ONS website: "Longer delays in coroner-certified deaths are expected, as during the height of the pandemic, the majority of coroner’s inquests were halted; this will especially affect deaths due to suicide and violence." and "The types of deaths that doctors are obliged to refer to coroners are where the death was unnatural, unexplained, violent, or where the death occurs in prison or otherwise in state detention."

Which isn't to say he's wrong, but the data he's working with is subject to change. Hard to tell if these same sort of delays are likely to affect the Oz numbers.

Eh that’s not true, there was no strict lockdown between July and October in NSW, it was actually very normal especially in Sydney from start of June onwards. Even in April/May it wasn’t really that strict compared to my folks in Ireland they couldn’t do anything for months.

darconio

Arghus wrote: »

Yeah, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Beasty's story proves that there's a individual twist to everyones story.

Some people don't pick it up when you would have expected them too, others don't know how they got it.

But there's no dispute that you can catch it easily and a pub/restaurant environment ticks all the boxes for an environment that would be a relatively easy one for transmission.

That virtually doesn't prove anything, on both side of the barricade, however the assumption that it's easier to get it in a restaurant is disproved by the fact that only 1 in a household got infected and had, I assume, mild flu like symptoms

Beasty

Lundstram wrote: »

Why is no one talking about the fact that just over one third of all cases were contracted in hospital?

One of the issues with this though is some may have come into hospital with it, but not yet testing positive

As all people in hospital are tested, a lot more actual cases will be identified as asymptomatic ones will show up (ignoring all the false positive and false negative stuff)

I think a lot of people who have it (or have had it) never know that because they are asymptomatic. Early on in the pandemic it was noted that quite a lot of sports players were getting this - certainly (or so it appeared) more proportionately than the general population. This was always put down to asymptomatic cases, as players were tested regardless of symptoms. And it remains the case that despite "bubbles" and the like, a lot of sports persons still seem to be testing positive. Hence I think there is little doubt that the actual prevalence of Covid 19 is much higher than any "official" figures indicate. That means more will show up in places like hospitals simply because everyone is tested

jd1983

froog wrote: »

that's about 600 out of the 100,000 ish total cases since christmas.

https://www.thejournal.ie/third-contracting-covid-in-hospital-varadkar-5331491-Jan2021/

The figure is a lot higher than 600. You're assuming that everyone that caught it in hospital for this period is the same as anyone who caught it in hospital at a precise time.

Furthermore, I seem to recall hospital transmissions were as high as 50% at times.

darconio

Beasty wrote: »

The fact we locked her in a room and slid slices of ham and cheese under the door might have helped....

I never had chickenpox. When my son started showing its symptoms I rushed to the doctor to get vaccinated: he gave me a pat on the shoulder and said look man, there's the incubation time, you probably have it already.
Surprisingly... he went through with it and I didn't show any symptoms

froog

jd1983 wrote: »

The figure is a lot higher than 600. You're assuming that everyone that caught it in hospital for this period is the same as anyone who caught it in hospital at a precise time.

Furthermore, I seem to recall hospital transmissions were as high as 50% at times.

what i am saying is that you can't use the proportion of hospital covid cases who caught it in hospital as a representative of the entire population of ireland. because the entire population of ireland does not frequent hospitals.

Boggles

Beasty wrote: »

And it remains the case that despite "bubbles" and the like, a lot of sports persons still seem to be testing positive.

Orgies with hookers and champagne parties may have something to do with that though.

I imagine it just seems a lot of famous people were getting it because when Neymar tests positive it makes the news, when Ann from Tesco does, it doesn't.

I think the serial testing proved that there were lower instance rates of the virus in these places than the community when everything was functioning.

When effective track and tracing was functioning at optimal levels we were probably missing 1 maybe 2 cases in every 10.

Fúck knows what we missing the past month or so.

Whatsisname

Beasty wrote: »

5 in our household. My wife contracted it 3 weeks ago. She had been in close contact with the rest of us extensively. We were not tested, and none of us showed any symptoms. We had to stay at home for 2 weeks, and I suspect 1, 2, maybe all 4 of us could have had it but were asymptomatic. Alternatively we all must have some kind of protective shield as based on everything we hear about this we should probably all have got it.

As close contacts we ended up staying at home for a week longer than my wife (as she was "freed" 10 days after her symptoms started) - if we did have it we had virtually no chance of spreading it further within those 2 weeks

Same happened me. Girlfriend tested positive around early November. I got a test the day she tested positive. I was negative. Never socially distanced nor wore a mask or anything like that around her. We live in a small 1 bed apartment so slept in the same bed, sat on the couch all night together, ate at the same time, used the same bathroom. I never showed any symptoms. Probably should have went and got another test a week in to see but I left it off.

And weirdly enough, my brother had the same situation. His girlfriend got it and he never did.

Maybe my family’s blood is in the vaccines. :pac:

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Argus, I have no idea how you continue to make these claims with nothing to back them up only your own thoughts.

We know we can catch the virus anywhere but how many cases have been linked to parks?

It was just a random location. My point was that people can catch Covid in all sorts of locations - as people well know but pubs and restaurants are always defended, despite them clearly being more inherently risky than other locales.

You jumped to question my assertion about hospitality yourself, did you not?

It's fairly typical that you won't address the substantive point I was making, but instead chose to pedanticly get stuck a minor detail and make the conversation about that.

I did ask you earlier to explain your statement “ people have been dying at an unprecedented rate for the last month as a direct result. ”

Huge surge, huge daily death figures in January as a result.

I hope that was expansive enough.

You continue to make bizzare claims and when questioned or asked for proof you start talking in riddles or passive aggressive nothingness

I can see how my claims seem bizzare compared to what passes for received wisdom on this thread alright.

Passive aggressive? I was deemed hysterical a few posts ago - it's hard to know if I'm coming or going! Can I be passive and hysterical all at once?

I'm neither to be honest. I'm decisive, passionate and unwavering, occasionally I can be pithy. But my emotions are in check.

I’ve seen you make claims before that this thread is a mess,

Frequently, it is. Things are much better now that there's actually a bit of debate happening, whereas it has been in the past largely one way traffic.

I'm sorry if the thread seems like a mess to you. Perhaps it does seem that way with more variety of opinion now on display. I thought you believed in healthy and rigorous debate? I believe I make consistently fair and reasonable points - I'm sorry that you don't agree with them.

I don't know why you are accusing me of taking it off topic. This post notwithstanding everything I have posted here in the last while has been entirely on topic and I haven't engaged in personal attack, even if I've been on the receiving end of a bit of it myself - even if some of it was of a high enough literary standard.

Lundstram

Beasty wrote: »

One of the issues with this though is some may have come into hospital with it, but not yet testing positive

As all people in hospital are tested, a lot more actual cases will be identified as asymptomatic ones will show up (ignoring all the false positive and false negative stuff)

I think a lot of people who have it (or have had it) never know that because they are asymptomatic. Early on in the pandemic it was noted that quite a lot of sports players were getting this - certainly (or so it appeared) more proportionately than the general population. This was always put down to asymptomatic cases, as players were tested regardless of symptoms. And it remains the case that despite "bubbles" and the like, a lot of sports persons still seem to be testing positive. Hence I think there is little doubt that the actual prevalence of Covid 19 is much higher than any "official" figures indicate. That means more will show up in places like hospitals simply because everyone is tested

Agree that actual cases are just a fraction of what's being reported. But isn't that a good thing?

This is why the vulnerable should be shielded and let the rest of us live.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

passive aggressive

Is this the new buzzword(s) for the thread?

Silentcorner

Lundstram wrote: »

Agree that actual cases are just a fraction of what's being reported. But isn't that a good thing?

This is why the vulnerable should be shielded and let the rest of us live.

It also has implications for our Case Fatality Rate...and all the models we are currently use...it's most likely much lower than what we are being told it is...

IT would explain the demographic that has seen the highest deaths.

Arghus

Penfailed wrote: »

Is this the new buzzword(s) for the thread?

It's code for: Can defend point without having to write in all caps or without resorting to triple exclamation points to connote exasperation.

Silentcorner

Arghus wrote: »

It's code for: Can defend point without having to write in all caps or without resorting to triple exclamation points to connote exasperation.

It actually describes the emotive language and tone that is evident on the thread...a product of hysteria!!!

Boggles

Lundstram wrote: »

This is why the vulnerable should be shielded and let the rest of us live.

If that were a viable plan and it carried out, it would in fact that likes of you that would have to shield, particularly from shared public services.

Cancer patients, people on dialysis, people underline conditions need to use these services so it is only fair they are made as safe as possible. Add in their families and all public health staff and everyone else who would be deemed or deem themselves vulnerable.

Would you be willing to sign a waiver that if you were in accident or developed an ailment and required the use of a public service you could be outright denied it?

Arghus

Silentcorner wrote: »

It actually describes the emotive language and tone that is evident on the thread...a product of hysteria!!!

Those triple exclamation points again.

FintanMcluskey

Boggles wrote: »

Would you be willing to sign a waiver that if you were in accident or developed an ailment and required the use of a public service you could be outright denied it?

I’ve thought about this and it’s a mad idea alright but then so is Leo’s recent sound bites about the length of lockdown.

Give people a choice, sign a waiver and continue with life.

Obviously none of the PRSI that’s paid funds the health service then.

Silentcorner

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I’ve thought about this and it’s a mad idea alright but then so is Leo’s recent sound bites about the length of lockdown.

Give people a choice, sign a waiver and continue with life.

Obviously none of the PRSI that’s paid funds the health service then.

I'd have no hesitation.

There are privately owned Walk In Clinics that provide a much more efficient and pleasant experience.

I try to keep away from being in or depending on the Public Sector for as much as I can!!!

Beasty

Lundstram wrote: »

Agree that actual cases are just a fraction of what's being reported. But isn't that a good thing?

In one sense yes

The relevance to this particular thread though is many end up having to isolate possibly numerous times as close contacts, when they may already have immunity through having had it already

We may already be some way towards heard immunity but with no comprehensive database of who has had it and is unlikely to contract it again

In a few months time we'll have a cohort who have had it, another cohort who have been vaccinated, and a fundamental question of why they cannot get back to something nearer a "normal" life (thereby excluding those who do not fit into either cohort)

Equally we do not have much idea of whether "immunity" is short-term, long-term or possibly even permanent. Whether different vaccines deliver different results on immunity itself, or indeed only deals with symptoms offering no barrier to protecting others. Are new variants going to be resistant to some, possibly all, vaccines?

Alas because of all of this the tendency of the likes of NEPHET and the Government will be to err on the side of caution, meaning restrictions stay in place. And that's all before the next pandemic. Another SARS may result in ultra caution, whereas the "original" had virtually no impact on the vast majority of the World's inhabitants. No politician or health adviser is going to risk becoming the fall guy for another pandemic

So in my view we probably have more unanswered questions than ever even a year+ into all of this

FintanMcluskey

Beasty wrote: »

In one sense yes

The relevance to this particular thread though is many end up having to isolate possibly numerous times as close contacts, when they may already have immunity through having had it already

We may already be some way towards heard immunity but with no comprehensive database of who has had it and is unlikely to contract it again

In a few months time we'll have a cohort who have had it, another cohort who have been vaccinated, and a fundamental question of why they cannot get back to something nearer a "normal" life (thereby excluding those who do not fit into either cohort)

Equally we do not have much idea of whether "immunity" is short-term, long-term or possibly even permanent. Whether different vaccines deliver different results on immunity itself, or indeed only deals with symptoms offering no barrier to protecting others. Are new variants going to be resistant to some, possibly all, vaccines?

Alas because of all of this the tendency of the likes of NEPHET and the Government will be to err on the side of caution, meaning restrictions stay in place. And that's all before the next pandemic. Another SARS may result in ultra caution, whereas the "original" had virtually no impact on the vast majority of the World's inhabitants. No politician or health adviser is going to risk becoming the fall guy for another pandemic

So in my view we probably have more unanswered questions than ever even a year+ into all of this

At what point does Ireland’s attempt to live with the virus become counter productive?

When does lockdown become counter productive?

Kunta Kinte

Beasty wrote: »

In one sense yes

The relevance to this particular thread though is many end up having to isolate possibly numerous times as close contacts, when they may already have immunity through having had it already

We may already be some way towards heard immunity but with no comprehensive database of who has had it and is unlikely to contract it again

In a few months time we'll have a cohort who have had it, another cohort who have been vaccinated, and a fundamental question of why they cannot get back to something nearer a "normal" life (thereby excluding those who do not fit into either cohort)

Equally we do not have much idea of whether "immunity" is short-term, long-term or possibly even permanent. Whether different vaccines deliver different results on immunity itself, or indeed only deals with symptoms offering no barrier to protecting others. Are new variants going to be resistant to some, possibly all, vaccines?

Alas because of all of this the tendency of the likes of NEPHET and the Government will be to err on the side of caution, meaning restrictions stay in place. And that's all before the next pandemic. Another SARS may result in ultra caution, whereas the "original" had virtually no impact on the vast majority of the World's inhabitants. No politician or health adviser is going to risk becoming the fall guy for another pandemic

So in my view we probably have more unanswered questions than ever even a year+ into all of this

Absolutely correct. Hopefully the penny will soon drop for those who still believe there will be any rapid easing or removal of restrictions.

Silentcorner

So testing is a bit of a waste of time...

We all agree that the Case Fatality Rate for this country is much lower than we think

And

We haven't learned a thing over the last year other than severe lockdowns are the only answer...

And

Whatever we must do, we mustn't compare it to a flu virus probably the closest type of virus we do have experience with!!!

FintanMcluskey

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Hopefully the penny will soon drop for those who still expect there to be to be any rapid easing or removal of restrictions.

These sort of comments are so unsettling.

Do some people actually hate meeting other people?

The situation really is ideal for introverts