Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid 19 Part XXXIV-249,437 ROI(4,906 deaths) 120,195 NI (2,145 deaths)(01/05)Read OP

Options
12357328

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,740 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    speckle wrote: »
    I think what we are missing though is a breakdown of postive cases per symtoms in each age group. There is already a chart showing the different levels of severitymaybe the cases should be shown by this. eg there are three levels of mild moderate and severe...maybe someone could post it here.

    I only posted it to show the OP his science around 60% being asymptomatic was flawed. Then again he never provided the science!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Very few countries have. Israel is a special case and are providing data for the rest of the world.

    Would you know if they have an equivalent of VAERS or the yellow flag EU system of reporting adverse reactions... I cant seem to find one? thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    One of the dumbest things Ireland did was use all hospitals as Covid-19 hospitals. There is absolutely no sense to it.
    Given that COVID didn't just roll up in say Blanchardstown only your own suggestion is ill-thought out. Apart from ambulances criss-crossing the country you'd be screwed when that one hospital filled up. As a brilliant idea it has obviously been implemented worldwide.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    speckle wrote: »
    Would you know if they have an equivalent of VAERS or the yellow flag EU system of reporting adverse reactions... I cant seem to find one? thanks

    According to this, they engage in "active surveillance" of side effects. Some stats on them there.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/post-covid-vaccine-under-0-3-of-israelis-reported-side-effects-to-doctor/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭caveat emptor


    While you’re not wrong about some of you say, I think you are fundamentally wrong to not recognise that the balance between protecting us from COVID and burning the economy to the ground is changing. Serious illness WILL be lower as the vulnerable are vaccinated.....the UK experience this year clearly shows that. While the virus may have a different effect on younger people now (not borne out in the UK incidentally), the equation that supports lockdown had changed

    The UK have removed case numbers in isolation from their tests to relax restrictions. Whitty said that case numbers will rise substantially but that he does not see that affecting the roadmap to normality. The data points informing our own lockdown decisions need to change at some point. But all the narrative suggests that we are stuck with this. There do not seem to be any dissenting voices

    We are continuing to burn our economy to the ground, and impacting the lives, to a devastating degree, of large segments of our population

    It’s a balance, and the balance is shifting. We need to start moving toward living with this in our society

    Thanks for the reply. To your point on the economy , I agree it is a balancing act. I'm sure the retail sector was happy with the pre Christmas splurge but isn't so happy with the 3 month shut down. The population certainly isn't.

    Serious illness will indeed be lower once older and at risk groups vaccinated but we are not the UK on this front but going back to normal thinking that infection won't spread will still be a problem.

    The number of serious cases in the younger groups has been a small percentage. A small percentage of a big number is still a big number. So if we throw caution to the wind and say that it only effects older people we forget the context of that statement. We have only been testing children who were symptomatic for a large part of this and even then the criteria was based on available capacity.

    It should read, "It was only affecting old people with relatively low levels of infection on a national level and with wild type that didn't infect as many young people"

    Opening up while necessary as we have seen increases the total number of infections which will by extension increase number of infections in that group.

    The age of the serious cases / deaths is definitely skewed towards very old people but the sample is biased due to effect of care homes.

    Vaccines for everyone really is the way out. Not all bad news. Amazing news. :)
    Babies born to vaccinated mothers have COVID-fighting antibodies

    https://twitter.com/rencontrejfm/status/1375008058473123840?s=20


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Given that COVID didn't just roll up in say Blanchardstown only your own suggestion is ill-thought out. Apart from ambulances criss-crossing the country you'd be screwed when that one hospital filled up. As a brilliant idea it has obviously been implemented worldwide.

    It was implemented in Vietnam, to great success. Normal hospitals continued as normal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,124 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    theballz wrote: »
    Numbers going up, very concerning - wave 4 coming anyone?

    Hospital and ICU numbers are down. The hysteria of only focusing on the raw case numbers needs to end.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle


    is_that_so wrote: »
    According to this, they engage in "active surveillance" of side effects. Some stats on them there.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/post-covid-vaccine-under-0-3-of-israelis-reported-side-effects-to-doctor/

    Thanks for that so they have a system but maybe not as detailed or openly accessable as vaers or the yellow flag system in the EU ...which I will say are not perfect either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    It was implemented in Vietnam, to great success. Normal hospitals continued as normal.
    A country with under 3000 cases is not a model for the rest of the world.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    speckle wrote: »
    Thanks for that so they have a system but maybe not as detailed or openly accessable as vaers or the yellow flag system in the EU ...which I will say are not perfect either.
    It's probably being fed back to Pfizer in the data recorded anyway. It is after all a sort of clinical trial.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle



    As somebody with innate immunity to TB... due to my mother being ill with it while pregnant.. I have been hoping for this good news. As a family we have some understanding the fears that pregnant women with covid have been going through. Thanks Caveat made my day and not shamed to say getting teary here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,409 ✭✭✭Icyseanfitz


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Hospital and ICU numbers are down. The hysteria of only focusing on the raw case numbers needs to end.

    the issue is the raw case/swab numbers lead to increased hospitalizations weeks after the fact.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,894 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    the issue is the raw case/swab numbers lead to increased hospitalizations weeks after the fact.

    As more vulnerable groups are vaccinated, they will make up a lower share of cases and those that do test positive are incredibly unlikely to need hospitalisation.

    The rate of cases needing hospitalised down the road is dropping all the time, so case numbers should not dictate anymore (or at least have massively reduced significance)


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,124 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    the issue is the raw case/swab numbers lead to increased hospitalizations weeks after the fact.

    700k of the most vulnerable who would end up in hospital have had at least 1 shot at this stage. Why would we continue to see increased hospitalisations?

    The focus only on the case numbers needs to come to an end asap.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,858 ✭✭✭Russman


    Leftwaffe wrote: »
    Does it? I don’t see much talk about this UK variant in the UK. We’re more afraid of it than they are

    Could it be that over there in the UK, its not the UK variant, its just COVID ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,740 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    the issue is the raw case/swab numbers lead to increased hospitalizations weeks after the fact.

    Hospital figures seem to increase before case numbers do. So hospital admissions are more valuable metric to see what's happening in the community. Hospital admissions show were going up **** Creek, the cases tell us how far!

    That could change this time around if younger people require hospital care later than elderly patients (most cases now are in under 65's and the highest at risk are getting vaccinated)
    I'm just assuming elderly people would be hit faster with symptoms that require hospitalization.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    700k of the most vulnerable who would end up in hospital have had at least 1 shot at this stage. Why would we continue to see increased hospitalisations?

    The focus only on the case numbers needs to come to an end asap.

    OK.

    In January Leo said that non covid full health care wouldn't resume until icu numbers are below 50. Therefore we can't consider any relaxation of resteictions until we have less than 50 in icu.

    We're at 75 in icu now. Do you feel that they can consider opening society if they can't reopen non covid care.

    Cases are seen as a predictor of future icu and hospital rather than their own item. I believe nolan has changed the formula he uses to estimate icu in 2 weeks time based on the vaccinated cohort.

    In general cases increase before hospitals so they are a leading metric that will allow us to predict hospitals in a few weeks time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,296 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Leftwaffe wrote: »
    Does it? I don’t see much talk about this UK variant in the UK. We’re more afraid of it than they are

    Variants dubbed as new viruses supports the lockdown narrative


  • Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    is_that_so wrote: »
    A country with under 3000 cases is not a model for the rest of the world.

    And yet the rest of the world have done or is doing all the same things, bit by bit. Masks, contact tracing, flight restrictions, closing schools, mandatory quarantines. Why not go the whole way and have one or two hospitals dedicated to Covid-19, and have positive cases isolated in hotels instead of going home to infect their families and communities.

    Every successful country is a model in some way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,977 ✭✭✭TheDoctor


    Russman wrote: »
    Could it be that over there in the UK, its not the UK variant, its just COVID ?

    Well thats just very confusing.

    Calling the "new virus" the same name as the old virus.

    Silly Brits.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    Hospital numbers this morning = 313 (slight increase from 310 last night, and down from 329 yesterday morning)

    Could see this drop below 300 for the weekend. Hospital numbers are falling with static or rising case numbers, probably due to the young age profile of recent cases (median age of cases has been in the low 30s most days), which in turn is partly the result of vaccinations in the older age groups.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Leftwaffe wrote: »
    Genuine question, considering the age profile of yesterday’s cases, how many of those will end up in hospital typically?

    From a hospital number prospective- approx 50% of all covid cases in hospitals are under 65. And looking at the stats - that's been a fairly consistent features of hospital numbers.

    These are younger age groups who are sick enough to require specialist medical intervention

    As to the usual rejoinder about underlying conditions - I believe the point is that a proportion of all age groups have underlying conditions whether that is asthma, diabetes and other conditions.

    And as someone has already pointed out the number of serious cases in the younger groups has been a small percentage. A small percentage of a big number can still be a relatively big number.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,793 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    The government are going to extend the 5km limit long after the majority of the population have ignored it.
    Even the Gardai see enforcing that as a complete waste of time.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,578 ✭✭✭JDD


    gozunda wrote: »
    From a hospital number prospective- over 50% of all covid cases in hospitals are under 65. And looking at the stats - that's been a fairly consistent features of hospital numbers.

    These are younger age groups who are sick enough to require specialist medical intervention

    As to the usual rejoinder about underlying conditions - I believe the point is that a proportion of all age groups have underlying conditions whether that is asthma, diabetes and other conditions.

    And as someone has already pointed out the number of serious cases in the younger groups has been a small percentage. A small percentage of a big number can still be a relatively big number.

    That's the question really isn't it? Once you take the elderly and vulnerable out of the equation, how many of the infected will need hospital treatment? I presume the HSE have algorithms were you can punch in the numbers infected, the age of those infected and the R rate, and it will figure out how many more will be infected over the next month and how many of that cohort will need hospitalisation.

    I think we're going to be alright to be honest. Case numbers aren't going to spiral upwards like last December because hospitality is closed and its better weather now so people will meet up outside. So even if we remove the 5k limit, open construction and allow click and collect, I think we can manage the incremental increase in infections. Yes, we may end up with over 2 or 3k infections a day but if those cases are mainly under 40's, with a few at 40-65 we can probably manage the hospitalisations over April and May. Come June we *should* have massively more vaccines delivered and that cohort under 40 can be vaccinated first. So before we get to squeaky b*m territory - i.e. 5/6/7k cases a day infections should start coming down when those driving the infection rate get their first dose.


  • Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭LameBeaver


    The government are going to extend the 5km limit long after the majority of the population have ignored it.
    Even the Gardai see enforcing that as a complete waste of time.

    Why do you believe that to be true chief?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,793 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    LameBeaver wrote: »
    Why do you believe that to be true chief?

    They're already flying kites on it. The 5km will be extended from April 5.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,894 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    gozunda wrote: »
    From a hospital number prospective- over 50% of all covid cases in hospitals are under 65. And looking at the stats - that's been a fairly consistent features of hospital numbers.

    These are younger age groups who are sick enough to require specialist medical intervention

    As to the usual rejoinder about underlying conditions - I believe the point is that a proportion of all age groups have underlying conditions whether that is asthma, diabetes and other conditions.

    And as someone has already pointed out the number of serious cases in the younger groups has been a small percentage. A small percentage of a big number can still be a relatively big number.

    Deaths and hospitalisations (deaths in particular) under 65s are overwhelmingly among those with underlying conditions.

    Relatively few healthy under 65s end up in hospital


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    timmyntc wrote: »
    Deaths and hospitalisations (deaths in particular) under 65s are overwhelmingly among those with underlying conditions.

    Relatively few healthy under 65s end up in hospital

    Does the DOH or the HSE release figures for the overall number of patients in hospital. My brother was in hospital last week for a non-Covid related procedure. He said that every second bed was empty. Of course, as no visitors are allowed, nobody else can see this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    While you’re not wrong about some of you say, I think you are fundamentally wrong to not recognise that the balance between protecting us from COVID and burning the economy to the ground is changing. Serious illness WILL be lower as the vulnerable are vaccinated.....the UK experience this year clearly shows that. While the virus may have a different effect on younger people now (not borne out in the UK incidentally), the equation that supports lockdown had changed

    The UK have removed case numbers in isolation from their tests to relax restrictions. Whitty said that case numbers will rise substantially but that he does not see that affecting the roadmap to normality. The data points informing our own lockdown decisions need to change at some point. But all the narrative suggests that we are stuck with this. There do not seem to be any dissenting voices

    We are continuing to burn our economy to the ground, and impacting the lives, to a devastating degree, of large segments of our population

    It’s a balance, and the balance is shifting. We need to start moving toward living with this in our society

    I believe the UK approach has only been possible in that they have effectively ignored that they have had one of top 5 highest Covid death rates in the World. A death rate which only saw any real reduction when they brought in their own strict lockdown policy.

    The UK death rate as of today is 1,887 per million. Ours is approx half of that at 936 per milliin. Was their high death rate a 'balance? I doubt it tbh. .

    Much of what you say about Ireland are very real issues to the UKs economy and just as much impacting lives there to a devastating degree, and to large segments of their population. Unfortunately such are the very real impacts of managing the rate of infection in both here and the UK so that health services can cope.

    Btw I'd strongly reject the repeated generic mantra that "we've burned our economy to the ground". The news is that whilst nearly all economic sectors have been seriously impacted and er have unprecedented unemployment. Ireland’s economy actually grew by 3.4% last year despite Covid-19 restrictions and on the back of record growth in the export sector. Infact Ireland was the only EU economy to actually grow last year. And yes I believe the economy will be able to bounce back strongly once we get a critical mass of people vaccinated and are fully able to roll back restrictions.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,894 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    gozunda wrote: »
    Btw I'd strongly reject the repeated generic mantra that "we've burned our economy to the ground". The news is that whilst nearly all economic sectors have been seriously impacted and er have unprecedented unemployment. Ireland’s economy actually grew by 3.4% last year despite Covid-19 restrictions and on the back of record growth in the export sector. Infact Ireland was the only EU economy to actually grow last year. And yes I believe the economy will be able to bounce back strongly once we get a critical mass of people vaccinated and are fully able to roll back restrictions.

    Our GDP grew by 3.4% last year - our GDP has not been an accurate measure of our economy for several years. The EU and EuroStat were raising this issue years ago. Our GDP is inflated by asset & IP transfers to this country, among other assets. As well as multinational performance - multinationals do well globally, it is reflected in our GDP (despite us seeing little to no benefit from it).

    The correct metric is adjusted GNI, which did not grow by 3.4% last year. Not even close.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement