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 VII - 169 cases ROI (2 deaths) 45 in NI (as of 15 March) *Read OP*
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Not meaning to cause outrrage or argument or anything but just looking a bit objectively at the figures...it is the people over 50 who die in MUCH greater numbers. Over 50 = 0.5%, over 60 = 3 %, over 70 = 10% and growing after that to very high amounts.
This is the cohort very much in a higher risk category. That does not mean younger people won't be very sick, it might be so, I do not know.
There are also the immuno compromised who should be regarded as similar to the over 50's and older cohort.
Here we have closed schools, going for isolation of the vectors. This does not protect the most vulnerable groups - that depends on people themselves to be protecting the older demographic and the immuno-compromised. That is not dependable.
In the UK they are talking seriously now of isolating the group with the highest mortality rate. (In weeks, I don't know why...immediately would be the answer.)
If we restricted movement of the at risk groups and helped them out with food deliveries, shopping, meds etc, plus online connection via face time etc, then the virus would spread through the population that could weather it and it MIGHT build enough immunity so that at risk groups would not be meeting it every time they left their homes in a few months.
It would mean the economy could continue at least somewhat, and social welfare provision would be more affordable than a complete shutdown.
I don't know. Anyone else think this might work? Thought? I am happy to be contradicted, though it would not be pleasant to be called some sort of a monster (thanks).0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
You are thinking rationally, how dare you.
Not meaning to cause outrrage or argument or anything but just looking a bit objectively at the figures...it is the people over 50 who die in MUCH greater numbers. Over 50 = 0.5%, over 60 = 3 %, over 70 = 10% and growing after that to very high amounts.
This is the cohort very much in a higher risk category. That does not mean younger people won't be very sick, it might be so, I do not know.
There are also the immuno compromised who should be regarded as similar to the over 50's and older cohort.
Here we have closed schools, going for isolation of the vectors. This does not protect the most vulnerable groups - that depends on people themselves to be protecting the older demographic and the immuno-compromised. That is not dependable.
In the UK they are talking seriously now of isolating the group with the highest mortality rate. (In weeks, I don't know why...immediately would be the answer.)
If we restricted movement of the at risk groups and helped them out with food deliveries, shopping, meds etc, plus online connection via face time etc, then the virus would spread through the population that could weather it and it MIGHT build enough immunity so that at risk groups would not be meeting it every time they left their homes in a few months.
It would mean the economy could continue at least somewhat, and social welfare provision would be more affordable than a complete shutdown.
I don't know. Anyone else think this might work? Thought? I am happy to be contradicted, though it would not be pleasant to be called some sort of a monster (thanks).0 -
Not meaning to cause outrrage or argument or anything but just looking a bit objectively at the figures...it is the people over 50 who die in MUCH greater numbers. Over 50 = 0.5%, over 60 = 3 %, over 70 = 10% and growing after that to very high amounts.
This is the cohort very much in a higher risk category. That does not mean younger people won't be very sick, it might be so, I do not know.
There are also the immuno compromised who should be regarded as similar to the over 50's and older cohort.
Here we have closed schools, going for isolation of the vectors. This does not protect the most vulnerable groups - that depends on people themselves to be protecting the older demographic and the immuno-compromised. That is not dependable.
In the UK they are talking seriously now of isolating the group with the highest mortality rate. (In weeks, I don't know why...immediately would be the answer.)
If we restricted movement of the at risk groups and helped them out with food deliveries, shopping, meds etc, plus online connection via face time etc, then the virus would spread through the population that could weather it and it MIGHT build enough immunity so that at risk groups would not be meeting it every time they left their homes in a few months.
It would mean the economy could continue at least somewhat, and social welfare provision would be more affordable than a complete shutdown.
I don't know. Anyone else think this might work? Thought? I am happy to be contradicted, though it would not be pleasant to be called some sort of a monster (thanks).
Remember one of the reasons they die in greater numbers because they're not even being treated. The doctors have to pick who gets each ICU bed and younger people get chosen. If the numbers keep rising not all the young people get beds.
Younger people also fight longer, ie they take longer to die. The deaths in younger people will rise.
We need to get the numbers down through a lockdown then probably/possibly move to a controlled version of the UK as phase 2.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement