But WHY do we need to flatten the curve? (anxiety warning!)

How are we on CPAP machines? Are we using them to care for those with more moderate needs and free up vents.

DeVore wrote: »

I dont know. Those sorts of numbers arent readily available and I dont know enough about medicine to understand the impact of one vs the other.

Probably more than I do. Just curious. There are arguments for and against their use with sufferers of the virus.

shesty wrote: »

But why? You would want to test everybody every 7 days or so - and with each iteration, test only those who tested negative the previous week (I think?) - in order for that to be useful.

It could take months, which is irrelevant really, but it would show you no particularly useful information until several weeks had passed. Even at that it would probably only tell you what you already know - the thing spreads. Isolation works. But you can't isolate people forever.

With resources and capacity that are there anyway, it would be a pointless exercise and would cause more problems that it would solve.

well if you knew who had it then you could make damn sure they didn't venture out. you could stop them going to work and spreading it further. A test for antibodies might be even more useful I'd agree. If someone tested positive in a small town would it not be better to inform the Gardai and get them to make sure they didn't leave their house?


Here's a thing a couple in the town I live in went on holiday to Malta and returned with symptoms. they rang the local factory where they work which has around 250 employees. They were told under no circumstances were they to show up at work and to isolate for 14 days by Management. 3 days later they're out strolling in the local Park and shopping in the local supermarket. As it happens the pair of CNUTS tested negative but that's not the issue. :mad:

So when can I go back to working on roofs?

The cat's out of the bag at this stage, even with flattening the curve. The problem now is we aren't boosting health care capacity fast enough - there's huge amounts of idle workers/construction-workers who could be building entire hospitals, among much more that is urgently needed - and the funding for things so far has been impressive sounding, but ultimately not enough - and now it looks like the EU is going to be attaching purse-strings after a certain point.

It's not looking good. We need to be doing more to raise our capacity along with flattening the curve, and it looks like EU politics is going to get in the way, there will only be limited solidarity there.

Gentleman Off The Pitch wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this, was this reported somewhere?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/mar/31/solidarity-members-eurozone-coronavirus-dutch-coronabond

UrbanFret wrote: »

Test everybody in Ireland in .an ideal world both north and south. Easy to deal with it then. We need 7 million test kits asap.

There is no point in testing everyone now, you would just need to test them all again should they fall ill.

UrbanFret wrote: »

I would say tomorrow if it was to repair a leaking roof.

Only if it's for essential works related.

Thespoofer wrote: »

Only if it's for essential works related.

Would keeping an old ladys home from been ruined not be essential?

shesty wrote: »

Out of curiosity how are the Dutch doing??

Death rate per head of population (along with neighbours Belgium) is worse than that of France, but nowhere near as bad as that of Italy and Spain

DeVore wrote: »

I think that people are pushing back because they misunderstand the "unmitigated" scenario and think "ah, it wont be that bad".

If you are well informed, then yes... this is not exactly breaking news but there are people here already who are surprised and many others I've seen talking like either they are pyschopathic or (more charitably) not as well informed as you.

Even on this thread we have people saying "yaaawn, knew all this" and other saying "OMG stop scare-mongering"

I know it’s not your intention Dev, but unfortunately what’s needed here is not scientific data or any of the rest of it. That’s only relevant if one is a data scientist. What’s needed here is a PR campaign to interpret the data in simple language that someone like me for example can understand.

I do understand the data and all the rest of it, but I have to agree with others who have said that the clickbait intro was unnecessarily dramatic - “This will shock you” type stuff. I’m not shocked, nor do I experience anxiety, nor am I psychopathic. I don’t mind admitting to being ill-informed.

So perhaps for the benefit of people like myself, in your post tomorrow, in the words of Denzel -

What a gimp that guy Neil Ferguson from Imperial College is. He predicted 500,000 deaths in the UK from the virus and now after ONE DAY of the lockdown in the UK he has reduced the predicted deaths by 480,000 to 20,000.

What the hell were they basing the original numbers on?

How many millions of jobs will be lost because of this scientist clown.

hmmm wrote: »

Regeron's antibody is due to go into trials in June, and we should know within weeks if it is working or not.

deathbomber wrote: »

The antibody test will change a lot, huge difference

An antibody test has become Flavour of the Week for most polticians and internet commentators. As things stand at the moment, though, it'll change nothing. There is some evidence to show that the immune response to Covid-19 is paradoxical: if you've got a strong immune system, you'll get over it, but you might test negative; but equally, the worst cases are linked to a particularly strong immune response that kills the patient along with the virus.

There is currently no evidence to suggest that a vaccine will work, some evidence to suggest that it'll kill at least some of the people it's supposed to protect (not from an unwanted side effect but by triggering the worst aspects of Covid-19 disease), and an awful lot of "jury's still out" statistically unreliable reports of people having recovered from a first Covid-19 infection and become test-postitive again several weeks later.

growleaves wrote: »

This ICL model is the one being followed by most governments around the world.

... the worst-case-scenario models put forward by Fauci and Ferguson.

The ICL models appear to be based on best-guess real-time data relating to this virus since its appearance a few months ago, which sounds like the logical thing to do, but inevitably makes them incredibly unstable as the input data is changing from week to week.

Fauci's model and others that I've seen modeling a "what-if" pandemic and based on the "first principles" of epidemiology seem to be more accurate, except in one respect: this epidemic is worse than their worst-case scenario. The reason is very simple: the authors never expected the developed world to be so poorly prepared, and for so many strategic recommendations to have been shelved, ignored or undone.

Between those infrastructural constratints, the particular "stealth tactics" of this virus and the general unwillingness of any Western democracy to impose measures that would actually make a difference, I don't think that flattening the curve is going to briing anything like the relief that's been promised (or hoped for).

FVP3 wrote: »

He had graphs and relatively simple language explaining it.

What worries me on those graphs is the upcoming peak in November, we clearly need a vaccine.

That's based on all restriction being lifted in September

I wouldn't read too much into that.