Covid19 Part XV - 15,251 in ROI (610 deaths) 2,645 in NI (194 deaths) (19/04) Read OP

10000maniacs · 15-04-2020 06:09PM

UrbanFret wrote: »

So it's been confirmed that these cases are related to travelling to Cheltenham. Link please.

You prove to me that they didn't bring the virus back first. Link please.
It was moronic for thousands of Irish to head over as the virus was already rampant over there.

tobefrank321 · 15-04-2020 06:09PM

moceri wrote: »

or as Martin Collins would have us all believe, it is just an assertion of cultural identity...i.e. the rules don't apply to us.

Ah but sure they are all isolating for 2 weeks except when they turn up en masse at funerals. Expect a spike in positive cases in Birr in the next few weeks.

joe_99 · 15-04-2020 06:10PM

rm212 wrote: »

Scary how closely we’re following Spain’s trend...

How is our death rate and our hospitals fairing compared up Spain?

Are we testing more?

jobeenfitz · 15-04-2020 06:11PM

Mwengwe wrote: »

I think that's unfair, I have a similar reaction to those 'underlying condition' posts - I can understand why people do it, but I also don't think people realise how it comes across. I try to bite my tongue most of the time. It's not a virtue-signalling thing, it genuinely does seem very disrespectful to the deceased to me to be seeking out photos to ascertain whether they were obese or not. Maybe it's just me? Can you not see that?

Another thing - people have said that it comforts them somewhat to know there was an underlying condition. Yet in the next breath they'll be saying 'well maybe they had an underlying condition they didn't know about!' At which point, where's the comfort? Any of us could have an underlying condition we don't know about!

I think people say "underlying conditions" for different reasons. Because it's mostly older people dying. Maybe people say it hoping there are underlying conditions for fear that young healthy people are dying?

I don't think there is callousness involved in these posts but it doesn't stop people deciding there is and then over-reacting.

joe_99 · 15-04-2020 06:12PM

growleaves wrote: »

The mortality rate is unknown, it is only projections which put it in worst-pandemic territory, and the predictions of millions of deaths from the models by Fauci and the ICL have been revised downwards to tens of thousands.

60,000 deaths in the US is Fauci's upper estimate. That's less than a particularly bad flu season (68,000 dead in one year).

Let me just repeat that, and try to let it sink in for a moment:

Dr. Anthony Fauci is predicting that covid-19 in the US will be less deadly than a harsh flu season.

Fauci: US death toll 'looks more like 60,000' than 100-200K estimate

Didn't realize the US shut down there entire economy during the flu seasons.

johnfás · 15-04-2020 06:12PM

rm212 wrote: »

Did I mention anything about death rate or how we are doing in deaths compared to Spain? No, I said it was scary how closely our trend graph of cases is following Spain’s; nothing more, nothing less. But while we are at it, it is a function of increased cases that you have more deaths, just so you know.

... steady on... but increased confirmed cases doesn’t mean more or less cases... again, it is a function of testing... if we are testing a multiple per capita of our population compared to Spain and only showing confirmed positive cases at the same rate of Spain, then we are doing a lot better than Spain... so that would be a good thing rather than a scary thing. The scary thing would be if our much greater degree of testing yielded a much higher proportion of confirmed cases.

growleaves · 15-04-2020 06:12PM

And any comparison with the normal flu, particularly when comparing death counts but not taking the mitigating effect of the lockdowns into account, are stupid in the extreme

Er no it isn't stupid at all because the alleged mitigating effects of the lockdown are unproven and unknown. Backed by no scientific evidence at all, only mere assertion.

What you're asking me to accept is that comparing a flu-like pandemic which kills 60,000 to a flu pandemic which kills 68,000 (a harsh flu year) is extremely stupid. But comparing a flu-like pandemic which kills 60,000 to one of the deadliest pandemics in history which which killed 50 million (Spanish Flu) is sound.

For the lockdown to be as effective as these projections point to there would need to be a huge discrepancy in deaths between countries that are locked-down and those countries that aren't.

If/When that discrepancy does not appear (as it hasn't so far), what will the posters here say?

UrbanFret · 15-04-2020 06:13PM

10000maniacs wrote: »

You prove to me that they didn't first. Link please.
It was moronic for thousands of Irish to head over as the virus was already rampant over there.

I don't need to link anything.
I'm not making any claim. you are .

keynes · 15-04-2020 06:13PM

UrbanFret wrote: »

So it's been confirmed that these cases are related to travelling to Cheltenham. Link please.

Really, where have you been the past month? One of many such cases:

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/irishman-who-attended-cheltenham-festival-tests-positive-for-covid-19-39065160.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/04/01/andrew-parker-bowles-coronavirus-diagnosis-sparks-fears-royals/

realitycheque · 15-04-2020 06:14PM

growleaves wrote: »

The mortality rate is unknown, it is only projections which put it in worst-pandemic territory, and the predictions of millions of deaths from the models by Fauci and the ICL have been revised downwards to tens of thousands.

60,000 deaths in the US is Fauci's upper estimate. That's less than a particularly bad flu season (68,000 dead in one year).

Let me just repeat that, and try to let it sink in for a moment:

Careful now... you are not allowed to say things (even though it's fact) like this in this thread.
Majority here seem to want to stay in a lockdown for the rest of their lives.
Before the barrage of negativity towards me I want to point out that I DO NOT want to see anyone die young or old of this disease. I'm not denying it's a problem at all but I feel like our response is widely unproportionate. The level of economic damage this has and will cause is colossal....
People are going to die as a direct consequence of this lockdown, especially with elective surgeries and procedures not going ahead to the extent that they should.
Ireland and the majority of the word have taken the very very conservative approach and no-one can blame them for that, but as new data becomes available we should be adjusting the measures.
Its annoying that Ireland is going to be slow with the rollout of the antibody test, California has already started that process, this is key to understanding the the actual true death rate and how many of us actually have had it. This is the data we should be using to make decisions on lockdown measures.... the review there talking about with these tests is waste of valuable time, they should just get on with it using a test that's known to work to some degree (e.g like in korea/germany) and follow up concurrently with a valdation to the irish requirements. At least if they turn out to have been ok we wouldn't have wasted time.

All that being said we need the health services to be able to handle surges and I understand that time is necessary to get that set up...

(deep exhale...)

growleaves · 15-04-2020 06:15PM

Preventative measures save lives.

Mitigation policies were included in the original predictions.

Richard Hillman · 15-04-2020 06:19PM

I'm just trying to work out how a country of 5 million, that is nowhere near China or Italy is 19th on the global number of deaths. And we are 9th in terms of deaths per million when you exclude tiny nations.

People around the world when looking at the stats must be glancing through and thinking WTF is going on with Ireland?

wakka12 · 15-04-2020 06:20PM

growleaves wrote: »

Er no it isn't stupid at all because the alleged mitigating effects of the lockdown are unproven and unknown. Backed by no scientific evidence at all, only mere assertion.

What you're asking me to accept is that comparing a flu-like pandemic which kills 60,000 to a flu pandemic which kills 68,000 (a harsh flu year) is extremely stupid. But comparing a flu-like pandemic which kills 60,000 to one of the deadliest pandemics in history which which killed 50 million (Spanish Flu) is sound.

For the lockdown to be as effective as these projections point to there would need to be a huge discrepancy in deaths between countries that are locked-down and those countries that aren't.

If/When that discrepancy does not appear (as it hasn't so far), what will the posters here say?

How is this discrepancy for you? In Lombardia, a province where a lockdown was slow to be implemented, 0.11%(not even including the thousands more who died at home) of the population have already died in just the last 5 weeks. In South Korea, somewhere where a major epidemic was stomped out very effectively and quickly, just a few hundred died

Lockdowns work, they save lives, if lockdowns in the USA didnt happen, many multiples of 68,000 would die

podgeandrodge · 15-04-2020 06:20PM

growleaves wrote: »

Its literally the age at which you are considered an old age pensioner in this country.

No not 65. 66.

And not an "old" age pension anymore.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! · 15-04-2020 06:21PM

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

The trend with this virus will be more or less the same in many countries. What matters is that a country can keep the level of infection within manageable levels for their health service to cope. More cases does not necessarily lead to a pro rata increase in deaths, if the health service can maintain treatment levels.

Some countries are in the 'less' category - because they are doing a much better job handling this. They have been more proactive - and continue to be.

Hopefully our ICU's and hospitals won't become overwhelmed. But this still doesn't mean we won't have a rather large death total by the end of this... you can still have a slow and steady death rate at a reasonably high level - just like we have right now. Your ICU's don't necessarily need to be completely overwhelmed for this to happen over a longer period.

And statistically, more cases will result in more deaths. Some people seem to think our total cases and our daily number of cases, is somewhat irrelevant... it's really not. Those are all people who can spread the virus, and a certain % of them can get into trouble and need to be hospitalised. So total cases is important... we need to slow that number down a lot. It's not just about ICU and hospital admissions.

podgeandrodge · 15-04-2020 06:23PM

Beasty wrote: »

I'm really not sure about that. It seems to be a matter of more results coming through. As has been stated many times before it's deaths, ICU and hospital numbers that are more indicative of the spread of this, rather than a figure that's a product of the number of tests undertaken rather than the number infected

If the testing number remained broadly consistent as a percentage of the population would it be a reasonable indicator in terms of %? I ask because not everyone dies, goes to ICU or hospital so could consistent numbers of testing not be a better indicator of actual numbers infected? Not arguing, I don't know the answer to my question!

RugbyLad11 · 15-04-2020 06:23PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

Is 65 considered old now?

You learn something new everyday

Of course it is considered old

tobefrank321 · 15-04-2020 06:23PM

A guy gets arrested in Wicklow for going outside the 2km zone. But Travellers can travel from all over Ireland and the UK to a funeral. What a joke.

10000maniacs · 15-04-2020 06:23PM

UrbanFret wrote: »

I don't need to link anything.
I'm not making any claim. you are .

Moronic argument.
This is just one case from the 22nd of March in the Mirror. What about everyone else on the plane. Were they wearing masks?

Coronavirus Ireland: Irishman who went to Cheltenham Festival tests positive for COVID-19
Contact tracing has now begun to locate persons who were in close contact with the man.
More than 20,000 Irish horse racing enthusiasts attended the Cheltenham festival a fortnight ago. Hundreds of million of euro of betting occurs at the events in the Cotswolds.
It is not know where the man contacted Covid19. His home in Ireland is in relative proximity to two known clusters of virus detections of Covid19.

growleaves · 15-04-2020 06:24PM

How is this discrepancy for you? In Lombardia, a province where a lockdown was slow to be implemented, 0.11%(but likely significantly more) of the population have already died in just the last 5 weeks. In South Korea, somewhere where a major epidemic was stomped out very effectively and quickly, just a few hundred died

There are also states where there has been no lockdown and very few deaths - Iowa, Belarus, Taiwan. (Though Taiwan had a unique set of restrictions of their own).

Danzy · 15-04-2020 06:25PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I'm just trying to work out how a country of 5 million, that is nowhere near China or Italy is 19th on the global number of deaths. And we are 9th in terms of deaths per million when you exclude tiny nations.

People around the world when looking at the stats must be glancing through and thinking WTF is going on with Ireland?

Reporting all the cases not just ones that die in hospital.

The Italian figures are believed to have peaked at over 3k a day, Britain is suspected to nearer to 2000 a day.

Figures take time to collate and in bigger countries, longer.

UrbanFret · 15-04-2020 06:25PM

keynes wrote: »

Really, where have you been the past month? One of many such cases:

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/irishman-who-attended-cheltenham-festival-tests-positive-for-covid-19-39065160.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/04/01/andrew-parker-bowles-coronavirus-diagnosis-sparks-fears-royals/

Hardly a massive number that. We let 3000 Italians in the following Saturday. Our ports and airports are still open from UK. I'm not saying nobody contacted it there. The hysterical claims on here would make you think it was the main cause of the outbreak. Our nursing homes are riddled.our home carers through no fault of their own have infected people in their own homes. The fact is it's here and we need to deal with the here and now. We cannot change the past but what we do now can change the future.

Kermit.de.frog · 15-04-2020 06:26PM

growleaves wrote: »

What you're asking me to accept is that comparing a flu-like pandemic which kills 60,000 to a flu pandemic which kills 68,000 (a harsh flu year)

Where are you getting this 60,000 figure from?

growleaves · 15-04-2020 06:26PM

No not 65. 66.

And not an "old" age pension anymore.

Grand so. I guess Viagra is a game-changer anyways. So lets says that 65 years olds are spry.

joe_99 · 15-04-2020 06:26PM

rm212 wrote: »

Well, it will certainly result in them if our cases continue to climb like that

More testing doesn't increase the number of deaths but it does increase the number of cases identified. You do understand that, right?

wakka12 · 15-04-2020 06:26PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Where are you getting this 60,000 figure from?

It was a recent estimate by Fauci

growleaves · 15-04-2020 06:27PM

Where are you getting this 60,000 figure from?

It is Dr. Fauci's current estimate for US death toll, revised downward from higher estimates

Fauci: US death toll 'looks more like 60,000' than 100-200K estimate

uncleoswald · 15-04-2020 06:28PM

growleaves wrote: »

Er no it isn't stupid at all because the alleged mitigating effects of the lockdown are unproven and unknown. Backed by no scientific evidence at all, only mere assertion.

What you're asking me to accept is that comparing a flu-like pandemic which kills 60,000 to a flu pandemic which kills 68,000 (a harsh flu year) is extremely stupid. But comparing a flu-like pandemic which kills 60,000 to one of the deadliest pandemics in history which which killed 50 million (Spanish Flu) is sound.

I never compared it to the Spanish Flu just objected to the comparison with the flu.

And as for proof of the effects of the lockdown, I really can't see what point you are trying to make. In countries were the virus was widespread we see cases are eventually and thankfully coming down as a result of the lockdown. Are you claiming that the lockdown had no effect and the numbers would have decreased at the same rate themselves?

Travel around the world was largely stopped and as a result other countries have, hopefully, been spared an outbreak for the time being.

Kermit.de.frog · 15-04-2020 06:28PM

growleaves wrote: »

It is Dr. Fauci's current estimate for US death toll, revised downward from higher estimates

Fauci: US death toll 'looks more like 60,000' than 100-200K estimate

Do you know what the current US death toll is after a month and a quarter?

podgeandrodge · 15-04-2020 06:28PM

Gynoid wrote: »

Well that is not extreme at all.
Look, some things are reasonably obvious without the need for oodles of science as a back up.
Things like the instinct to cover ones nose and mouth in a pandemic of respiratory disease.
And things like breathing heavier while running, which is normal, creates a bigger slipstream in ones wake which would increase infectivity if one was asymptomatically carrying a viral load. It is elementary.

Exactly, as outlined in a study quoted by another poster:

"Blocken and his team looked at a very narrow simulation of the movement and evaporation of micro-droplets in airflow using computational fluid dynamics of a runner at different paces. They found that with a slipstream, a much larger distance is needed to avoid exposure - up to five metres (16 feet) at a fast walking pace."

"The results indicate that the largest exposure of the trailing person to droplets for walking and running is obtained when this person is in line and with leading person and positioned in the slipstream of this person.

"Exposure increases as the distance between leading and trailing person decreases.

"This suggests that avoiding substantial droplet exposure in the conditions of this study can be achieved by one of two actions: either by avoiding to walk or run in the slipstream of the leading person or by keeping larger social distances, where the distances increase with the walking or running speed.

"In the absence of headwind, tailwind and cross-wind, for walking fast at 4 km/h this distance is about 5 meters and for running at 14.4 km/h this distance is about 10 meters. Further work should consider the effect of headwind, tailwind and cross-wind, and different droplet spectra," the paper concluded.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/belgian-study-on-safe-distancing-while-exercising-goes-viral/

Covid19 Part XV - 15,251 in ROI (610 deaths) 2,645 in NI (194 deaths) (19/04) Read OP

Comments