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
Covid19 Part XVI- 21,983 in ROI (1,339 deaths) 3,881 in NI (404 deaths)(05/05)Read OP
Comments
-
-
-
-
Ah you've finished the correspondence course in statistics. Good for you. When we did and what effects that had will be reviewed for Ireland not through any old graph that suits what you've already decided.I'd agree on the lockdown aspect. It happened at about the right time all things considered. On the other hand other measures have been handled in a mediocre fashion or not at all. No border checks even now. No options for quarantine even now. Quality and access to testing has been up and down like a whoer's knickers. Contact tracing has been minimal. Sure we did better than the UK, but that turns out not to be a high bar. If we compare ourselves to the Czechs; a landlocked nation, with over double our population and over double our tourist footfall throughout the year and higher density living, who at first screwed up with returning skiers and footy match goers, but got their finger out and are seeing far better results than us.
Observe their number of deaths and compare and contrast.
And their active cases per day.
And look how long their R0 number has been holding steady near 0.
As of the 22nd they've reported 208 deaths, we're nearing 800. With under half their population and much lower population densities. If we compare our numbers to them allowing for population we should be at just around 100 deaths, but we're nearly eight times that and that gap has been getting wider as the weeks go on. If they're massaging their numbers they're doing it by a factor of eight times. If they were leaving half the true deaths out they'd still be way ahead of us.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I'd agree on the lockdown aspect. It happened at about the right time all things considered. On the other hand other measures have been handled in a mediocre fashion or not at all. No border checks even now. No options for quarantine even now. Quality and access to testing has been up and down like a whoer's knickers. Contact tracing has been minimal. Sure we did better than the UK, but that turns out not to be a high bar. If we compare ourselves to the Czechs; a landlocked nation, with over double our population and over double our tourist footfall throughout the year and higher density living, who at first screwed up with returning skiers and footy match goers, but got their finger out and are seeing far better results than us.
Observe their number of deaths and compare and contrast.
And their active cases per day.
And look how long their R0 number has been holding steady near 0.
As of the 22nd they've reported 208 deaths, we're nearing 800. With under half their population and much lower population densities. If we compare our numbers to them allowing for population we should be at just around 100 deaths, but we're nearly eight times that and that gap has been getting wider as the weeks go on. If they're massaging their numbers they're doing it by a factor of eight times. If they were leaving half the true deaths out they'd still be way ahead of us.
Dare I say it - central and eastern Europeans are a hell of a lot fitter and leaner than we are0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
To clarify; I definitely wasn't including you in that cohort
My point in that respect is that is that his detractors are focussing entirely on his performance before the crisis, and can't point to any contemporary issue with him.
I disagree that he was incompetent beforehand, but I certainly accept that many others have issues with him nd his handling of a number of issues.
Without getting into these specific points, I get the impression that you accept that even if these are "mistakes", they were done in the context of a rapidly-changing emergency and decisions were made quickly with the information available on-hand.
In other words; you accept for the most part that he has handled this crisis competently; as well as anyone could be expected.
But you would rather he was removed at the height of this crisis to plug in someone else because you'r woried that he's going to slip up any day now?
Do you not think subbing in an unknown, unproven individual at this point presents a much larger risk than leaving in the person who has done a strong job so far?
And who would it be? There isn't a single individual in the Dail right now with a track record that would indicate any competency for this role.
Thank you for the bit in bold.
I wouldn't and haven't called for the Minister's head.
I accept that a rapid reaction was required and in that context, inevitably, mistakes will be made. Although not protecting the nursing homes was more than a mistake, it was very bad judgement. I'm hoping that the government can be big enough now to acknowledge that a lockdown for those who are not vulnerable is too much and row back accordingly. If they could do that I would certainly not hold them to account for getting things 'wrong' early on.
Of far bigger concern to me than Minister Harris, is the make up of nphet. I dread to think that every member is having an equal say.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement