Covid19 Part XVI- 21,983 in ROI (1,339 deaths) 3,881 in NI (404 deaths)(05/05)Read OP

Interestingly, from 25,000 deaths in Italy, 57 were under 40.

9. Deaths under the age of 50 years
As of April 23th, 260 out of the 23,188 (1.1%) positive SARS-CoV-2 patients under the age of 50 died. In particular, 57 of these were less than 40 years (36 men and 21 women), age range between 0 and 39 years. For 9 patients under the age of 40 years no clinical information is available; the remaining 38 had serious pre-existing pathologies (cardiovascular, renal, psychiatric pathologies, diabetes, obesity) and 10 had no major pathologies.

https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_23_april_2020.pdf

shocksy wrote: »

Oh look who's back, the one who only a few short weeks ago said this wasn't as bad as the flu and everyone was overreacting.

No wonder you went quiet for a few weeks.

Care to admit you were wrong now?

I never said any of that. What is wrong with you?

Go find the posts where I said any of that. Quite the opposite.

I'll be waiting.

Forgive my ignorance but why was there such a dramatic leap in confirmed cases yesterday?

Has testing been ramped up?

podgeandrodge wrote:

Your response eagle eye is put out by a lot of people. It's a standard response that attempts to suggest that the other poster is some type of unconcerned cúnt that doesn't give a crap about others.

It might be considered by you to be standard because you don't agree with it.
Fact of the matter is we haven't done the right things here to get this thing under control. We all want the lockdown to end and to resume our normal way of life.
In order to get there we have to do things right though and be aware of all consequences. We have to shut down the idiots who are talking about things they haven't a clue about.
I've said many times on this thread that I'm not a scientist or medical professional but I read everything from official sources and try to make the sensible decisions based off of that information.
It's clear that we need to all wear masks to get this thing under control. It's clear that social distancing alone is not going to get us to where we need to be to end the lockdown.
Herd immunity is a non-runner at the present because of reports from a couple of countries of people getting infected a second time.
Quarantine for everybody entering this country is a must. I'm of the opinion that the person should have to pay for this and not the Irish public and it should be state run to ensure its actually happening.
We need people everybody, not 80%, to adhere to the lockdown rules.

podgeandrodge wrote:

In reality, this position has effectively been accepted by the Government who have stated that 'lockdowns' can't continue indefinitely for the very reason that fringegirl mentioned. Though her post seems to have gone, perhaps you shamed her into deleting it!

If they open things back up they are going to be responsible for a lot more deaths.
I didn't bully anybody into anything, I just asked a straight, honest question.

Maybe the person realised the consequences of what they'd just said and deleted it.

is_that_so wrote: »

No danger you're going to get out of panto mode here?

The mathematical modelling does not suggest a person is less contagious now than they were a month ago - which estimated that each infected person would transfer the virus to an average of 2.4 people each without lockdown. The reproductive rate estimates the spread of the virus and the reduction of that spread caused by the work everyone has done to interrupt the transmission of Covid19. The RR is now 0.5-0.8 because they will encounter less people but you're just as likely to be infected by the 20 covid carriers you refer to that you meet in the park today as you were last month - which depends on the level, duration and proximity of you engagement with them and which cannot be measured as a broad, catch-all percentage chance.

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but why was there such a dramatic leap in confirmed cases yesterday?

Has testing been ramped up?

Yep, they are doing a lot in nursing homes at present.

podgeandrodge wrote: »

So who should I believe - you or Tony?

This is what "Tony" said 2 days ago

from 40 minutes on


https://www.pscp.tv/rtenews/1djxXQpZmPBKZ


Also a few days earlier he made some comment that consideration of face mask use might be part of the arrangements to be used as part of lifting the lockdown measures.


The tone is changing and I sense a U turn coming.


Also. Incidentally, the CMO has always claimed that he is following WHO guidelines.


These are that they do not recommend the use of Masks.
This is different than saying They recommend the people do not wear masks.


Also, On they day that Simon Harris made his howler "Tony" made it clear that he is not a Virologist.

Laois_Man wrote: »

The mathematical modelling does not suggest a person is less contagious now than they were a month ago - which estimated that each infected person would transfer the virus to an average of 2.4 people each without lockdown. The reproductive rate estimates the spread of the virus and the reduction of that spread caused by the work everyone has done to interrupt the transmission of Covid19. The RR is now 0.5-0.8 because they will encounter less people but you're just as likely to be infected by the 20 covid carriers you refer to that you meet in the park today as you were last month - which depends on the level, duration and proximity of you engagement with them and which cannot be measured as a broad, catch-all percentage chance.

Fair enough, I'm just simplifying it. He was the one who stated that "Out of 20 people 10 will infect nobody and 10 will infect 5".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That's quite low. Less than 1%. I'd have thought it was higher considering there are people with underlying conditions of all ages.

Well, people under 40 with serious health conditions would only be around 1% or so, I would have thought?

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I don't see the point of the google/apple tracking?

People can't be expected to remain locked down forever.

Restrictions are going to be lifted in May sometime and of course infection spread will go up. The vast majority will be mild cases, close to 40% even asymptomatic. We will pick up at most 10% in testing and we'll continue to be given a false fatality rate of 5% when in reality its closer to 0.5%. Hospitalisation rates will also be false, overestimated by a factor close to 10.

No-one can guarantee a 100% effective in the next 12 months, not even experts. One expert said she was 80% confident. You'd want to be 99% confident in reality about a vaccine.

The best thing at this stage is allow a slow spread among the healthy while continuing to ask the elderly and vulnerable groups to cocoon. This would be to save the economy and jobs.

Keep a ban on large gatherings and don't reopen schools until September. Bring in antibody testing of healthcare workers and those who are found to have a large amount of antibodies and are immune, put them to work in nursing homes and working with the vulnerable categories in general.

Agree with this for the most part. We need to target our resources (staff, equipment, hospital beds, testing capacity etc) in a better way.

Anyone in higher risk categories including their care providers, and possibly family, should be the main focus of our health service providers. They should also will have to have different behaviours and restriction associated with them than with that of the general public.

No harm in keeping the tracking and contract tracing while we slowly lift restrictions.

keynes wrote: »

I think it's less a question of immunity, but related to the fact that the virus finds it hard to get a stranglehold on less developed lungs

Is there any good research on this "relative" immunity of kids?