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

1…216217219221222…323

Comments

  • #6542
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    ZX7R wrote: »
    My nephew's wife was one of the final year student nurses rushed through, she is being trained on site for ICU nursing.

    I'm sorry, but if you think a newly qualified student can be beneficial in ICU then you have no inkling of how that setting works. Furthermore, they haven't even been able to train-in experienced nurses as the ICU staff are too busy to do the training. ICU requires a lot of skills and experience. I have always doubted their claims regarding capacity on the basis of the lack of trained and experienced staff. If they are throwing newly qualified nurses into ICU then that is extremely worrying.


  • #6543
    Away With The Fairies
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭Away With The Fairies


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Not according to Fergal Bowyers tweet 3 pages back:
    Health care worker,
    In contact with someone who tested positive.
    Has one of the illnessess IIRC.

    According to this people who live with healthcare workers or live with people in the at risk groups can also get a test

    https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/testing.html


  • #6544
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,061 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    polesheep wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but if you think a newly qualified student can be beneficial in ICU then you have no inkling of how that setting works. Furthermore, they haven't even been able to train-in experienced nurses as the ICU staff are too busy to do the training. ICU requires a lot of skills and experience. I have always doubted their claims regarding capacity on the basis of the lack of trained and experienced staff. If they are throwing newly qualified nurses into ICU then that is extremely worrying.

    That might explain why they dont want to idiotically rush opening things and crashing ICU's if they cannot get the staff they need.


  • #6545
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    polesheep wrote: »
    But surely it is about capacity. It's always been about flattening the curve. i.e. ensuring that the health service can cope. Just because the number is steady doesn't mean we can't have a higher steady number. Unless they weren't being honest about the increased capacity.
    From what I can see capacity was the big issue when they were expecting a huge surge, which never happened. Now we have an overcapacity in lots of areas , an example IMO of planning for the worst. ICU occupancy for some reason has not fallen much at all. From their perspective it must be both puzzling and concerning but as they err completely on the side of caution one reason why restriction might remain.


  • #6546
    speckle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle


    bekker wrote: »
    Not necessarily, old news in public domain , no 'revelation'.

    It was widely reported that the case in Cork reported on Feb. 29th. was contract by a patient who had been in hospital and discharged, symptoms became aggravated and was later re-admitted to ICU and tested.

    Even a cursory reflection on the time line puts infection between 19th - 24th Feb. based on infection incubation of 2-7 days, allowing longer 14 day incubation and you're back to the 12th.

    Remember circumstances towards the end of Feb., transfer time, processing time, notification time, and press release delay time all have to be factored in.

    wasnt there a strain from a postive test that went online from cork. Then dissapeared from the next strain site. Any idea if they put it back up?


  • Advertisement
  • #6547
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    polesheep wrote: »
    Unfortunately not. As Gimli and Legolas said in The Lord of the Rings, "Some have seen too many winters." "And some too few."

    And they would have lost that battle if help hadn't arrived...oops


  • #6548
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    owlbethere wrote: »
    How are they classifying vulnerable for the new test criteria?

    Are we all vulnerable to this? It's a new virus and no one has immunity, except for those who got it and then theres ??? over that.

    Its going to be an absolute shambles for the contact tracing to work properly.
    He listed off a whole load of chronic illnesses, kidneys, lungs, heart etc.


  • #6549
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,051 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Away With The Fairies wrote: »
    According to this people who live with healthcare workers or live with people in the at risk groups can also get a test

    https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/testing.html

    I don't know. So hard to know what's right nowadays.


  • #6550
    ZX7R
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,393 ✭✭✭ZX7R


    polesheep wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but if you think a newly qualified student can be beneficial in ICU then you have no inkling of how that setting works. Furthermore, they haven't even been able to train-in experienced nurses as the ICU staff are too busy to do the training. ICU requires a lot of skills and experience. I have always doubted their claims regarding capacity on the basis of the lack of trained and experienced staff. If they are throwing newly qualified nurses into ICU then that is extremely worrying.

    I don't think or know who is beneficial or not.
    But I do know she is been trained on the Ward.


  • #6551
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RTE’s Katie Hannon was asking hard questions about numbers aimed at for easing restrictions. The doctor couldn’t given a straight answer as it depends, he said, on number of medical staff available to treat people. Or that’s how I read it.


  • Advertisement
  • #6552
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Away With The Fairies wrote: »
    According to this people who live with healthcare workers or live with people in the at risk groups can also get a test

    https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/testing.html
    Apparently some doctor on Drivetime said the new definition is confusing, that looks very clear to me.


  • #6553
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    Gynoid wrote: »
    The new criteria contain some elements that I find perplexing. It names symptoms, fair enough, although the list of potential and atypical symptoms increases all the time. Up to 70% hospitalised in New York did not have fever. For example. Other anomalies are listed in this article.
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/04/we-still-dont-know-how-the-coronavirus-is-killing-us.html?__twitter_impression=true

    I understand though that symptoms have to be listed - as my postman said to me today, what day do we ever wake up feeling just right! :)
    Priority groups I understand. Vulnerable groups if course. But this - or close contact with a confirmed case. It seems a bit random. Less than 2 metres for 15 minutes equals close contact we are informed. And yet people were getting it off salt shakers. Why 15 minutes? Is the virus a bit lazy to get moving? Also I read the 2 metre thing was based on studies in the 1930s and 1940s that have since been disproven re aerosol projection.
    I know we cannot overwhelm testing mechanisms with everybody being tested who has an odd symptom. But I think it is too narrow to function now as best practice for containment of test, trace, isolate.

    The 15 minutes is pretty odd. Regardless of how long you are in proximity to them, if an infected person's droplets from sneezing/coughing/talking enter your nose or mouth, then surely you are highly likely to become infected. Whether you are asymptomatic or end up hospitalized thereafter is another matter. The 15 minutes seems a rather arbitrary figure.


  • #6554
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    pjohnson wrote: »
    That might explain why they dont want to idiotically rush opening things and crashing ICU's if they cannot get the staff they need.

    It does, yes. So why did they claim that they could open them? The HSE will always be the HSE until some government bins it and starts again.


  • #6555
    Vicxas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,618 ✭✭✭✭Vicxas


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    RTE’s Katie Hannon was asking hard questions about numbers aimed at for easing restrictions. The doctor couldn’t given a straight answer as it depends, he said, on number of medical staff available to treat people. Or that’s how I read it.

    Deputy pretty much confirmed that it's going to be another few weeks. I don't think ICU numbers are going to plummet by Friday.


  • #6556
    Widdensushi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,542 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    6 monkeys given an experimental coronavirus vaccine from Oxford did not catch COVID-19 after heavy exposure, raising hopes for a human vaccine
    https://www.businessinsider.com/monkeys-given-new-oxford-vaccine-coronavirus-free-strong-exposure-encouraging-2020-4?utm_source=reddit.com&r=US&IR=T

    why were they not exposed to the virus in a group of maybe twelve monkeys and if the others got sick it would seem a better test


  • #6557
    owlbethere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,329 ✭✭✭owlbethere


    is_that_so wrote: »
    He listed off a whole load of chronic illnesses, kidneys, lungs, heart etc.

    I wasn't watching


  • #6558
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    joe40 wrote: »
    And they would have lost that battle if help hadn't arrived...oops

    The poor Elves were decimated :D


  • #6559
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    owlbethere wrote: »
    I wasn't watching
    Someone has linked to the HSE site up thread. It's all there.


  • #6560
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    Widdensushi wrote: »
    why were they not exposed to the virus in a group of maybe twelve monkeys and if the others got sick it would seem a better test

    Thats good to hear , although Im learning to not get too excited about early testing results, given the disappointments of the hydroxychloroquinine and remdesivir trials.


  • #6561
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,059 ✭✭✭✭spookwoman


    Nothing about autoimmune disorders. You would think they were high priority


  • Advertisement
  • #6562
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Vicxas wrote: »
    Deputy pretty much confirmed that it's going to be another few weeks. I don't think ICU numbers are going to plummet by Friday.
    On balance it looks 60/40 against at this stage but they really need to show up with a proper plan.


  • #6563
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ek motor wrote: »
    The 15 minutes is pretty odd. Regardless of how long you are in proximity to them, if an infected person's droplets from sneezing/coughing/talking enter your nose or mouth, then surely you are highly likely to become infected. Whether you are asymptomatic or end up hospitalized thereafter is another matter. The 15 minutes seems a rather arbitrary figure.

    I’d say it’s based on some old calculation of how often an average person is likely to sneeze or give a bit of a cough.


  • #6564
    joe_99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 763 ✭✭✭joe_99


    Ficheall wrote: »
    You do realise the chances of randomly picking 1000 positives one day and 1000 negatives the next day are almost incomprehensibly small, right?

    Testing is primarily happening in Nursing homes at the moment. Testing everyone, symptoms or not. It is possible that they hit less affected nursing homes one day.


  • #6565
    ZX7R
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,393 ✭✭✭ZX7R


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    RTE’s Katie Hannon was asking hard questions about numbers aimed at for easing restrictions. The doctor couldn’t given a straight answer as it depends, he said, on number of medical staff available to treat people. Or that’s how I read it.

    Leo should send a request to the Chinese see if some of there media staff would like to help out.


  • #6566
    Away With The Fairies
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭Away With The Fairies


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Apparently some doctor on Drivetime said the new definition is confusing, that looks very clear to me.

    It's confusing because it keeps changing.


  • #6567
    amadangomor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭amadangomor


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    I've seen this from cyclists too recently - is it a thing that they do normally? Whatever, it's absolutely outrageous behaviour at the moment. At least he apologised.

    He was a bit rough around the edges, not a recreational cyclist. Said he needed to clean out his mouth.

    Was relieved when he apologised as I thought it might get into a situation when he circled back.

    Need to watch my mouth as I shouldn't have called him a knacker:pac:


  • #6568
    screamer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,193 ✭✭✭screamer


    I think the deaths and cases are being released to suit the narrative from the government. I find their communication clear as mud now and very much hope they release the plan to restart the country soon. Fed up with the restrictions and kinda feel that a lot of the reason for them is because of the situation in nursing homes which the government and their advisers had no small part in.


  • #6569
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,521 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Something that kind of puzzles me..

    The plan be testing 100,000 per week.

    Where are these people coming from? It’s a serious amount of people, consider our population is small..

    Are there really 100s of 1000s of people walking around with symptoms?

    And even if there are, are they all going to come forward to test..?


  • #6570
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Away With The Fairies wrote: »
    It's confusing because it keeps changing.
    Until today it was the same one from 23 March.


  • Advertisement
  • #6571
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    walshb wrote: »
    Something that kind of puzzles me..

    The plan be testing 100,000 per week.

    Where are these people coming from? It’s a serious amount of people, consider gout population is small..

    Are there really 100s of 1000s of pre walking around with and the symptoms?

    And e be if there are, are they all going to come forward to test..?

    It's the capacity and system to test that many so that they can respond very quickly to any new outbreaks. It should also allow them to do random community testing and deploy antibody testing when that's available.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement