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

New Home · 30-04-2020 01:10AM

fritzelly wrote: »

Quote one story where someone in Ireland died in agony - because if it happened it would be all over the news

So if it's not on the news it doesn't happen? Right.

I'm going to bed.

HildaOgdenx · 30-04-2020 01:11AM

I don't follow this thread, just read it occasionally. I don't watch the news, although I do keep up to date on a daily basis with what is going on.

One thing though, I think it's important to remember the people who have died as a result of this, and those who mourn them.

I think it's possible to become almost desensitised to the loss, and sorrow, in the focus on numbers.

Just my tuppenceworth.

Jinglejangle69 · 30-04-2020 01:11AM

Lads if you're so pissed off just go and break the rules.

We don't cowards on our side anyway.

Arghus · 30-04-2020 01:12AM

growleaves wrote: »

So do you believe that over 400 million deaths would occur without the lockdowns (equivalent to Spanish Flu deaths in terms of today's global population)? That was the worst 'official' worst-case scenario

The worst ones from this thread indicate a fifth of the infected population would die - potentially billions. Bit of a jump from 200k to that.

Explain this 200k figure.

fritzelly · 30-04-2020 01:12AM

New Home wrote: »

So if it's not on the news it doesn't happen? Right.

Yeah you're right - old people are writhing in agony on their death bed as people say goodbye

Kermit.de.frog · 30-04-2020 01:13AM

HildaOgdenx wrote: »

I don't follow this thread, just read it occasionally. I don't watch the news, although I do keep up to date on a daily basis with what is going on.

One thing though, I think it's important to remember the people who have died as a result of this, and those who mourn them.

I think it's possible to become almost desensitised to the loss, and sorrow, in the focus on numbers.

Just my tuppenceworth.

Good post. We become desensitised to the figures.

An issue in itself.

Arghus · 30-04-2020 01:14AM

fritzelly wrote: »

Yeah you're right - old people are writhing in agony on their death bed as people say goodbye

What point are you trying to prove? That dying is great craic?

growleaves · 30-04-2020 01:15AM

Explain this 200k figure.

The 227k deaths as of right now.

Is it about to turn into 400 million? Or would it have turned into 400 million?

fritzelly · 30-04-2020 01:17AM

Arghus wrote: »

What point are you trying to prove? That dying is great craic?

New Home is insinuating people are dying in agony drowning in fluid build up

s1ippy · 30-04-2020 01:25AM

fritzelly wrote: »

New Home is insinuating people are dying in agony drowning in fluid build up

I said that, and in many cases it is, sadly, true. I don't know how you haven't come across these articles and frankly, don't believe that you haven't. You seem deliberately oppositional towards posters trying to convey the seriousness of this virus, like you're bickering with them most of the time. Here is the horrific evidence you could easily have googled yourself
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.euronews.com/amp/2020/03/20/italy-suffocated-by-coronavirus-the-story-of-patients-and-doctors-in-the-grip-of-covid-19

Arghus · 30-04-2020 01:26AM

growleaves wrote: »

The 227k deaths as of right now.

Is it about to turn into 400 million? Or would it have turned into 400 million?

You are basing this figure on extrapolations from another disease entirely and then I have to answer on your hypothetical figure that you've arrived at arbitrarily.

I have no idea how it would have turned out. But, yes, I'm sure if lock downs hadn't been imposed we would be looking at deaths in the low millions now. And, this isn't finished BTW.

There's 200k confirmed deaths now, even with huge amounts of people under lock down for weeks on end across the globe - and that's confirmed deaths, it stands to reason that there are a lot more unconfirmed deaths.

I don't remember anyone on here saying a fifth of infected people die. I certainly didn't, but even a 1% fatality rate if huge numbers are infected adds up to a horrendous amount of deaths.

fritzelly · 30-04-2020 01:32AM

s1ippy wrote: »

I said that, and in many cases it is, sadly, true. I don't know how you haven't come across these articles and frankly, don't believe that you haven't. You seem deliberately oppositional towards posters trying to convey the seriousness of this virus, like you're bickering with them most of the time. Here is the horrific evidence you could easily have googled yourself
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.euronews.com/amp/2020/03/20/italy-suffocated-by-coronavirus-the-story-of-patients-and-doctors-in-the-grip-of-covid-19

Where in that article does it say people are left to die in agony in Ireland?
No one is left to die in agony - worst cases they are sedated

As for the bolded bit BS

growleaves · 30-04-2020 01:33AM

You are basing this figure on extrapolations from another disease entirely and then I have to answer on your hypothetical figure that you've arrived at arbitrarily.

Lol!

It isn't arbitrary in the slightest. The worst-case-scenario models (Fauci/Imperial etc.) which were put before the public had covid-19 as slightly deadlier than the Spanish flu, which killed around 50 million. That was the initial justification for the lockdowns. In today's population numbers thats 400 million.

You said the 'absolute worst case scenario' so I put that into real numbers for you.

There's 200k confirmed deaths now, even with huge amounts of people under lock down for weeks on end across the globe - and that's confirmed deaths, it stands to reason that there are a lot more unconfirmed deaths.

First they were counting "deaths from" covid and "deaths with" covid. Then they started adding in "dying from suspicion of" covid. Excess deaths which are usually attributed to flu are now attributed to covid. How many more deaths, on top of all those, are out there that are also covid deaths? They're already throwing the kitchen sink at the statistics.

I don't remember anyone on here saying a fifth of infected people die.

You didn't say it but another poster did.

growleaves · 30-04-2020 01:37AM

I have no idea how it would have turned out. But, yes, I'm sure if lock downs hadn't been imposed we would be looking at deaths in the low millions now.

That's a straight answer anyway but suffice to say I disagree.

Arghus · 30-04-2020 01:41AM

growleaves wrote: »

It isn't arbitrary in the slightest. The worst-case-scenario models (Fauci/Imperial etc.) which were put before the public had covid-19 as slightly deadlier than the Spanish flu, which killed around 50 million. That was the initial justification for the lockdowns. In today's population numbers thats 400 million.

You said the 'absolute worst case scenario' so I put that into real numbers for you.

Can you show me a report where law makers, policy makers said a death toll of 400 million worldwide was likely from Covid.

marno21 · 30-04-2020 01:42AM

Arghus wrote: »

I still find it amazing, I know I'm repeating myself, that over the last few weeks people have fallen into the trap of thinking that because the absolute worst case scenario hasn't happened that the virus isn't as dangerous as what they thought.

That is not the case. All that has happened is that the knockdown has been effective. The worst case scenario hasn't materialized because of the lock down.

The lock down is not the biggest threat to your life, the virus is.

Despite all the restrictions on movement now for weeks we still have nearly 1200 deaths and 20000 cases. Think about that. We've all been on lock down for ages and yet those numbers are pretty stark. This thing is deadly and spreads like nobody's business. If we take our foot off the gas now... people need to think of the consequences. We had 2,000 cases and 22 deaths when the lock down proper began and the numbers still sky-rocketed, despite all our limited movements. It's inevitably going to get out of hand again.

But, I totally agree, that there needs to be a road map out of this too. That has to be the priority for the government's/DOH approach. And it has to be as clear as day. For instance, we can not move to lifting some restrictions until we have reached a certain number of ICU admissions or a verifiable low amount of cases.

The issue in Ireland is that apart from the nursing homes situation, Ireland has done a really good job of suppressing the virus since mid March. The bad outcome of overwhelmed hospitals, stacks of coffins and people being refused treatment didn't come near to happening. There was also fears about ventilator shortages but this has been significantly reduced in recent weeks as the requirement for mechanical ventilation has been lessened.

But the fact of the matter is that the with the lockdown there has been plenty of spare capacity in the hopsitals and the situation was never severe in the general community here. That gives scope for relaxation of the measures given the capacity available.

Also this: The lock down is not the biggest threat to your life, the virus is.

This is simply not the case. 90% of the Irish population are at no or limited risk from this virus. Circa 2% of people who got the virus had to be admitted to ICU, and that's a significant overestimate given asymptomatic cases and cases which did not meet the strict testing criteria which have been in place since the last week of March. The Irish economy, which is the reason we have ICU beds and ventilators, is going to be under severe pressure if targeted, relatively low risk measures aren't applied to bring people back to work and kickstart some activity. If supermarket staff aren't getting infected roundhouse I don't understand what's so unsafe for people working on projects like the Macroom bypass which is a 22km long construction site outdoors.

There are many things that are as damaging as the virus:
1. People missing out on time critical medical interventions
2. Depression and mental health issues
3. Domestic violence, family issues and potential divorces
4. Long term unemployment and its associated health effects
5. Health effects from sitting inside all day every day

Ireland has 60 ICU beds per million people. Ireland has circa 250 ventilators per million people. Here are some other countries:
* Venezuela has 0.38 ICU beds/million people
* Burkina Faso has 0.5 ventilators/million people
* Sierra Leone has 1.7 ventilators/million people

Those countries are examples of what health systems look like when they don't have an advanced economy behind them. The importance of the economy in delivering the quality of healthcare in this country isn't stated enough here.

spookwoman · 30-04-2020 01:45AM

We don't now how people are dying in homes. But we have seen it where people have been on video fighting to breath while on oxygen so I can image someone who is not ventilated or sedated basically smothering because they cannot get in enough oxygen.
It's not nice to hear but it's reality.

mandrake04 · 30-04-2020 02:04AM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Testing. They blame reagent for testing problems, yet the German labs can get it, as can every other country.

I have posted this many times before, the reagent shortage card is grossly overplayed, there was a shortage of Lysis Buffer which is the most simplistic of the Molecular reagent for about a week it’s actually quite bulky so stockpiling and delivery makes supply and distribution more difficult, actually some scientists in UCC made it but by the time they were all slapping each other on the back supply had resumed and been distributed...so it was a bit pointless in the end.

Germany, S.Korea, UAE, NZ and Australia never had issues with testing and this reflects in their test numbers and death rates, many of the other countries might have had a bump in the road for a few days but still did high level of testing with exceptions of some of the developing countries in Africa/Asia etc. who were scrambling trying to get instrumentation to cope with this. I think this is the crux of Ireland’s problem, they managed to secure some additional equipment but due to demand they were short. Wether this has been resolved is hard to say, it takes time to install and train people to use.

ACitizenErased wrote: »

We're home to the top 10 biopharm companies in the world ffs. There's zero excuse.

In fairness this is a misconception that Pharmaceutical companies make reagents, they actually don’t.... IVD companies make reagents and instruments. Although companies like Abbott, Roche and J&J make Pharmaceuticals (Drugs) their IVD (Diagnostics) division is often completely different and independent...most manufacturing is actually in USA.

Actually RANDOX are well known IVD company and they are in Antrim.

Arghus · 30-04-2020 02:05AM

marno21 wrote: »

The issue in Ireland is that apart from the nursing homes situation, Ireland has done a really good job of suppressing the virus since mid March. The bad outcome of overwhelmed hospitals, stacks of coffins and people being refused treatment didn't come near to happening. There was also fears about ventilator shortages but this has been significantly reduced in recent weeks as the requirement for mechanical ventilation has been lessened.

Yes, because of the lock down.

But the fact of the matter is that the with the lockdown there has been plenty of spare capacity in the hopsitals and the situation was never severe in the general community here. That gives scope for relaxation of the measures given the capacity available.

Once again, because of the lockdown. At the moment instances of the virus are still too high in the general population. There was still hundreds of confirmed cases in the general population over the past couple of days, even when you remove confirmed cases from nursing homes out of the tally.

Also this: The lock down is not the biggest threat to your life, the virus is.

This is simply not the case. 90% of the Irish population are at no or limited risk from this virus. Circa 2% of people who got the virus had to be admitted to ICU, and that's a significant overestimate given asymptomatic cases and cases which did not meet the strict testing criteria which have been in place since the last week of March. The Irish economy, which is the reason we have ICU beds and ventilators, is going to be under severe pressure if targeted, relatively low risk measures aren't applied to bring people back to work and kickstart some activity. If supermarket staff aren't getting infected roundhouse I don't understand what's so unsafe for people working on projects like the Macroom bypass which is a 22km long construction site outdoors.

Even if it's a risk to 10% of the population, that is still a huge number of people at risk and something to be very wary of. And that 10% don't exist as totally autonomous individuals, with no connection to anyone.

My parents are in that 10%. If they become ill I'll be pretty affected.

There are many things that are as damaging as the virus:
1. People missing out on time critical medical interventions
2. Depression and mental health issues
3. Domestic violence, family issues and potential divorces
4. Long term unemployment and its associated health effects
5. Health effects from sitting inside all day every day

Yes, they are all damaging, but are they quite as damaging as the long term health effects of, you know, death - which is only something 500,000 loners should be concerned about really, right?

Ireland has 60 ICU beds per million people. Ireland has circa 250 ventilators per million people. Here are some other countries:
* Venezuela has 0.38 ICU beds/million people
* Burkina Faso has 0.5 ventilators/million people
* Sierra Leone has 1.7 ventilators/million people

Those sure are some illustrious examples to compare ourselves too. We shouldn't sweat it because we are more prepared than Burkina Faso?

Out of all OECD countries we have the lowest amount of acute hospital beds per capita.

Those countries are examples of what health systems look like when they don't have an advanced economy behind them. The importance of the economy in delivering the quality of healthcare in this country isn't stated enough here.

I'm not saying we have to thrash our economy at all costs and keep the lockdown up indefinitely, but that, right now, the current threat to public health is still paramount. Eventually the economy has to restart, but right now the chances of the virus spreading once again if restrictions are lifted is too great. And that will have it's own disastrous economic impact.

eagle eye · 30-04-2020 02:14AM

Arghus wrote:

I'm not saying we have to thrash our economy at all costs and keep the lockdown up indefinitely, but that, right now, the current threat to public health is still paramount. Eventually the economy has to restart, but right now the chances of the virus spreading once again if restrictions are lifted is to great. And that will have it's own disasterous economic impact.

And the best way to getbl us all back to work is harden penalties for people who break the lockdown, make it law to wear a mask when in shops and urban areas and quarantine anybody coming into the country.
If we do that we'll he back to work quicker. Of course the quarantine has to stay in place until everywhere else has beaten it too.
Our idiot government should have put this in place in early March at the latest. Here we are almost in May and we're still not taking it seriously enough.

Arghus · 30-04-2020 02:29AM

eagle eye wrote: »

And the best way to getbl us all back to work is harden penalties for people who break the lockdown, make it law to wear a mask when in shops and urban areas and quarantine anybody coming into the country.
If we do that we'll he back to work quicker. Of course the quarantine has to stay in place until everywhere else has beaten it too.
Our idiot government should have put this in place in early March at the latest. Here we are almost in May and we're still not taking it seriously enough.

Can't disagree with that.

marno21 · 30-04-2020 02:29AM

Arghus wrote: »

Yes, because of the lock down.

Agreed, but we can loosen restrictions in low risk areas with high benefit rather than the status quo. There is no need for the current level of severity to continue, but we must not get complacent either. It has to be targeted.

Arghus wrote: »

Once again, because of the lockdown. At the moment instances of the virus are still too high in the general population. There was still hundreds of confirmed cases in the general population over the past couple of days, even when you remove confirmed cases from nursing homes out of the tally.

Not really inclined to agree with you here as there is a lag between when these cases were infected to when they are included in the cases. What level do you consider acceptable for a loosening of restrictions?

Arghus wrote: »

Even if it's a risk to 10% of the population, that is still a huge number of people at risk and something to be very wary of. And that 10% don't exist as totally autonomous individuals, with no connection to anyone.

My parents are in that 10%. If they become ill I'll be pretty affected.

I am in a similar boat to you - which is why I would like to see as much of the 90% freed to do the heavy lifting for the country while targeted protections continue for those who are vulnerable.

Arghus wrote: »

Yes, they are all damaging, but are they quite as damaging as the long term health effects of, you know, death - which is only something 500,000 loners should be concerned about really, right?

That's a mischaracterisation of what I said - I'm not advocating 100% infection - but a loosening of the restrictions to strike a better balance between total lockdown and laissez faire approaches.

Arghus wrote: »

Those sure are some illustrious examples to compare ourselves too. We shouldn't sweat it because we are more prepared than Burkina Faso?

They are a rather extreme example of what happens when you don't have a succesful economy to provide the relatively good level of healthcare we receive in this country.

Arghus wrote: »

Out of all OECD countries we have the lowest amount of acute hospital beds per capita.

Have you a source for this? The source I was working from had us 7-8 places from the bottom.

Arghus wrote: »

I'm not saying we have to thrash our economy at all costs and keep the lockdown up indefinitely, but that, right now, the current threat to public health is still paramount. Eventually the economy has to restart, but right now the chances of the virus spreading once again if restrictions are lifted is too great. And that will have it's own disastrous economic impact.

And I'm not saying we should let lots of people die and get back into the pubs tomorrow. But there is a balance here and we need to move away from the level we've been at recently and towards a more open approach, gradually, with potential reversals of steps taken.

Opening hardware stores, resumption of construction where social distancing is possible are two examples of things which will help generate economic activity and aren't much more dangerous than the level of risk supermarket workers are being exposed to, which they seem to be coping relatively well with.

Xertz · 30-04-2020 02:47AM

There’s definitely a balance to be struck and I think we really need to get our heads out of American insane extreme commentary.

Reopening has to be done in order of least risk and most economically beneficial things happening first. Then working our way down the list and the timing has to be right to avoid undoing all the reduction in spread.

From what I can see that appears to be the plan though anyway. Nobody has been suggesting this is a permanent situation.

Do you seriously think FG and FF, two of the most pro business parties in the EU, along with all the other centre-pro business parties around Europe have suddenly become anti business!??!

We can’t get back to business as usual, particularly for things that involve a lot of social contact. However, we can open up a lot of other activities, but cautiously and safely and that will mean adapting a lot of we do things.

I just think we need to both ignore the international extremes and also stop conflating pubs with the overall economy. They’re a particularly difficult challenge to open and very, very high risk. So are big congregated events.

We are lucky to have what is a general very pragmatic political landscape and also population and I think we need to apply that practical, sensible, balanced, no nonsense approach to achieve an Irish solution to this, not absorb stuff from the bonkers coverage in the US, UK or elsewhere. The American thing of picking one extreme or the other is not how this will be solved.

We all are just going to have to bide our time until we get a technical solution and it’s looking more hopeful on some of those as time goes by.

The reality is we aren’t going to be open as per this time last year, but we’re also not going to be in a permanent state of economic coma either. We are going to have to adapt a lot of things and we are also going to have to deal with a global economic downturn on a massive scale.

The world is likely to look different for the rest of this year and probably well into 2021.

I also think people need to get that through their heads. There isn’t any option that flicks a switch to make this all go away. We have to deal with it.

It means changes and disruption with an end goal of getting out of it with least damage in human cost, social and economic damage.

Arghus · 30-04-2020 03:03AM

Marno21-
I'm not disagreeing with you totally.

But we still have too many instances of daily reported cases of infection for it to be a wise move to loosen restrictions at this point. The potential is still there for a rapid resurgence. The situation is very delicate and could change rapidly.

The disease has a greater foothold in the country than what it had a month ago. A second and more stringent lockdown could easily happen if we move too fast. That isn't just alarmist talk, it's entirely possible.

Personally, if I was King of Ireland, I wouldn't be loosening a damn thing until we had reliable, up to date, data showing us that community transmission was down to a handful of cases - I mean less than twenty per day - and we had a cast iron testing, tracing and isolation system in place. That could take another month, if all went well.

Do I think that's what will happen? No. Political pressure will probably see to that.

marno21 · 30-04-2020 03:45AM

Arghus wrote: »

Marno21-
I'm not disagreeing with you totally.

But we still have too many instances of daily reported cases of infection for it to be a wise move to loosen restrictions at this point. The potential is still there for a rapid resurgence. The situation is very delicate and could change rapidly.

The disease has a greater foothold in the country than what it had a month ago. A second and more stringent lockdown could easily happen if we move too fast. That isn't just alarmist talk, it's entirely possible.

Personally, if I was King of Ireland, I wouldn't be loosening a damn thing until we had reliable, up to date, data showing us that community transmission was down to a handful of cases - I mean less than twenty per day - and we had a cast iron testing, tracing and isolation system in place. That could take another month, if all went well.

Do I think that's what will happen? No. Political pressure will probably see to that.

Yes I think we’re broadly on the same page. I agree about the testing system - I think we’ll see an extension of the lockdown for 2 weeks for this reason but beyond that a clear roadmap of where we’re going beyond then

From personal experience, a lot of people were very risk averse at the start and have started letting their hair down. I come from a rural background and people were outright scared of the first case in the villages I am familiar with at the start back in March. However, as people become infected and recover, people seem to getting more relaxed. A growing number of people are starting to take more risk now and that’ll continue to rise

On a separate note, I had been avoiding Dunnes for the last 2 weeks because of the queues, but I went back tonight and I was surprised at the crowds inside there and the noticeably larger number of older people in there vs previous weeks. It seems as if the approach is becoming more casual as time goes on and I don’t expect this to change. Many people are simply unable to live in lockdown.

Polar101 · 30-04-2020 04:14AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It's grand.

I'm an introvert and don't go out much socially but even as someone who likes their own company it's starting to wear thin.

I talk to myself, but I'm getting bored of discussing anything with myself.

Polar101 · 30-04-2020 04:40AM

eagle eye wrote: »

quarantine anybody coming into the country.

There is a bit more being done about that now, something I haven't noticed in the news.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/e885b2-covid-19-coronavirus-travel-advice/

Basically you still need to "self-isolate", but also be given a form where you'll need to tell where you'll be self-isolating, and then they might contact you to check if you're actually doing it. At least it's better than just letting everyone through at the airport.

Minnie Snuggles · 30-04-2020 04:42AM

marno21 wrote: »

Yes I think we’re broadly on the same page. I agree about the testing system - I think we’ll see an extension of the lockdown for 2 weeks for this reason but beyond that a clear roadmap of where we’re going beyond then

From personal experience, a lot of people were very risk averse at the start and have started letting their hair down. I come from a rural background and people were outright scared of the first case in the villages I am familiar with at the start back in March. However, as people become infected and recover, people seem to getting more relaxed. A growing number of people are starting to take more risk now and that’ll continue to rise

On a separate note, I had been avoiding Dunnes for the last 2 weeks because of the queues, but I went back tonight and I was surprised at the crowds inside there and the noticeably larger number of older people in there vs previous weeks. It seems as if the approach is becoming more casual as time goes on and I don’t expect this to change. Many people are simply unable to live in lockdown.

I also agree about testing, we have a daughter who maybe in the at risk group (not officially), our temperatures are rising, as a result we are not turning on our heating or lighting our fires - going out doors is not putting as much pressure on our lungs. The problem, as I see it, arises when we have to deal lowering temperatures, (in the autumn and winter), we need to be in the best possible position to be able to cope with this.

smurfjed · 30-04-2020 07:58AM

USA has banned the export of Medical Masks, Respirator Masks, Respirator Filters/Cartridges, Surgical Gloves until at least August.

30-04-2020 08:04AM

smurfjed wrote: »

USA has banned the export of Medical Masks, Respirator Masks, Respirator Filters/Cartridges, Surgical Gloves until at least August.

This is what the US just don't get. While they are rightly vilifying China for their handling of the pandemic, they do things publicly like this. It plays well with the republican base, but all the while all poorer countries see is pallets and pallets of Chinese PPE arriving while to US is completely closed to them. Out the other side of this, rather than China being a pariah as the quite possibly should be, more and more countries will be in the orbit of and possibly beholding to China.
By all means protect your supply - just have a bit of tact about it.

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

Comments