Covid19 Part XVII-24,841 in ROI (1,639 deaths) 4,679 in NI (518 deaths)(28/05)Read OP

martingriff · 08-05-2020 12:42AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

The effects of the restrictions have to be taken into account.

Ya they could have been higher without it

Jinglejangle69 · 08-05-2020 12:46AM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Simon Harris should be at every briefing every day. The UK does it, yet we hide behind the CMO.

The UK?

Don't make me laugh.

They are the worst hit country in the EU after taking the experts advice early on and rolling them out each day waffling about herd immunity.

Now they have no choice but to put out their health minister.

They have put their scientists and experts into hiding.

Come on man, cop on.

martingriff · 08-05-2020 12:47AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Impressive twisting of words.

Do you think the life of a young woman who cannot get a cervical smear test or a young man who cannot get diagnosed for testicular cancer should be sacrificed to save the life of an elderly person in a nursing home who may have had only months to live without covid 19?

Serious question.

Its not a twisting of words as you just have said the same here.

Goldengirl · 08-05-2020 12:49AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Not ok no. We need to do better at protecting nursing homes in a targetted way.

However most of these people have had long lives.

Once you hit 80 you are on borrowed time generally.

However if a single young woman or man dies because of not being diagnosed in time with a cancer due to hype and hysteria around covid 19 this is about the worst tragedy there could be.

The hype around covid 19 has gone far beyond what is needed. The media and government are massively complicit in this. These clowns will cost young peoples lives, lives with decades to live.

You really are a piece of work! On two threads talking about elderly as if they are disposable commodities. Will you feel like that when you are old?

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 12:56AM

martingriff wrote: »

Its not a twisting of words as you just have said the same here.

Nope. He basically said I don't give a damn if old people die. You've both missed the point I made.

Cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment should never be postponed. Its vital in saving lives.

There is no good reason why it should be postponed at anytime and particurarly not for an illness like covid 19 that most young people won't die from.

Postponing it to save lives in nursing homes is tenuous. We've had 8 weeks of lockdown and nursing home deaths are still significant and not going away.

A more targetted approach is needed for nursing homes, not one that includes ruining the economy and putting cancer diagnosis and treatment on the back burner.

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 12:57AM

Goldengirl wrote: »

You really are a piece of work! On two threads talking about elderly as if they are disposable commodities. Will you feel like that when you are old?

That is not what I said.

You don't do nuances do you? See my post above.

Jinglejangle69 · 08-05-2020 01:03AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Nope. He basically said I don't give a damn if old people die. You've both missed the point I made.

Cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment should never be postponed. Its vital in saving lives.

There is no good reason why it should be postponed at anytime and particurarly not for an illness like covid 19 that most young people won't die from.

Postponing it to save lives in nursing homes is tenuous. We've had 8 weeks of lockdown and nursing home deaths are still significant and not going away.

A more targetted approach is needed for nursing homes, not one that includes ruining the economy and putting cancer diagnosis and treatment on the back burner.

Cancer screening is still ongoing.

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 01:05AM

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Cancer screening is still ongoing.

A poster earlier reported getting a response from the HSE to say cervical cancer screening is suspended due to covid 19.

Its also on the HSE website.

https://www2.hse.ie/cervical-screening/

Jinglejangle69 · 08-05-2020 01:07AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

A poster earlier reported getting a response from the HSE to say cervical screening is suspended due to covid 19.

Yeah and I'm telling you cancer screening is still ongoing.

It may not be all screening but it is still happening.

Arghus · 08-05-2020 01:07AM

What is your point Frank?

That restrictions and the lockdown were unnecessary?

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 01:08AM

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Yeah and I'm telling you cancer screening is still ongoing.

It may not be all screening but it is still happening.

Explain this then.

https://www2.hse.ie/cervical-screening/

Jinglejangle69 · 08-05-2020 01:10AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Explain this then.

https://www2.hse.ie/cervical-screening/

Read my post again.

Maybe not all is but there are some screenings still going on.

Goldengirl · 08-05-2020 01:13AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Nope. He basically said I don't give a damn if old people die. You've both missed the point I made.

Cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment should never be postponed. Its vital in saving lives.

There is no good reason why it should be postponed at anytime and particurarly not for an illness like covid 19 that most young people won't die from.

Postponing it to save lives in nursing homes is tenuous. We've had 8 weeks of lockdown and nursing home deaths are still significant and not going away.

A more targetted approach is needed for nursing homes, not one that includes ruining the economy and putting cancer diagnosis and treatment on the back burner.

They are not just doing it to save lives in nursing homes. In fact nursing homes only came into the equation in the last 3 to 4 weeks , while they should have been foremost from the beginning.
I find your premise offensive and from your other posts think that you don't give a flying fxxx about anyone young or old but just to stir people up .
A lot of people are those young people , or have children that age ,AND older relatives whom they love. Noone can decide one way or the other, and to do that to one group at the expense of the other is a lazy argument.
The gps and health service are encouraging all those with worries or symptoms to call their doctors and discuss any delayed appointments and screening. This is being done and people are being treated , but more attention to research and outcomes is being weighed in the balance.
If anyone in authority came out with a suggestion to ditch the elderly , open up restrictions, and get the country back on its feet again , and it'll all be alright in the end , he would be on the next boat to ..the US .
Boris tried it , look where it got him.

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 01:14AM

Arghus wrote: »

What is your point Frank?

That restrictions and the lockdown were unnecessary?

My point is that someone advancing the notion that postponing or cancelling cancer related appointments, diagnosis or treatment will somehow prevent covid 19 deaths is tenuous and highly irresponsible. Screening for example should not be suspended.

There's been a reported 50% drop in referrals for cancer treatment, higher for some cancers.

This is a direct result of scaremongering around covid19.

Hohohan needs to state clearly the chances of anyone under 65 or under 50 dying from covid 19 are minimal. This would put the minds of an awful lot of people at rest not to mention ease peoples mental health worries.

GeorgeBailey · 08-05-2020 01:17AM

Maestro85 wrote: »

Well I am off to bed for another day of Benny Hill music at work... Whatever happens I have come to the conclusion that I am going to be prepared for a second wave. I'd rather be prepared and not need to be than unprepared and needing to be. My money is on a second wave over the winter months which will make this harder as there will be the winter flus to deal with as well.

We're in the middle of the second wave at the minute

Arghus · 08-05-2020 01:18AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

My point is that someone advancing the notion that postponing or cancelling cancer related appointments, diagnosis or treatment will somehow prevent covid 19 deaths is tenuous and highly irresponsible. Screening for example should not be suspended.

But no one - literally no one - is saying that.

So you do think the lockdown/restrictions were unnecessary?

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 01:21AM

Goldengirl wrote: »

They are not just doing it to save lives in nursing homes. In fact nursing homes only came into the equation in the last 3 to 4 weeks , while they should have been foremost from the beginning.
I find your premise offensive and from your other posts think that you don't give a flying fxxx about anyone young or old but just to stir people up .
A lot of people are those young people , or have children that age ,AND older relatives whom they love. Noone can decide one way or the other, and to do that to one group at the expense of the other is a lazy argument.
The gps and health service are encouraging all those with worries or symptoms to call their doctors and discuss any delayed appointments and screening. This is being done and people are being treated , but more attention to research and outcomes is being weighed in the balance.
If anyone in authority came out with a suggestion to ditch the elderly , open up restrictions, and get the country back on its feet again , and it'll all be alright in the end , he would be on the next boat to ..the US .
Boris tried it , look where it got him.

You've repeatedly and likely deliberately misunderstood what I said.

I said postponing cancer screening is wrong. I said the scare mongering around an illness that primarily affects the very old in terms of death is wrong. I said most young people will not die from covid 19 so have no reason to fear going to see their gp or getting cancer treatment. I don't think I can spell it out more clearly for you?

Do you even understand the vast majority of deaths have been in the elderly? Or that suspending all screening or cancer treatment will likely make no difference to death rates in nursing homes but will likely cost many young lives for no good reason.

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 01:26AM

Arghus wrote: »

But no one - literally no one - is saying that.

So you do think the lockdown/restrictions were unnecessary?

I've already said some measures were a good idea and some weren't. It gave us time to come up with a sustainable long term plan post lockdown. As a short term measure it was overall the right approach. But it cannot be sustained longer than 1st June economically or otherwise.

Iamabeliever · 08-05-2020 01:28AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I've already said some measures were a good idea and some weren't. It gave us time to come up with a sustainable long term plan post lockdown. As a short term measure it was overall the right approach. But it cannot be sustained longer than 1st June economically or otherwise.

Why June 1st?

ceadaoin. · 08-05-2020 01:30AM

martingriff wrote: »

So because there old people is it okay and do not mention it because hey they were going to die again who is to say when that person was going to die.

I agree with you about getting people to see there doctors but that its scaremongering and we should not talk about it because there elderly is wrong. I bet if it was only .1% and it was the young you would not be saying that

Even eldery people who catch it are more likely to survive than not. The whole its certain death thing is wearing thin at this stage. It isn't. More than 99% of people will survive. As more treatments are being trialed this will probably increase even more. The vulnerable should continue to stay shielded while the rest of us get on with things, with precautions like masks, keeping distance in public etc. What exactly is wrong with that?

Arghus · 08-05-2020 01:31AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I've already said some measures were a good idea and some weren't. It gave us time to come up with a sustainable long term plan post lockdown. As a short term measure it was overall the right approach. But it cannot be sustained longer than 1st June economically or otherwise.

So what's our source of disagreement then?

Seems like we agree on plenty.

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 01:32AM

Iamabeliever wrote: »

Why June 1st?

The government are taking a phased approach with some businesses opening in August. Problem is many businesses still have overheads and will be bankrupt by August. Some already are.

Iamabeliever · 08-05-2020 01:37AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Even eldery people who catch it are more likely to survive than not.

Depends what you call elderly.

Arghus · 08-05-2020 01:40AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The government are taking a phased approach with some businesses opening in August. Problem is many businesses still have overheads and will be bankrupt by August. Some already are.

If we manage to avoid a second wave and can keep the infection at bay then the plan will be Accelerated.

They have to be cautious, particularly now. Any gains that are made can be quickly lost if you move too fast. Having to take a step backwards into lockdown again would be more economically disastrous than having to go into it in the first place.

Why would the government want to delay any longer than necessary - it's costing them billions every week.

Goldengirl · 08-05-2020 01:42AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

You've repeatedly and likely deliberately misunderstood what I said.

I said postponing cancer screening is wrong. I said the scare mongering around an illness that primarily affects the very old in terms of death is wrong. I said most young people will not die from covid 19 so have no reason to fear going to see their gp or getting cancer treatment. I don't think I can spell it out more clearly for you?

Do you even understand the vast majority of deaths have been in the elderly? Or that suspending all screening or cancer treatment will likely make no difference to death rates in nursing homes but will likely cost many young lives for no good reason.

I understand everything you have said , but absolutely and completely disagree with you.

Do you understand that the restrictions were not just to protect the elderly but to protect vital services for those that need them , including cancer diagnosis and most especially cancer care ? Can you not understand that?
If this virus is not kept under control, restrictions , maybe even more severe, will have to be reimposed so that our fragile health service does not get swamped.
So the sooner all that happens the sooner our more vulnerable ill people young , middle aged and old can be returning to health care without the fear that they will get sick and die with this virus .
I think that is a good reason, not no good reason, as you put it.
This pandemic is what will cost people their lives, young and old , unfortunately, not the restrictions. You are just choosing to see it the opposite way, for some reason.

Eod100 · 08-05-2020 01:48AM

From a NY study looks like most people who had virus had antibodies which is a positive sign. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/health/coronavirus-antibody-prevalence.html#click=https://t.co/sZksE6d1kO

Arghus · 08-05-2020 01:48AM

People see it the opposite way because the restrictions worked.

There was no surge, hospitals weren't swamped, deaths weren't out of control - because the restrictions worked. Shutting people's movements down slowed the spread of the virus.

And now when the lockdown has done what it is has initially set out to do, some people are wondering why hospitals aren't overwhelmed and are somehow inferring that proves the restrictions were unnecessary.

The restrictions were so effective that people aren't that concerned about the virus anymore and instead have moved on to lashing out about the lockdown. It's incredible really.

Why is it so hard for some people to put two and two together?

Goldengirl · 08-05-2020 01:55AM

A lot of the older people that you talk about, don't die .
A lot spend weeks in hospital , taking beds in intensive care , along with all the other misfortunate people who catch this, and become very Ill , and the amount of resources both in manpower and treatment is an ongoing infinitive.
But that's the point of restrictions, so that figure is now coming down now at least .
Moving on from this, there is more capacity to start treating and the screening again once the levels are under control.
Nothing will get back to normal quickly in case this is jeopardised. Work,shops, travel.
Its all about protecting the services that can ultimately protect the people , but everything else has to be secondary to that.

MOR316 · 08-05-2020 01:56AM

Arghus wrote: »

People see it the opposite way because the restrictions worked.

There was no surge, hospitals weren't swamped, deaths weren't out of control - because the restrictions worked. Shutting people's movements down slowed the spread of the virus.

And now when the lockdown has done what it is has initially set out to do, some people are wondering why hospitals aren't overwhelmed and are somehow inferring that proves the restrictions were unnecessary.

The restrictions were so effective that people aren't that concerned about the virus anymore and instead have moved on to lashing out about the lockdown. It's incredible really.

Why is it so hard for some people to put two and two together?

I explained this yesterday during the lady having an outburst, rightly or wrongly, at Tony Holohan. I also gave examples as to why.

Not aimed at you but, having to explain this to people and then get jumped on, not just on here but, in the real world too, can be irritating

You know the answer

Psychedelic Hedgehog · 08-05-2020 02:00AM

Arghus wrote: »

People see it the opposite way because the restrictions worked.

There was no surge, hospitals weren't swamped, deaths weren't out of control - because the restrictions worked. Shutting people's movements down slowed the spread of the virus.

<snip>

Why is it so hard for some people to put two and two together?

It’s the whole Y2K story all over again. Huge effort was expended to avoid disaster, disaster was successfully avoided, and then you had some arguing what all the fuss was about.

Covid19 Part XVII-24,841 in ROI (1,639 deaths) 4,679 in NI (518 deaths)(28/05)Read OP

Comments