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

BattleCorp · 08-05-2020 11:19AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Problem is you have to unlock. A lockdown delays cthe inevitable nothing more. Vaccine unlikely anytime soon. Lockdown till vaccine untenable.

A full lockdown over a long period is untenable, I agree.

But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have had any lockdown. Our lockdown gave the HSE time to get ventillators, organise beds, services etc. so that our hospitals weren't swamped and anybody who needed treatment got it. It was shown in Lombardy that many died when they could have been saved if they got treatment but there was no room to treat them. Flattening the curve as they say.

We won't be going back to 2019 normal at any point in 2020. That ship has sailed. We'll have an easing of lockdown like that roadmap timetable but things have changed, many people will continue to work from home etc. for the forseeable future and I can see a reimposition of a lockdown if numbers start to shoot up again.

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 11:19AM

What people are forgetting and it would be interesting to get more insight into this, is if Norway and Finland are in full lockdown, does this also mean as with Ireland there is a significant drop in cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment?

And have Sweden maintained these services?

Longer term you may see lower covid 19 deaths but higher cancer deaths in those who maintain strict lockdowns for any duration.

Spain and Italy might also have data on this.

Undiagnosed or untreated other illnesses are the silent crisis in all this.

BattleCorp · 08-05-2020 11:23AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Longer term you may see lower covid 19 deaths but higher cancer deaths in those who maintain strict lockdowns for any duration.
.

If they have an underlying illness such as cancer, I think that being in lockdown and sheilding them from COVID-19 might actually be a good thing. Again, a sh1te situation eitherways.

seamus · 08-05-2020 11:24AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Problem is you have to unlock. A lockdown delays cthe inevitable nothing more. Vaccine unlikely anytime soon. Lockdown till vaccine untenable.

I do have to wonder if some people have been paying attention.

I can understand this kind of argument ten weeks ago. But surely you see the difference now?

It's not a case that on 18th May, it all gets unlocked, we go back to where we were on 12 March, and covid cases explode again. Not only is it a slow releasing of the valve, but people in general are also more aware, their behaviours will have changed.

Even when we enter/leave the final phase, peoples' behaviours will be different. They will be less inclined to go to gatherings or to work when they're sick. They will wash their hands more as they enter/exit buildings or otherwise interact with public facilities.
There's a cultural memory being laid down, habits and behaviours that will persist years beyond covid.

We know now how to test for covid, and test quickly.

There may be a second, or third, or fourth wave. But none will be as severe as the first.

Plumbthedepths · 08-05-2020 11:28AM

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

It does much more than buy time until a vaccine. It evened out the serious cases to allow the health service cope. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You clearly haven't been working with Covid patients.

I'm not claiming it's to buy time till a vaccine. A lockdown until one is found is untenable is what I have said. The virus will still be there when we open up things . What relevance has working with Covid patio got to do with my reply other than to use emotion as a way to belittle what some says?

Juwwi · 08-05-2020 11:29AM

Apparently with all this sunshine the reservoirs are running low .

If we don't get rain next week Leo is planning to address the nation to ask us all not to wash our hands so often ,

stephenjmcd · 08-05-2020 11:29AM

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1258701132140097536?s=19

Plumbthedepths · 08-05-2020 11:30AM

seamus wrote: »

I do have to wonder if some people have been paying attention.

I can understand this kind of argument ten weeks ago. But surely you see the difference now?

It's not a case that on 18th May, it all gets unlocked, we go back to where we were on 12 March, and covid cases explode again. Not only is it a slow releasing of the valve, but people in general are also more aware, their behaviours will have changed.

Even when we enter/leave the final phase, peoples' behaviours will be different. They will be less inclined to go to gatherings or to work when they're sick. They will wash their hands more as they enter/exit buildings or otherwise interact with public facilities.
There's a cultural memory being laid down, habits and behaviours that will persist years beyond covid.

We know now how to test for covid, and test quickly.

There may be a second, or third, or fourth wave. But none will be as severe as the first.

22 cases in the community yesterday, the rest in care settings.
Just curious but how many cases does having the wider community locked down prevent in care settings?

Just Saying · 08-05-2020 11:31AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

What people are forgetting and it would be interesting to get more insight into this, is if Norway and Finland are in full lockdown, does this also mean as with Ireland there is a significant drop in cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment?

And have Sweden maintained these services?

Longer term you may see lower covid 19 deaths but higher cancer deaths in those who maintain strict lockdowns for any duration.

Spain and Italy might also have data on this.

Undiagnosed other illnesses are the silent crisis in all this.

Interesting to see how people manipulate data to suit their position.For anyone looking at Sweden and comparing to Ireland it is worth remembering

Swedish figures for deaths are lab confirmed Covid-19 positive deaths.When you have low testing rates( approx 1/3 of Ireland per capita) you will inevitably have missed hundreds of deaths caused by Covid-19 if not more.Excess mortality figures would appear to back this up.

In addition Ireland are one of very few countries where deaths probably caused by Covid-19 are included as are non hospital deaths.

It would appear inevitable that the Swedish death rate is well underestimated(like many other countries) whereas the Irish death rate is probably a lot closer to that mark.

That said our relatively young population and our low numbers of people in the BAME groups should result in our deaths being lower on average than many countries.

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 11:31AM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1258701132140097536?s=19

That is not sustainable for any length of time.

BoatMad · 08-05-2020 11:33AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm not claiming it's to buy time till a vaccine. A lockdown until one is found is untenable is what I have said. The virus will still be there when we open up things . What relevance has working with Covid patio got to do with my reply other than to use emotion as a way to belittle what some says?

its clear the lockdown to the extent we implemented it and the slowness in which we are lifting it is untenable , there will be no economy left to return to. The cure cannot be worse then the disease . at this stage we have enough hospital capacity , ( did the 50,000 volunteers get called up , no they didnt )

one is suggesting people wont get ill, people get ill ( and die ) all the time, but if this process is allowed to continue much longer , teh ultimate pain will be far far worse then the virus ever was and will be experienced for far longer then any Covid infection

BoatMad · 08-05-2020 11:34AM

It would appear inevitable that the Swedish death rate is well underestimated(like many other countries) whereas the Irish death rate is probably a lot closer to that mark.

its seems to be " inevitable " to you as it suits your argument .

you will inevitably have missed hundreds of deaths caused by Covid-19 if not more.

to track Covid deaths you just need to test the sick, ie teh very sick , you might miss the " get well again "numbers , but you are likely to track teh deaths reasonably accurately

Teh truth could simply be that extreme lockdowns as opposed to simple social distancing , isnt effective and we have our head in the sand , because there is going to be a lot of embarrassed people if that was admitted

US2 · 08-05-2020 11:36AM

99% of the population wont get this virus

Of those who do, 99% wont need hospital

Of those who do need hospital, 99% will come home again.

Enforced lockdown is wrong. Those who are vulnerable should lock themselves down by choice let the rest of us get on with our lives.

You can be prosecuted in court for going fishing alone on your own land. Ludacris.

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 11:36AM

Just Saying wrote: »

Interesting to see how people manipulate data to suit their position.For anyone looking at Sweden and comparing to Ireland it is worth remembering

Swedish figures for deaths are lab confirmed Covid-19 positive deaths.When you have low testing rates( approx 1/3 of Ireland per capita) you will inevitably have missed hundreds of deaths caused by Covid-19 if not more.Excess mortality figures would appear to back this up.

In addition Ireland are one of very few countries where deaths probably caused by Covid-19 are included as are non hospital deaths.

It would appear inevitable that the Swedish death rate is well underestimated(like many other countries) whereas the Irish death rate is probably a lot closer to that mark.

That said our relatively young population and our low numbers of people in the BAME groups should result in our deaths being lower on average than many countries.

Sweden include deaths in nursing homes in their figures.

https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=7453417

And most countries are moving to include them at this stage. Hence big jumps in UK and other countries numbers.

The BAME group thing is helping us agreed. Its likely one of the reasons for high deaths in the UK, US and possibly France.

BAME group and nursing homes are a huge factor in deaths.

wakka12 · 08-05-2020 11:37AM

growleaves wrote: »

Er its called 'flattening the curve' maybe you're heard of it? Its a deliberate strategy being followed by several governments.

It allowed Sweden to forgo 'flattening the curve' since the overwhelming of ICU capacity was considered to add to death tolls (as happened in Lombardy).

Sweden is flattening the curve though. R0 is supposedly below 0 and there are countless measures in place to slow the spread. There was a recent warning that cafes and restaurants in Stocklholm may be forcibly shut if social distancing is not continued to be taken seriously

is_that_so · 08-05-2020 11:37AM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

That is not sustainable for any length of time.

Nor was it ever expected to be but we can work our way to the end of Phase 5 even at those kind of levels. We should see it decline from that high down to maybe the midteens by the end of July. I think 8-10% by year end would be good.

Wombatman · 08-05-2020 11:40AM

US2 wrote: »

99% of the population wont get this virus

Of those who do, 99% wont need hospital

Of those who do need hospital, 99% will come home again.

Enforced lockdown is wrong. Those who are vulnerable should lock themselves down by choice let the rest of us get on with our lives.

You can be prosecuted in court for going fishing alone on your own land. Ludacris.

This post is 99% WRONG

BattleCorp · 08-05-2020 11:41AM

US2 wrote: »

99% of the population wont get this virus

Where the fcuk are you getting that information from? Same place David Drumm got his figures from..........plucked it from his ar5e".

Enforced lockdown is wrong. Those who are vulnerable should lock themselves down by choice let the rest of us get on with our lives.

Supposing your Mother (making this up), a vulnerable person, lives with you and your kids. What do you do there?

BattleCorp · 08-05-2020 11:43AM

wakka12 wrote: »

Sweden is flattening the curve though. R0 is supposedly below 0 and there are countless measures in place to slow the spread. There was a recent warning that cafes and restaurants in Stocklholm may be forcibly shut if social distancing is not continued to be taken seriously

You don't understand how that R0 thing works, do you?

It most certainly isn't below 0 in Sweden.

ChelseaRentBoy · 08-05-2020 11:43AM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1258701132140097536?s=19

Thought it would be a lot higher tbh.

eagle eye · 08-05-2020 11:43AM

BoatMad wrote:

Teh truth could simply be that extreme lockdowns as opposed to simple social distancing , isnt effective and we have our head in the sand , because there is going to be a lot of embarrassed people if that was admitted

Explain to me then how New Zealand have done so well, how the Czech Republic have done so well, how any country which shut their borders and ordered people to wear facemasks and social distance are doing so well in comparison to countries with lighter restrictions or none at all?

wakka12 · 08-05-2020 11:46AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

You don't understand how that R0 thing works, do you?

It most certainly isn't below 0 in Sweden.

Well, it's what Swedish authorities claim. They also claim 30% of Stockholm has been infected though which sounds unbelievable so who knows

hmmm · 08-05-2020 11:50AM

eagle eye wrote: »

Explain to me then how New Zealand have done so well, how the Czech Republic have done so well, how any country which shut their borders and ordered people to wear facemasks and social distance are doing so well in comparison to countries with lighter restrictions or none at all?

There is no way to know yet exactly what combination of measures are having the biggest impact, and we won't know the true mortality figures between countries for some time.

What is clear is that general social distancing seems to have a huge impact. It's not clear what impact other measures have - we'll need some proper analysis. It may be the case that certain measures look effective on paper but have little or no impact on the virus (e.g. I suspect closing places like forest parks which people were shouting for in the early days had no impact).

But in saying that, governments were told by the WHO to act, and act fast without regrets. So even if it emerges that measures taken were excessive, I would have done exactly the same thing in their shoes - and I'd still be extremely cautious.

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 11:53AM

wakka12 wrote: »

Well, it's what Swedish authorities claim. They also claim 30% of Stockholm has been infected though which sounds unbelievable so who knows

It can't be below 0. Its likely they said below 1.

Sweden have shown you can have a relatively open economy and keep this thing relatively under control.

Their deaths per million are similar to ours after we've been in lockdown for 8 weeks, nursing home deaths counted in both countries.

If we put in the same measures around social distancing the Swedes do we should be fine. Many Swedes continue to work from home by the way.

And like us their main problem is nursing homes, and that issue is going to remain lockdown or no lockdown. A much more targeted approach for nursing homes is really the only answer and so far that has not happened.

Just Saying · 08-05-2020 11:55AM

BoatMad wrote: »

its seems to be " inevitable " to you as it suits your argument .

to track Covid deaths you just need to test the sick, ie teh very sick , you might miss the " get well again "numbers , but you are likely to track teh deaths reasonably accurately

Teh truth could simply be that extreme lockdowns as opposed to simple social distancing , isnt effective and we have our head in the sand , because there is going to be a lot of embarrassed people if that was admitted

You conveniently omit where I mentioned that Sweden have a very high excess death rate...maybe it doesnt suit your argument;)

You also seem to forget that quite a few people die before they can get tested...maybe that doesnt suit your argument either;)

I am not making any case for or against the Swedish method.I am merely pointing out that comparative data being used to promote it makes for an unreliable comparative.

It will not be for quite some time that the successes and failures of different strategies will become clear.

mcmoustache · 08-05-2020 11:59AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

You don't understand how that R0 thing works, do you?

It most certainly isn't below 0 in Sweden.

Wouldn't R0 below zero mean that on average, each person with the virus would suck the virus out of others rather than infect them? Or would it mean that on average, a person with the virus would transmit it to more negative people than positive people?

I'm struggling with the maths here.

Just Saying · 08-05-2020 12:04PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Sweden include deaths in nursing homes in their figures.

https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=7453417

And most countries are moving to include them at this stage. Hence big jumps in UK and other countries numbers.

The BAME group thing is helping us agreed. Its likely one of the reasons for high deaths in the UK, US and possibly France.

BAME group and nursing homes are a huge factor in deaths.

I actually never said that Swedish nursing home deaths were not included.

I probably worded it slightly clumsily but the point I was making was that Ireland was one of the few countries including probable deaths,nursing home deaths and therefore probable deaths in nursing homes.

The vast majority of countries reporting nursing home deaths are not including probable deaths among them.

Given that in Ireland less than 10% of the deaths of nursing home residents occur in a hospital setting and also that it takes longer to organise a test to be done on a nursing home resident than a hospital patient it is inevitable that many nursing home deaths are not lab confirmed.

wakka12 · 08-05-2020 12:04PM

Lol, sorry I meant below 1

tobefrank321 · 08-05-2020 12:05PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

Wouldn't R0 below zero mean that on average, each person with the virus would suck the virus out of others rather than infect them? Or would it mean that on average, a person with the virus would transmit it to more negative people than positive people?

I'm struggling with the maths here.

The R0 can't go below 0. Even the Chinese didn't achieve that!

It can only go to 0. So if every infected person did not pass it on, the R0 would be 0.

Wibbs · 08-05-2020 12:14PM

US2 wrote: »

99% of the population wont get this virus

Of those who do, 99% wont need hospital

Of those who do need hospital, 99% will come home again.

Enforced lockdown is wrong. Those who are vulnerable should lock themselves down by choice let the rest of us get on with our lives.

You can be prosecuted in court for going fishing alone on your own land. Ludacris.

Bit early for drinking I would have thought? Where in god's name did you get those mind bogglingly stupid figures?

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

Comments