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

eagle eye · 08-05-2020 12:15PM

hmmm wrote:

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).

Closing your borders, quarantine for any new arrivals, facemasks and social distancing are just common sense. You don't need to be a medical professional or scientist to know they'll have a massive positive affect.

yourdeadwright · 08-05-2020 12:16PM

Its looking like this things will be back to normal by late July,
It only got going in march which was two months ago and now at the start of May figures are very low, So in another two months it'll be next to zero ,
Also id imagine in two months a lot more will be know about the virus and ways to eradicate it will be in place,

wakka12 · 08-05-2020 12:16PM

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.

It's likely that a greater number than 1% of the population have already had the virus. In Dublin it's probably more like 10% of the population. But yes more than 99% of those people will survive,but as you can see even a relatively small fatality rate between 0.3%-0.8% is leading to a large number of deaths when so many people catch it

yourdeadwright · 08-05-2020 12:17PM

US2 wrote: »

Does it really save lives or just delay deaths?

Most of the world locked inside when this will affect. 001% of us

OR it has only effected 0001% of us BECAUSE the world is locked inside

Drumpot · 08-05-2020 12:20PM

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.

I’d like to think you will be proven right but a couple of things would concern me. People who are always ignorant, uneducated and blaise about this virus will continue to be so and continue to make things bad/worse. Flus and pneumonia spread more easily in winter time.

Lastly, there was a mass delusion in Ireland regarding this virus, people need to expand their knowledge and not put everything on the backs of our government.. You need only look at how some of us were getting dogs abuse in Feb and early March for “scaremongering” about this virus from people who refused to even engage on the topic but found it scary to even read people talk about it so wanted to shut down talk. These sort of people and the idiots who refuse to accept the reality of the situation (demanding their freedom to do what they want) will be quoting Sweden and other countries as if what works there automatically work here. The government will follow what is popular and if it’s popular to prioritize economy and/or “freedom” that’s what will happen.

I can see a country making the same mistake, all depends on how much sway a certain section has at the time of our next wave.

Greyian · 08-05-2020 12:27PM

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.

99% of the population won't get the virus, so that would mean ~50000 people in Ireland would.

Of that 99%, 99% wouldn't need hospital. So that would mean ~500 people in Ireland would.

Of that 99%, 99% will come home again, meaning ~495 people would come home again, while 5 would die.

I think, maybe, you might be so incredibly wrong.

Cork Boy 53 · 08-05-2020 12:28PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Its looking like this things will be back to normal by late July,
It only got going in march which was two months ago and now at the start of May figures are very low, So in another two months it'll be next to zero ,
Also id imagine in two months a lot more will be know about the virus and ways to eradicate it will be in place,

Sorry but you`re dead wrong.;) Until such time as an effective vaccine is developed things will not be back to normal which will not be late July or anytime near it. Some of the measures such as social distancing, no mass gatherings of people etc. are probably here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Cork Boy 53 · 08-05-2020 12:31PM

Greyian wrote: »

99% of the population won't get the virus, so that would mean ~50000 people in Ireland would.

Of that 99%, 99% wouldn't need hospital. So that would mean ~500 people in Ireland would.

Of that 99%, 99% will come home again, meaning ~495 people would come home again, while 5 would die.

I think, maybe, you might be so incredibly wrong.

Indeed. 100% of the post you quoted is nonsense.

hmmm · 08-05-2020 12:33PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Closing your borders, quarantine for any new arrivals, facemasks and social distancing are just common sense. You don't need to be a medical professional or scientist to know they'll have a massive positive affect.

We need proper science, not "common sense". Common sense got forest parks closed down in March, and sunbathers asked to leave city parks, and this will probably turn out to be counter-productive.

Similarly travel restrictions have had little impact on previous pandemics, and the studies afterwards have also shown them to be counter-productive when considering the economic impact.

With masks, we do not have the proper data. The people who are advocating masks refuse to acknowledge there is any downsides, and cherrypick data - they could just as easily pick Iceland as a country which has got their outbreak under control, without requiring masks to be worn. I'd prefer to wait until health experts make a decision, not a social-media decision.

mandrake04 · 08-05-2020 12:38PM

Greyian wrote: »

99% of the population won't get the virus, so that would mean ~50000 people in Ireland would.

Of that 99%, 99% wouldn't need hospital. So that would mean ~500 people in Ireland would.

Of that 99%, 99% will come home again, meaning ~495 people would come home again, while 5 would die.

I think, maybe, you might be so incredibly wrong.

That is just Ludacris

seamus · 08-05-2020 12:42PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Closing your borders, quarantine for any new arrivals, facemasks and social distancing are just common sense. You don't need to be a medical professional or scientist to know they'll have a massive positive affect.

"I know these things will work, because my gut tells me they will".

The "common sense" argument, which has been disproven so many times. What evidence have you got that closing borders, quarantine and facemasks will have a "massive positive affect" (sic)?

And I'm not talking about "Look at Czechia!!"

I mean actual data that can demonstrate the difference with and without.

eagle eye · 08-05-2020 12:45PM

hmmm wrote:

We need proper science, not "common sense". Common sense got forest parks closed down in March, and sunbathers asked to leave city parks, and this will probably turn out to be counter-productive.

This was how the government chose to get people to social distance, about the only good thing they've done.

hmmm wrote:

Similarly travel restrictions have had little impact on previous pandemics, and the studies afterwards have also shown them to be counter-productive when considering the economic impact.

What pandemics?

hmmm wrote:

With masks, we do not have the proper data. The people who are advocating masks refuse to acknowledge there is any downsides, and cherrypick data - they could just as easily pick Iceland as a country which has got their outbreak under control, without requiring masks to be worn. I'd prefer to wait until health experts make a decision, not a social-media decision.

Common sense.
You are an asymptomatic carrier, you have no clue you have the virus. You go to the shop with no facemask, cough on your arm, somebody bumps into you and picks up a droplet. You have spread the virus.
You are an asymptomatic carrier, you go to the shop wearing a facemask, cough on your facemask, all droplets are inside the facemask. You have not spread the virus or at least it's a lot less likely.

martingriff · 08-05-2020 12:46PM

Greyian wrote: »

99% of the population won't get the virus, so that would mean ~50000 people in Ireland would.

Of that 99%, 99% wouldn't need hospital. So that would mean ~500 people in Ireland would.

Of that 99%, 99% will come home again, meaning ~495 people would come home again, while 5 would die.

I think, maybe, you might be so incredibly wrong.

Edit wrong person quoted

Drumpot · 08-05-2020 12:46PM

hmmm wrote: »

We need proper science, not "common sense". Common sense got forest parks closed down in March, and sunbathers asked to leave city parks, and this will probably turn out to be counter-productive.

Similarly travel restrictions have had little impact on previous pandemics, and the studies afterwards have also shown them to be counter-productive when considering the economic impact.

With masks, we do not have the proper data. The people who are advocating masks refuse to acknowledge there is any downsides, and cherrypick data - they could just as easily pick Iceland as a country which has got their outbreak under control, without requiring masks to be worn. I'd prefer to wait until health experts make a decision, not a social-media decision.

I saw one suggestion from medcram website that countries in Northern Europe benefit from hot/cold baths that supposedly helps lower infection rates. Don’t understand the medial science behind it (maybe bodies acclimatised to hot/cold get less colds/flu) but I can’t understand how it’s so hard for anybody to put a half decent strategy together to take the best bits of what worked in each country. We are going to have to experiment to some degree.

Greyian · 08-05-2020 12:49PM

martingriff wrote: »

Why do you think 99% will not get it. Anyone can get it.

I don't think that 99% of the population won't get the virus.
I was just trying to highlight how crazily incorrect US2's figures were.

Drumpot · 08-05-2020 12:52PM

seamus wrote: »

"I know these things will work, because my gut tells me they will".

The "common sense" argument, which has been disproven so many times. What evidence have you got that closing borders, quarantine and facemasks will have a "massive positive affect" (sic)?

And I'm not talking about "Look at Czechia!!"

I mean actual data that can demonstrate the difference with and without.

What evidence do you have that proves they don’t help? Two can play that game Seamus.

Common sense would point out :

- a virus can’t travel anywhere as fast as it can by plane, take this out of the equation and the virus can only spread a certain distance at a certain pace. Makes it easier to isolate an outbreak and contain it because you can identify exactly where the virus has been and it will remain relatively localised if people within that area haven’t travelled across the globe

- A mask reduces asymptotic spread by virtue of looking at the science of coughing and sneezing with and without a mask.

martingriff · 08-05-2020 12:52PM

Greyian wrote: »

I don't think that 99% of the population won't get the virus.
I was just trying to highlight how crazily incorrect US2's figures were.

Sorry I meant to quote US2 it was a miss click

martingriff · 08-05-2020 12:55PM

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.

Why do you think 99% will not get it. Anyone can get it

polesheep · 08-05-2020 01:00PM

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Sorry but you`re dead wrong.;) Until such time as an effective vaccine is developed things will not be back to normal which will not be late July or anytime near it. Some of the measures such as social distancing, no mass gatherings of people etc. are probably here to stay for the foreseeable future.

None of this is true. From a science perspective it was always known that this virus kills certain elements of the population. As testing improves the general population will gradually go back to mass gatherings etc. That part of the population at risk won't. This already happens with regard to certain disabilities and with people who are immunocompromised.

hmmm · 08-05-2020 01:04PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Common sense.
You are an asymptomatic carrier, you have no clue you have the virus. You go to the shop with no facemask, cough on your arm, somebody bumps into you and picks up a droplet. You have spread the virus.
You are an asymptomatic carrier, you go to the shop wearing a facemask, cough on your facemask, all droplets are inside the facemask. You have not spread the virus or at least it's a lot less likely.

Without getting into the mask discussion, downsides include people with masks thinking they do not need to adhere to social distancing, increasing PPE shortages, thinking they cannot get the virus, badly worn masks, touching their faces repeatedly, accidentally infecting themselves by touching a contaminated surface

Real scientists and health experts don't get to ignore possible downsides and use their "common sense". My common sense is that this virus is largely transmitted through prolonged indoors exposure to someone who is infected, but I might be very very wrong and acknowledge that.

Boggles · 08-05-2020 01:07PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

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

They have 12 times the death rate of their nearest neighbors.

eagle eye · 08-05-2020 01:10PM

hmmm wrote:

Without getting into the mask discussion, downsides include people with masks thinking they do not need to adhere to social distancing, increasing PPE shortages, thinking they cannot get the virus, badly worn masks, touching their faces repeatedly, accidentally infecting themselves by touching a contaminated surface

This is a very small percentage you are talking about. These people are going to get infected with or without a mask.

hmmm wrote:

Real scientists and health experts don't get to ignore possible downsides and use their "common sense". My common sense is that this virus is largely transmitted through prolonged indoors exposure to someone who is infected, but I might be very very wrong and acknowledge that.

Have you not read anything about droplets?

stephenjmcd · 08-05-2020 01:11PM

polesheep wrote: »

None of this is true. From a science perspective it was always known that this virus kills certain elements of the population. As testing improves the general population will gradually go back to mass gatherings etc. That part of the population at risk won't. This already happens with regard to certain disabilities and with people who are immunocompromised.

Theres no point in engaging, same poster said yesterday they wont get on a plane until theres a vaccine. So they're going to be in for a shock if one doesn't materialise. Their mantra is basically wait for a vaccine before resuming any sort of life.

As you've said there will be a section of the population who may be allowed to get back to a normal life somewhere down the line. Is someone in their 20s for example expected to put life on hold for an indefinite amount of time? Not have social contact with anyone, not meet a potential partner, I don't think so.

The theory that we wait for a vaccine that may arrive in 2 years or may not arrive at all is quite frankly mind boggling.

I'm not an anti vaxer by any stretch of the imagination, have always got whatever vaccines I need and get the flu one each year but I wouldn't be taking a vaccine that's been rapidly developed until at least a year or 2 after its release and its proven to be safe.

Wibbs · 08-05-2020 01:11PM

seamus wrote: »

"I know these things will work, because my gut tells me they will".

The "common sense" argument, which has been disproven so many times. What evidence have you got that closing borders, quarantine and facemasks will have a "massive positive affect" (sic)?

And I'm not talking about "Look at Czechia!!"

I mean actual data that can demonstrate the difference with and without.

Look at nations who have much tighter borders, quarantined, and added facemasks on top of the lockdowns and social distancing. Spot the difference. I'll make it easy, they have better figures of infected and dead than the ones who didn't. Notably so. Better yet, try and find a single example of a country that had tight borders and quarantine that did worse.

Forget masks as that seems to be a step too far for many in the west, but let's look at border control and quarantine and take the example of New Zealand. Not in the usual way either, but from the angle that they're in the arse end of nowhere so have lighter traffic in and out to start with, a natural "border control" as it were, then they locked that border down even more and look at their disease trajectory. Australia would be somewhat similar(plus they've pretty tight border control as is). Look at Greece, again tightened the borders up substantially, had a hard lockdown, didn't do the masks thing(though are looking at it seriously for the reopening) and look at their numbers. They also show up this notion that we couldn't have had border control in Ireland. They have a couple of borders, are much closer to Italy and have a massive refugee problem on top that found their borders porous enough before. Never mind that we were somehow able to act as an island nation during the foot and mouth disease, but couldn't do similar this time(and that was supported by the Unionists at the time too). Never mind that we're sat beside one of the sickest nations in Europe.

Again find a single example of a country that had tight borders and quarantine that did worse than those who didn't.

New Home · 08-05-2020 01:12PM

hmmm wrote: »

Without getting into the mask discussion, downsides include people with masks thinking they do not need to adhere to social distancing, increasing PPE shortages, thinking they cannot get the virus, badly worn masks, touching their faces repeatedly, accidentally infecting themselves by touching a contaminated surface

See, that bit is something I keep hearing and I have a problem with. Just like people have been taught to wash their hands, etc. and like they can be taught the correct way of using a mask, they can also be taught the difference between OR and AND (in case they hadn't already grasped the concept) - i.e. masks AND everything else, not masks OR everything else.

Wibbs · 08-05-2020 01:18PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Theres no point in engaging, same poster said yesterday they wont get on a plane until theres a vaccine. So they're going to be in for a shock if one doesn't materialise.

As you've said there will be a section of the population who may be allowed to get back to a normal life somewhere down the line. Is someone in their 20s for example expected to put life on hold for an indefinite amount of time? Not have social contact with anyone, not meet a potential partner, I don't think so.

The theory that we wait for a vaccine that may arrive in 2 years or may not arrive at all is quite frankly mind boggling.

I'm not an anti vaxer by any stretch of the imagination, have always got whatever vaccines I need and get the flu one each year but I wouldn't be taking a vaccine that's been rapidly developed until at least a year or 2 after its release and its proven to be safe.

Actually I would agree with this pretty much. The only problem might be enforcing it. I mean in the sense of keeping the vulnerable people away from the might get a bit of a dose for a week people. The vulnerable people group is a large enough one. OK people over 70 it might be easier, but not exactly great for them, or their loved ones, but this thing is hitting those of working age too. The HSE doctor hereabouts noted they have been surprised and concerned how hard it's been hitting people under 65. Looking at the UK and elsewhere below 40(and White) you're almost certainly not going to die from this unless you have a serious underlying condition, over 40 and the risks go up, over 50 they go up again, so where do we have this cut off point, over 60 again? Genuine question.

owlbethere · 08-05-2020 01:19PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/07/health/new-york-children-coronavirus-kawasaki/index.html

Something concerning to consider going forward. Don't we have high levels of childhood obesity here in Ireland? That might have an impact on some children going forward with this.

Wibbs · 08-05-2020 01:23PM

New Home wrote: »

See, that bit is something I keep hearing and I have a problem with. Just like people have been taught to wash their hands, etc. and like they can be taught the correct way of using a mask, they can also be taught the difference between OR and AND (in case they hadn't already grasped the concept) - i.e. masks AND everything else, not masks OR everything else.

Tbh N, I thing the mask thing is largely done and dusted in Ireland. There's a massive cultural resistance to them above and beyond any science involved. I actually notice more people wearing gloves(which are well dodgy and do eff all over hand washing and can make things worse) than wearing masks. If the science was hardcore clear tomorrow there would still be resistance and would need a government mandate that will likely never come.

stephenjmcd · 08-05-2020 01:25PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually I would agree with this pretty much. The only problem might be enforcing it. I mean in the sense of keeping the vulnerable people away from the might get a bit of a dose for a week people. The vulnerable people group is a large enough one. OK people over 70 it might be easier, but not exactly great for them, or their loved ones, but this thing is hitting those of working age too. The HSE doctor hereabouts noted they have been surprised and concerned how hard it's been hitting people under 65. Looking at the UK and elsewhere below 40(and White) you're almost certainly not going to die from this unless you have a serious underlying condition, over 40 and the risks go up, over 50 they go up again, so where do we have this cut off point, over 60 again? Genuine question.

Yup I agree with you there, absolutely no idea how you would manage or even enforce it. I wouldn't like the thoughts of an elderly family member basically being told to stay inside for the rest of their days. And like you say what defines a vulnerable person in terms of age, where is the cut off point. Its extremely difficult to see how any country could or would implement it but a point comes whereby those of a certain age who are otherwise fit and healthy will look to get back to a normal life and most importantly back to work too, nobody who can work wants to be reliant on the state.

Wibbs · 08-05-2020 01:31PM

If we had a better idea and clear numbers of how many 40-65 died and what underlying conditions they had, including things like obesity, asthma etc, then we might have a better map ahead. EG if nobody under say 60 died who was otherwise fit and healthy and thin, then off you go and get back to living.

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

Comments