Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…175176178180181…324

Comments

  • #5312
    jackboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,030 ✭✭✭jackboy


    ek motor wrote: »
    Does anyone know if our 19,000 'recovered' were tested to ensure they were clear of the virus, or is the figure speculative ?

    There is no test available to see if they are clear of the virus. The current tests can only indicate that the virus load is below a certain level.


  • #5313
    MD1990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭MD1990


    robbiezero wrote: »
    People would take your "real news" some bit seriously if you didnt just cherry pick the most pessimistic stories every day. Any sign of posts about decreasing rates anywhere?

    I actually regard it as a positive that you have to post about Chile and Nepal etc these days to dump your daily dose of negativity as so many other countries are doing well.

    It is pathetic.

    Never post when numbers go down. Noticed one day last week Italy's deaths were quite high for one day.

    They had them up on here immediately.
    How one person can become so obssesed to post all the negative stories about the virus day in day out is very strange.


  • #5314
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    jackboy wrote: »
    There is no test available to see if they are clear of the virus. The current tests can only indicate that the virus load is below a certain level.


    Sure, but were they re-tested to check that is was below a certain level ?


  • #5315
    jackboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,030 ✭✭✭jackboy


    ek motor wrote: »
    Sure, but were they re-tested to check that is was below a certain level ?

    No it would be a waste of tests as the result is not that meaningful. Better to use the resources for those who are newly sick.


  • #5316
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    igCorcaigh wrote: »
    I thought I saw on RTE news that dentists are opening next week? Can't find it now. Maybe someone else has a link.

    My wife got called for a root canal treatment next week. It was originally for March but got cancelled when all of this kicked off.


  • Advertisement
  • #5317
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,998 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    ek motor wrote: »
    Coronavirus survivors banned from joining US Military. Why ban people who survive it, I wonder?

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/05/06/coronavirus-survivors-banned-from-joining-the-military/

    Apparently they seem to think the scarring on the lungs is permanent...don't know how they would know that yet


  • #5318
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    jackboy wrote: »
    No it would be a waste of tests as the result is not that meaningful. Better to use the resources for those who are newly sick.

    So in other words, the figure is just made-up essentially ?


  • #5319
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    c.p.w.g.w wrote: »
    Apparently they seem to think the scarring on the lungs is permanent...don't know how they would know that yet
    That's another bit of research/talk off a small pool of tests that became "fact" despite it being stated it may or might happen.


  • #5320
    jackboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,030 ✭✭✭jackboy


    ek motor wrote: »
    So in other words, the figure is just made-up essentially ?

    Yes


  • #5321
    schmoo2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭schmoo2k


    Gregor Samsa wrote: »
    My wife got called for a root canal treatment next week. It was originally for March but got cancelled when all of this kicked off.

    Make sure to get a new x-ray if the canal is being done for possible infection - may not need it now...


  • Advertisement
  • #5322
    Maggie Benson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 89 ✭✭Maggie Benson


    Deleted User wrote: »
    On my street there's kids still mixing freely, quite annoying. One of whom is dropped to his granny's by his mother who from her clothes works as a carer/nurse. He then plays with the other kids. They want to pet my dog, I have to tell them to **** off. There's being lax and there's being a piece of ****.

    With behaviour like that, is it any wonder we dread the daily updates?


  • #5323
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,998 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    zerosugarbuzz wrote: »
    She disagrees with consensus so she must be wrong is that it? Just like Sweeden I suppose, time will tell.

    No she is making unsubstantiated statements that people might believe and in affect could endanger others & themselves...what happens if Covid-19 immunity is only for a few years...like the Flu


  • #5324
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    ek motor wrote: »
    So in other words, the figure is just made-up essentially ?
    In any given year the stats for flu' are a guess but an educated one. They freely admit they never find all of them. Are you confusing swab tests with serological/antibody ones? They will be doing the latter soon.


  • #5325
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    c.p.w.g.w wrote: »
    Apparently they seem to think the scarring on the lungs is permanent...don't know how they would know that yet

    Just read the last paragraph -

    'Whether respiratory damage from the virus is long-lasting or permanent, and whether that can be assessed; the likelihood of recurring flare-ups, even if someone has had two consecutive negative tests; and the possibility that one bout of COVID-19 might not provide full immunity for the future, and could potentially leave someone at a higher risk to contract it again, perhaps with worse complications.'


  • #5326
    robbiezero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,738 ✭✭✭robbiezero


    MD1990 wrote: »
    It is pathetic.

    Never post when numbers go down. Noticed one day last week Italy's deaths were quite high for one day.

    They had them up on here immediately.
    How one person can become so obssesed to post all the negative stories about the virus day in day out is very strange.

    Ya, there is plenty of crap posted on boards and I normally couldn't care less about it, but on a forum like this it is important in such a climate of fear and uncertainty to call out biased doom-mongering for the sake of readers that wouldn't be on the forum enough to recognize it.

    There are extremists on both sides of the "lock-down/open-up" debate and some of the comments on the elderly and vulnerable have been disgusting, but its easy to dismiss and ignore.


  • #5327
    Squeaksoutloud
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 564 ✭✭✭Squeaksoutloud


    coastwatch wrote: »
    Thats what Boris Johnson thought, until he got it and then needed to be taken in to ICU.
    Around 15% of cases require hospital treatment, that's 1 in every 7
    Around 3% of cases required ICU treatment. That can mean 2-3 weeks in ICU, with follow on rehab.

    Getting it is really not a good idea.

    I am not one to downplay the seriousness of the virus but the 15% you refer to..or 13.5 in Ireland is only based on confirmed cases. We know from latest research that actual cases are at least a factor of 10 of that. So hospitalisation rates would be a fraction of that 15%. Still death rates of 0.5-1% still likely based on the Spanish serological results.

    It annoys me that RTE and others still refer to this 1 in 5 people requiring hospitalisation but that is overestimating it massively.


  • #5328
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    is_that_so wrote: »
    In any given year the stats for flu' are a guess but an educated one. They freely admit they never find all of them. Are you confusing swab tests with serological/antibody ones? They will be doing the latter soon.

    Was wondering whether the 'recovered' figures were lab confirmed. Interesting that they give a figure of 19,000+ instead of leaving it as 'N/A' a la UK and Netherlands.

    Probably done as a 'morale booster' which is understandable when you need to get people back to work.


  • #5329
    circadian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,482 ✭✭✭circadian


    zerosugarbuzz wrote: »
    She disagrees with consensus so she must be wrong is that it? Just like Sweeden I suppose, time will tell.

    Also, I find it funny how some people ridicule Sweden as some sort of Islamic stronghold where its hell but then hold it up as a paragon in this regard.


  • #5330
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,998 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    ek motor wrote: »
    Just read the last paragraph -

    'Whether respiratory damage from the virus is long-lasting or permanent, and whether that can be assessed; the likelihood of recurring flare-ups, even if someone has had two consecutive negative tests; and the possibility that one bout of COVID-19 might not provide full immunity for the future, and could potentially leave someone at a higher risk to contract it again, perhaps with worse complications.'

    You'd imagine once we know more about the virus, that will be amended...just covering their arse...don't want to be potentially stuck with someone who might be more at risk of such illness'


  • #5331
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    Squeaksoutloud wrote: »
    I am not one to downplay the seriousness of the virus but the 15% you refer to..or 13.5 in Ireland is only based on confirmed cases. We know from latest research that actual cases are at least a factor of 10 of that. So hospitalisation rates would be a fraction of that 15%. Still death rates of 0.5-1% still likely based on the Spanish serological results.

    It annoys me that RTE and others still refer to this 1 in 5 people requiring hospitalisation but that is overestimating it massively.


    Remember, we only achieved this after 9 weeks of unprecedented restrictions. We still have 56 people with Covid-19 in ICU and 688 hospitalised. If restrictions were removed completely we would be looking at an apocalyptic overrun of our health service.


  • Advertisement
  • #5332
    coastwatch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 909 ✭✭✭coastwatch


    robbiezero wrote: »
    People would take your "real news" some bit seriously if you didnt just cherry pick the most pessimistic stories every day. Any sign of posts about decreasing rates anywhere?

    I actually regard it as a positive that you have to post about Chile and Nepal etc these days to dump your daily dose of negativity as so many other countries are doing well.

    The OP would have missed it, but he irony is news about the lockkdown in Chile is actually good news. The world needs every country to take strong measures to suppress this virus and ensure there are no virus reservoirs remaining in the next few years.


  • #5333
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    ek motor wrote: »
    Was wondering whether the 'recovered' figures were lab confirmed. Interesting that they give a figure of 19,000+ instead of leaving it as 'N/A' a la UK and Netherlands.

    Probably done as a 'morale booster' which is understandable when you need to get people back to work.
    A lot of it seems to come from the hospital system data but I reckon it's also probably based on the data of a positive diagnosis, i.e. diagnosis +15-21 days is recovered.


  • #5334
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    is_that_so wrote: »
    A lot of it seems to come from the hospital system data but I reckon it's also probably based on the data of a positive diagnosis, i.e. diagnosis +15-21 days is recovered.

    Yes it looks like that's what has been assumed, even though there are lots of first hand accounts of this virus dragging on for 6/7 weeks. I'd be curious to know how many have actually 'recovered' 100%. Time will tell.


  • #5335
    schmoo2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭schmoo2k


    ek motor wrote: »
    Remember, we only achieved this after 9 weeks of unprecedented restrictions. We still have 56 people with Covid-19 in ICU and 688 hospitalised. If restrictions were removed completely we would be looking at an apocalyptic overrun of our health service.

    One significant difference will be peoples education on the matter and how to protect themselves (and others) - simply put as we come out of lockdown our behaviors will have changed for the better and this alone will help lower the R0 value.


  • #5336
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Number of suspected cases in Letterkenny University Hospital has doubled in one day. I wonder what the hell is going on there.


  • #5337
    owlbethere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,329 ✭✭✭owlbethere


    There was a piece on the journal.ie website. It was a poll asking people - when do you think you will travel again and it provided a few different options to pick from. The comment section was interesting. A lot of the comments sayikg they will go as soon as its allowed.


    I was reading it thinking, it doesn't make sense to go away on holidays when the virus is circulating around many countries and populations still in case you pick up the virus on the way and get sick out abroad?


  • #5338
    Benimar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,790 ✭✭✭Benimar


    owlbethere wrote: »
    There was a piece on the journal.ie website. It was a poll asking people - when do you think you will travel again and it provided a few different options to pick from. The comment section was interesting. A lot of the comments sayikg they will go as soon as its allowed.


    I was reading it thinking, it doesn't make sense to go away on holidays when the virus is circulating around many countries and populations still in case you pick up the virus on the way and get sick out abroad?

    Agreed.

    Also, what happens if either Ireland or the country they travel to have a spike when they are away and one or both countries have to go back into lockdown?

    Your 10 days in the Canaries won’t be as much fun if you can only go out to the shop.

    I don’t see the point in taking the risk this summer tbh.


  • #5339
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Number of suspected cases in Letterkenny University Hospital has doubled in one day. I wonder what the hell is going on there.
    Is that from 2 to 4 or a bigger number?


  • #5340
    coastwatch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 909 ✭✭✭coastwatch


    Squeaksoutloud wrote: »
    I am not one to downplay the seriousness of the virus but the 15% you refer to..or 13.5 in Ireland is only based on confirmed cases. We know from latest research that actual cases are at least a factor of 10 of that. So hospitalisation rates would be a fraction of that 15%. Still death rates of 0.5-1% still likely based on the Spanish serological results.

    It annoys me that RTE and others still refer to this 1 in 5 people requiring hospitalisation but that is overestimating it massively.

    I hear this a lot, but what is this latest research that concludes actual cases are a factor of at least 10 times confirmed cases?

    The WHOs Mike Ryan was very dismissive of the notion of any significant asymptomatic / head immunity in a briefing earlier this week.

    The 15% (13.3 in Ireland) hospitalisations is based on confirmed cases, but is also the experience of countries around the world, with both very high and lower levels on testing, so until there is real evidence of high levels of unconfirmed cases in populations, it's just wishful thinking to use lower estimates for the percentage of cases requiring hospitalisation.


  • Advertisement
  • #5341
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    owlbethere wrote: »
    There was a piece on the journal.ie website. It was a poll asking people - when do you think you will travel again and it provided a few different options to pick from. The comment section was interesting. A lot of the comments sayikg they will go as soon as its allowed.


    I was reading it thinking, it doesn't make sense to go away on holidays when the virus is circulating around many countries and populations still in case you pick up the virus on the way and get sick out abroad?

    If you are in a vulnerable category you should definitely refrain from travel for a while after it restarts. However, otherwise healthy people should follow the guidance and if they feel like it go. Face mask on planes/ public transport, good hand hygiene and hygiene and physical distancing measures in the country you are visiting will likely minimise the potential of getting it. You will probably be just as likely to break a leg. Make sure you have enough spare cash to support yourself for a few weeks in quarantine abroad if you were to get it though. Unlikely to be covered by travel insurance for Covid unlike other injuries or illnesses


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement