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

Princess Calla · 20-05-2020 05:16PM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Why would you sanitize your hands after taking your gloves off?

Just in case you don't remove them 100% in an aseptic technique.

Most people would not be trained in the proper technique of glove removal.

fritzelly · 20-05-2020 05:25PM

Princess Calla wrote: »

Just in case you don't remove them 100% in an aseptic technique.

Most people would not be trained in the proper technique of glove removal.

So basically pointless wearing them in the first place

New Home · 20-05-2020 05:25PM

Whoosh.

FishOnABike · 20-05-2020 05:28PM

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Just to answer your question of "where does this come from", I posted this earlier as a reply to you, but you may have missed it:

https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covid-19-research-evidence-summaries

It's the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, updated 2 days ago, not a media headline. It cites multiple references in all sections, including the ones about the effects of the disease on children, and their role in transmission. So I guess that counts as foundation or supporting evidence.

I did clarify - and do so again - that it was not proof, but a collection of observed trends that were being investigated. So it's not like this is just being plucked out of the ether by people.

That report also says
"Modelling by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Health suggests children were more likely to be asymptomatic, but as susceptible as adults to infection"
and
"It is not clear how likely an infected child is to pass the infection compared to an infected adult, but there is no evidence that they are any more infectious"
it could equally be said that there is no evidence that they are any less infectious.

Like a number of other studies, including our own HIQA study, they have been misunderstood or misrepresented by equating statements to the effect that children have played a smaller part in the spread of CoViD-19 in particular circumstances to date, with statements that children are less succeptable to getting or transmitting CoViD-19 in general.

Most studies I've read acknowledge the limited quantity of data or scope of the study and at best advise the need for further study.

podgeandrodge · 20-05-2020 05:29PM

Dante7 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/alexgibneyfilm/status/1263136573060796417?s=19

SHAPIRO: Yeah. I was shocked to read this - that, like, 80% of transmissions are caused by 9% percent of infected people. I mean, that's shocking to me. Can you explain that?

CEVIK: So this is mostly about the behavior involved. So if an infected person, when they're the most infectious - what we know so far is it's mostly around the time people just about to have the symptoms or have some minor symptoms go to big events where many people gather together, spend time together. Then many people can be exposed and also infected, you know?

SHAPIRO: A big event like a funeral or a birthday party or a church service.

CEVIK: Exactly. Exactly.

SHAPIRO: As you looked over these studies, what jumped out to you as specific cases of widespread infection and perhaps places where it was not as widespread as the fear and anxiety might have suggested?

CEVIK: So there was a recent study from China where they identified an infected case who's working in the supermarket, and they followed up 8,000 contacts of this person. This included supermarket employees, family members of the confirmed case and supermarket clients. What they found was if you're a supermarket client, your chance of getting infected is 0.02%.

SHAPIRO: Wow.

CEVIK: So it's very, very low. But whereas if you are a supermarket employee, because you're exposed multiple times, your risk of getting infected might be 9%. If you're a family member of an infected person, your risk of infection is 12%. So I think we just need to give a range of different risk to people. So outdoors is definitely safer than indoors, nonpeak hours is safer than peak hours, and noncrowded areas safer than very crowded areas.

Interesting observation. For customers it certainly suggests an extremely low risk compared to the varying levels of concern about going shopping. If a casual shop brings risk of 0.02%, presumably going for walks outside is even less.

Unless of course you run into the rabid joggers

silverharp · 20-05-2020 05:31PM

Dante7 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/alexgibneyfilm/status/1263136573060796417?s=19

I reckon a super spreader is just someone who talks loudly or a lot, every office has one :pac:

Be right back · 20-05-2020 05:31PM

Apparently there has been no new cases reported in London and the East England area within the last 24 hours.

stephenjmcd · 20-05-2020 05:33PM

Italy reports 665 new cases of coronavirus and 161 new deaths.
Italy undertook 67000 tests.

Total of 227,364 cases and 32,330 deaths.

MonkieSocks · 20-05-2020 05:34PM

Dante7 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/alexgibneyfilm/status/1263136573060796417?s=19

podcast is here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cszh09

Plumbthedepths · 20-05-2020 05:35PM

fritzelly wrote: »

So basically pointless wearing them in the first place

Not at all, they give the wearer a sense of security whilst cross contamination of everything they touch.

podgeandrodge · 20-05-2020 05:37PM

Interesting viewpoint here.

It does seem supported by the fact that supermarket staff are not falling ill in their droves.

Not sure if it would make people that are currently paranoid about aerosol infections more calm, or would they not accept it?

AllGunsBlazing · 20-05-2020 05:43PM

Be right back wrote: »

Apparently there has been no new cases reported in London and the East England area within the last 24 hours.

That would be nothing short of incredible if true. London alone is over 8 million people.

Planet X · 20-05-2020 05:43PM

It's great to see the Gardai directing traffic (just on the News) for the McDonald's drive thru queues.........that's lovely isn't it?

WTF.

Plumbthedepths · 20-05-2020 05:44PM

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

That would be nothing short of incredible if true. London alone is over 8 million people.

Carried in the Mirror with a caveat it may be a glitch.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-recorded-no-new-coronavirus-22058035

stephenjmcd · 20-05-2020 05:46PM

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

That would be nothing short of incredible if true. London alone is over 8 million people.

Yeah they're also saying 79 new cases in the whole of England, no idea how accurate any of this is. I'd suggest not very but who knows

Former Great · 20-05-2020 05:50PM

Anyone any idea what time we here todays figures at

ACitizenErased · 20-05-2020 05:50PM

Former Great wrote: »

Anyone any idea what time we here todays figures at

6:30

stephenjmcd · 20-05-2020 05:51PM

Former Great wrote: »

Anyone any idea what time we here todays figures at

Due around 6.30 today

What Username Guidelines · 20-05-2020 05:51PM

https://twitter.com/padraig_reilly/status/1263149798963720192?s=20

Princess Calla · 20-05-2020 05:51PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not at all, they give the wearer a sense of security whilst cross contamination of everything they touch.

You would cross contaminate everything with your bare flesh anyway, unless you sanitized after each item you pick up /touch.... Highly unlikely!

Plus I doubt anyone has a good rummage up their nostrils while wearing gloves, for that reason alone I'm delighted to see gloves in supermarkets.

The gloves are also a barrier preventing anything going up your nails or you transferring anything from your nails.

They are not a solution but used correctly and with abit of cop on they are an useful tool. But if you don't want to wear them.. Don't.

growleaves · 20-05-2020 05:52PM

In Michigan, Governor Whitmer has extended her order to force COVID-19 patients into nursing homes:

https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2020/05/20/editorial-whitmer-order-endangers-nursing-homes-end-now/5220929002/

stephenjmcd · 20-05-2020 05:54PM

A crowd of more than 200 mainly Brazilians reportedly dispersed by Gardai out on Sutton beach in Dublin

Plumbthedepths · 20-05-2020 05:55PM

Princess Calla wrote: »

You would cross contaminate everything with your bare flesh anyway, unless you sanitized after each item you pick up /touch.... Highly unlikely!

Plus I doubt anyone has a good rummage up their nostrils while wearing gloves, for that reason alone I'm delighted to see gloves in supermarkets.

The gloves are also a barrier preventing anything going up your nails or you transferring anything from your nails.

They are not a solution but used correctly and with abit of cop on they are an useful tool. But if you don't want to wear them.. Don't.

With your bare flesh you would be very aware of what you touch and would minimise doing so as much as possible.
A shop local to my home will not allow customers to wear gloves on the premises instead hand sanitiser is provided. It's about respect for others. Even medical professionals will not wear the same gloves after examining a patient. Yet I see people in Supermarkets pawing everything whilst wearing gloves.

timsey tiger · 20-05-2020 06:00PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

With your bare flesh you would be very aware of what you touch and would minimise doing so as much as possible.
A shop local to my home will not allow customers to wear gloves on the premises instead hand sanitiser is provided. It's about respect for others. Even medical professionals will not wear the same gloves after examining a patient. Yet I see people in Supermarkets pawing everything whilst wearing gloves.

No you won't, esp. when you touch your face, we're all at it all the time without noticing it. Gloves affect how we use our hands meaning we can no longer use them unconsciously. Cos studies honest.

lbj666 · 20-05-2020 06:01PM

"The analyses for week 18 (a total of 1,104 analysed samples) show, as expected, the largest proportion of positive antibody tests in Stockholm. A total of 7.3% of the blood samples collected from people in Stockholm were positive in the antibody study, which can be compared with a total of 4.2% in Skåne and 3.7% in Västra Götaland.

The numbers reflect the state of the epidemic earlier in April, as it takes a few weeks for the body’s immune system to develop antibodies.

Regarding age differences, the results show that Covid-19 antibodies were most common among people between 20 and 64 years. In total, 6.7% of the samples in this group were positive, which can be compared with 4.7% in the age group 0-19 years and 2.7% in the age group 65-70 years."

So 7% of Stockholm have antibodies, despite more relaxed restrictions than other most countries. The spanish study had Madrid nearing 20% of the population despite being indoors for 2months

Its goes with my suspicion that sweden have been managing (although its debatable)with more lax restrictions because maybe there were less super spreaders in the country before it was noticed and restrictions came in place. .

In fairness with what restrictions have had they acted fast.

Mwengwe · 20-05-2020 06:01PM

Princess Calla wrote: »

I don't wear a mask going out, but if I was getting on public transport I definitely would.

So if I was you, I'd have a mask on. Wear a pair of gloves on the transport bin them when you get off, hand sanitise your hands.. Fresh pair of gloves for shopping, bin when finished hand sanitise your hands. Final pair of gloves for transport, bin and sanitise hands.

I'd probably carry stuff home in a backpack that can be fecked in the washing machine after....or else keep the bag away from everything and only use it for public transport.

Personally I don't think supermarkets are a big risk, public transport I'm not overly confident on.... I would also change my clothes (but then I shower and change after a supermarket trip in the car... So )

Yeah I always change clothes after being to the shop. It's like a 'shopping uniform' now

20-05-2020 06:01PM

Listening to the report on Drivetime about Nayo University Hospital still mixing staff handling Covid with non-Covid patients, and I’m absolutely appalled. This is going to play out as one of the scandals of the decade, more especially if we discover it’s happening in any other hospital. Almost deserves its own thread in this forum.

caveat emptor · 20-05-2020 06:01PM

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Interesting viewpoint here.

It does seem supported by the fact that supermarket staff are not falling ill in their droves.

Not sure if it would make people that are currently paranoid about aerosol infections more calm, or would they not accept it?

Last I heard from CMO is that the R0 of this virus is 4 or 5 which is far higher than. Flu. Until we know why that is I’d proceed with caution.

His words not mine. Lumping them together and saying aerosol is substantive evidence when it comes to one’s own life.

Ryanair coming out with new measures. People should be aware that they are saying and doing whatever they can to save their very existence. People should bear that in mind when considering their existence. Do I really want to take a chance that could kill me if I don’t have to?

Do you really need to go on that city break? The answer I suspect is no for most people. At the very least let others go first and prove it for you.

O’Leary should get on a packed flight from Luton to prove the measures work. In times of crisis look at what people do and not what they say.

ACitizenErased · 20-05-2020 06:02PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

https://twitter.com/padraig_reilly/status/1263149798963720192?s=20

Who are these people??

Eod100 · 20-05-2020 06:02PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

https://twitter.com/padraig_reilly/status/1263149798963720192?s=20

Does yer man get a tip off from the Gardai or what? He seems to be there anytime there's something like this. Bit of an ambulance chaser by the looks of things.

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

Comments