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

polesheep · 21-05-2020 05:16PM

New Home wrote: »

How do you propose those vulnerable ones who you want locked away be looked after?

How are they looked after now?

polesheep · 21-05-2020 05:17PM

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Oh, ok. Well I guess things are going better in your alternative reality than here in the real world.

That doesn't disprove anything I wrote.

New Home · 21-05-2020 05:17PM

So, you're not really proposing any changes, then, are you?

ACitizenErased · 21-05-2020 05:18PM

No CMO again tonight apparently

polesheep · 21-05-2020 05:18PM

New Home wrote: »

So, you're not really proposing any changes, then, are you?

Are you being obtuse? I'm not sure. I am proposing that those not in the vulnerable category should not have been locked down.

What Username Guidelines · 21-05-2020 05:19PM

polesheep wrote: »

First, immunity is a given. Second, 'complicated' doesn't mean impossible. Third, If it takes years to get to get suppression then this thing isn't as virulent as thought. Fourth, 'difficult' isn't impossible.

Even is immunity lasts longer than lets say 3 years, the problem is that the severity of the disease can vary at any age group, but the outcomes fair better for those under 65 with no underlying conditions. Plenty of healthy people can end up needing hospitalisation and/or a stay in ICU. There is also the fact that plenty of people have underlying conditions they don't know about, such as high blood pressure, etc.

If we need 80% immunity for herd immunity, the problem is that the vulnerable equal more than the other 20%.

Like pretty much every pandemic in the past, best bet is to do your absolute best to avoid getting this and seeing how it plays out - burns out, mutates, who knows? Spanish Flu managed to hit 20% of the entire global population over 3 waves during 2 years, it didnt end because of herd immunity.

There is also some who believe exposure to other coronaviruses may mean some short to medium term immunity, so there could already be 20/40/60% of people immune in the population. Maybe it's why kids don't get hit hard, because kids have loads of colds throughout the year.

stephenjmcd · 21-05-2020 05:20PM

Italy reports 642 new cases of coronavirus and 156 new deaths.

Total of 228,006 cases and 32,486 deaths

stephenjmcd · 21-05-2020 05:21PM

https://twitter.com/StoranPhoto/status/1263504324551901186?s=19

Tony EH · 21-05-2020 05:21PM

robbiezero wrote: »

Ah you can't really use Larry again. Maybe Pull the Plug Paddy?

Wind up merchant is the most accurate term for someone like that.

polesheep · 21-05-2020 05:22PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Even is immunity lasts longer than lets say 3 years, the problem is that the severity of the disease can vary at any age group, but the outcomes fair better for those under 65 with no underlying conditions. Plenty of healthy people can end up needing hospitalisation and/or a stay in ICU. There is also the fact that plenty of people have underlying conditions they don't know about, such as high blood pressure, etc.

If we need 80% immunity for herd immunity, the problem is that the vulnerable equal more than the other 20%.

Like pretty much every pandemic in the past, best bet is to do your absolute best to avoid getting this and seeing how it plays out - burns out, mutates, who knows? Spanish Flu managed to hit 20% of the entire global population over 3 waves during 2 years, it didnt end because of herd immunity.

There is also some who believe exposure to other coronaviruses may mean some short to medium term immunity, so there could already be 20/40/60% of people immune in the population. Maybe it's why kids don't get hit hard, because kids have loads of colds throughout the year.

Apart from the bit in bold, which is not true BTW, I don't see much in your post that argues against a partial lockdown instead of the full lockdown that was implemented.

ELM327 · 21-05-2020 05:22PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://twitter.com/StoranPhoto/status/1263504324551901186?s=19

I suspect there will be more of this.
Revenue are very good at pursuing this type of thing, unlike most of the PS, they are the one dept you don't want to mess with or be on a watchlist from.

stephenjmcd · 21-05-2020 05:23PM

ELM327 wrote: »

I suspect there will be more of this.
Revenue are very good at pursuing this type of thing, unlike most of the PS, they are the one dept you don't want to mess with or be on a watchlist from.

Yeah exactly, first of many one would assume

s1ippy · 21-05-2020 05:23PM

owlbethere wrote: »

https://www.euronews.com/2020/05/20/coronavirus-minks-test-positive-for-covid-19-at-two-dutch-farms

Have a look at this. There's a Dutch mink farm and it's believed a worker there contracted the covid19 infection from a mink. Also cats acn get the covid19 infection. Is animal to human infection only happening from mink to human or is it only happening in the Netherlands. Are we OK here with cats. There's no evidence that cats and pets can give it to humans. Is it only mink to human?

That's a crazy conclusion to draw from reading that.

We've been keeping our cat indoors for two months now. It's not ideal but he doesn't mind too much anymore. I'd say it makes us sadder than him to have him inside. We can cuddle him properly without worrying about picking the virus up (although obviously we wash our hands etc after touching him).

We're the only ones we know keeping their cat inside since the start of this, but we also still wash our shopping and wear masks outdoors so you can take from that what you will.

New Home · 21-05-2020 05:23PM

polesheep wrote: »

Are you being obtuse? I'm not sure. I am proposing that those not in the vulnerable category should not have been locked down.

Thereby spreading the contagion and putting those they care for even more at risk. Obtuse? Maybe, but not the worst of the lot around here, not by a long shot.

Gregor Samsa · 21-05-2020 05:24PM

polesheep wrote: »

That doesn't disprove anything I wrote.

I don’t know what the burden of proof is in your alternative reality.

ACitizenErased · 21-05-2020 05:24PM

https://twitter.com/robohanrahan/status/1263505588169908224?s=21

polesheep · 21-05-2020 05:24PM

ELM327 wrote: »

I suspect there will be more of this.
Revenue are very good at pursuing this type of thing, unlike most of the PS, they are the one dept you don't want to mess with or be on a watchlist from.

I hope they come down hard on him, but I won't hold my breath.

ceadaoin. · 21-05-2020 05:24PM

I was reading about how the majority of the spread of this virus seems to be from a minority of super spreader individuals or events. Most people don't transmit the virus at all, even to those in the same household. I think the more we understand about this virus, the more evident it is that its entirely possible to continue our lives , with some restrictions on certain events and not be completely overrun with it

Most of the discussion around the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has concentrated on the average number of new infections caused by each patient. Without social distancing, this reproduction number (R) is about three. But in real life, some people infect many others and others don’t spread the disease at all. In fact, the latter is the norm, Lloyd-Smith says: “The consistent pattern is that the most common number is zero. Most people do not transmit.”

That’s why in addition to R, scientists use a value called the dispersion factor (k), which describes how much a disease clusters. The lower k is, the more transmission comes from a small number of people. In a seminal 2005 Nature paper, Lloyd-Smith and co-authors estimated that SARS—in which superspreading played a major role—had a k of 0.16. The estimated k for MERS, which emerged in 2012, is about 0.25. In the flu pandemic of 1918, in contrast, the value was about one, indicating that clusters played less of a role.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all#

So based on this evidence, there is no reason to think that there will be a huge second wave if people can go about their business but take precautions.

polesheep · 21-05-2020 05:25PM

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I don’t know what the burden of proof is in your alternative reality.

Perhaps you could address my four points as I addressed yours.

polesheep · 21-05-2020 05:26PM

New Home wrote: »

Thereby spreading the contagion and putting those they care for even more at risk. Obtuse? Maybe, but not the worst of the lot around here, not by a long shot.

But surely we are (belatedly) protecting them now. We could have done that from the start.

Gregor Samsa · 21-05-2020 05:27PM

polesheep wrote: »

Perhaps you could address my four points as I addressed yours.

So by just saying the opposite to each of them like you did? That would be just my original post again.

polesheep · 21-05-2020 05:28PM

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

So by just saying the opposite to each of them like you did? That would be just my original post again.

So you think 'difficult' means impossible?

BorneTobyWilde · 21-05-2020 05:29PM

Sending older people to the pubs when it opens will be a problem. Should only allow people aged up to 35 into pubs for next year.

New Home · 21-05-2020 05:29PM

polesheep wrote: »

But surely we are (belatedly) protecting them now. We could have done that from the start.

The point is that everyone needs to be protected and should avoid being infected, the vulnerable ones for obvious reasons, the rest because a. they don't know if they're vulnerable or not due to underlying conditions and b. because by becoming infectious they can infect vulnerable people, directly or indirectly (e.g. infecting their carers).

bekker · 21-05-2020 05:32PM

Interesting article on a study of correlations between certain atmospheric conditions and impact of COVIDF-19.

Ideal weather conditions may have helped coronavirus thrive initially, study suggests
https://www.accuweather.com/en/health-wellness/ideal-weather-conditions-may-have-helped-coronavirus-thrive-initially-study-suggests/740533

petes · 21-05-2020 05:32PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Sending older people to the pubs when it opens will be a problem. Should only allow people aged up to 35 into pubs for next year.

So people over 35 are old?

I've seen some stupid comments on here....

New Home · 21-05-2020 05:33PM

petes wrote: »

So people over 35 are old?

I've seen some stupid comments on here....

We should rename all pubs "Kindergartens with alcohol". :rolleyes:

Strazdas · 21-05-2020 05:34PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I was reading about how the majority of the spread of this virus seems to be from a minority of super spreader individuals or events. Most people don't transmit the virus at all, even to those in the same household. I think the more we understand about this virus, the more evident it is that its entirely possible to continue our lives , with some restrictions on certain events and not be completely overrun with it

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all#

So based on this evidence, there is no reason to think that there will be a huge second wave if people can go about their business but take precautions.

I suspect too that most European governments are now coming to the idea that they will have to live with the idea of risk and continuing to function alongside that risk. If Covid-19 is hovering in the background, then so be it : everyday life in all sectors will have to go on and cannot be shut down indefinitely.

Dr. Bre · 21-05-2020 05:38PM

Strazdas wrote: »

I suspect too that most European governments are now coming to the idea that they will have to live with the idea of risk and continuing to function alongside that risk. If Covid-19 is hovering in the background, then so be it : everyday life in all sectors will have to go on and cannot be shut down indefinitely.

Only the strong survive

Eod100 · 21-05-2020 05:39PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/robohanrahan/status/1263505588169908224?s=21

Odds on why isn't he there being one of the first questions asked?

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

Comments