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

Covid 19 Part XX-26,644 in ROI (1,772 deaths) 6,064 in NI (556 deaths) (08/08)Read OP

1…123124126128129…333

Comments

  • #3752
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    I had actually thought you had joined in the fun for a minute with that post!

    I think there might be a market in a portable personal toilet seat


  • #3753
    caveat emptor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭caveat emptor


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Our schools are opening whether you like it or not lets be honest

    And god love the statistics. Are you going back to college?


  • #3754
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    [quote="Gruffalox;114194183 curled out a gigantic burnt offering to Baal [/quote]

    Thanks for the vivid mental image, funny though.


  • #3755
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,566 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Our schools are opening whether you like it or not lets be honest

    And more than likely closing again unless some one in power steps in and calls nonsense on the "plan".


  • #3756
    podgeandrodge
    Site Banned Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I think there might be a market in a portable personal toilet seat

    Agreed. But I don't see Fairies suggestion of goggles as any different than any of your suggestions, but she got annoyed at yours!


  • Advertisement
  • #3757
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    The Unbearables wrote: »
    But the boards experts are telling everyone kids aren't spreaders, surely they are correct?

    Have to be honest never read any comment that said children don't spread the virus.
    Interesting article though form some 'experts' about children and Covid.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/paediatricians-explain-what-we-know-about-children-who-get-covid-19


  • #3758
    Away With The Fairies
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭Away With The Fairies


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Agreed. But I don't see Fairies suggestion of goggles as any different than any of your suggestions, but she got annoyed at yours!



  • #3759
    schmoo2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭schmoo2k


    The Unbearables wrote: »
    But the boards experts are telling everyone kids aren't spreaders, surely they are correct?

    Thats bit of an oxymoron - but even so, on balance that wouldn't be my take from the posts here...


  • #3760
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    copeyhagen wrote: »
    sure its a bank holiday weekend, open the pubs :p

    would love a few pints without a bowl of wings to accompany it. actually im still not 'allowed' mix with the general public

    Great service in my nearest town, take away pints and food.
    A few non food pubs opened in town partnered up with near by restaurants to satisfy the rules.


  • #3761
    alwald
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭alwald


    Boggles wrote: »
    And more than likely closing again unless some one in power steps in and calls nonsense on the "plan".

    Indeed you are right, this government think that throwing 300M to schools, and creating a bubble within a bubble, will resolve all problems.


  • Advertisement
  • #3762
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,566 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Very interesting article here by a Swiss doctor, with references for the claims he makes.


    https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

    That's a well known conspiracy site, just so everyone knows.


  • #3763
    Renjit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Renjit


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Very interesting article here by a Swiss doctor, with references for the claims he makes.


    https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

    What's his name?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Propaganda_Research
    Criticism
    The site has been criticised for spreading conspiracy theories and especially so during the times of the COVID-19 pandemic when it has become a source of misinformation and disinformation internationally.[4] SPR has been categorized by some as a tool of propaganda.[2]

    In 2017 a University of Zurich report on media in Switzerland analyzed "six of the most discussed alternative media", including SPR. Daniel Vogler concluded that SPR "resorts to conspiracy theories", and its contents are mostly "pseudo-scientific".[5]

    Andrea Haefely wrote a critique of the website in the magazine Beobachter in May 2020, noting: "The website Swiss Propaganda Research assumes that the Swiss media does what it itself does: feed the readers with questionable information." He also suggested that the persistent use of the letter ß on the site suggests that the content creator is likely to be from outside Switzerland, as this particular letter form is not in common use in the country.[3]

    Stephan Russ-Mohl, professor of Journalism and Media Management at the Università della Svizzera italiana considers the articles on the SPRS to themselves serve as propaganda, rather than being serious research on the subject. He has noted that the anonymity of the website creates doubts over the reliability and authenticity of its research, particularly in a country such as Switzerland, which has full freedom of its press.[2]


  • #3764
    Gruffalux
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    Boggles wrote: »
    That's a well known conspiracy site, just so everyone knows.

    I was reading it and thinking something felt a bit odd. The language used. The atmosphere. Some of the points appear legitimate. But then others seemed not professionally expressed. Eg risk of death same as traveling by car, when this is not true. Also cfr of 0.1 to 0.3 when studies show 0.6 to be likely at least. Plus the age thing ignores countries like Brazil where regional variations put deaths of people between 20 and 59 at 24 % to 33% of total deaths.


  • #3765
    gabeeg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Very interesting article here by a Swiss doctor, with references for the claims he makes.


    https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

    Ffs numbers guy

    Ffs


  • #3766
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    Was not aware it was a conspiracy site, post deleted.


  • #3767
    owlbethere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,329 ✭✭✭owlbethere


    gabeeg wrote: »
    I was speaking to a couple from Bergamo last night.
    They know a ton of people who are still banjaxed from covid. And not just those that were hopitalised.

    I don't know that many people that caught the virus, but yet I know multiple people suffering long term effects. One of which, a 25 year old woman, is in a terrible state and we're all deeply worried about her.

    Nobody has yet been able to quantify what percentage of people go on to endure long covid , except for you of course with your "very small percentage".

    This from the CDC is not a very satisfying study in terms of answering the question, but may give some indication.

    "In a multistate telephone survey of symptomatic adults who had a positive outpatient test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 35% had not returned to their usual state of health when interviewed 2–3 weeks after testing. Among persons aged 18–34 years with no chronic medical conditions, one in five had not returned to their usual state of health."

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm

    We definitely need doctors/hse to come out and tell us more. How many people are still suffering long term.

    There was a Facebook group set up for Irish long term coronavirus sufferers. Last time I checked there was approx. 400 people in the group. Now I know not everyone is on Facebook and doesn't give a true representation of figures. Them figures look like 1% of the total cases. I know its not a true representation but still. We definitely need the hse to come out and give us some more details.


  • #3768
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,460 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Very interesting article here by a Swiss doctor, with references for the claims he makes.


    https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

    Quoting the daily mail as a source.... Yeah that's totally legit.
    Comes across as trying to say covid is no different than a strong flu.
    Comparing mortality with a risk of dying in a car accident is a little bit loopy.


  • #3769
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Was not aware it was a conspiracy site, post deleted.

    Don't sweat it, lots of false information out there dressed up as fact on both sides. Easy to get duped.


  • #3770
    Renjit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Renjit


    I can't wait for covid-19 to become like common cold. Sooner the better.


  • #3771
    seanb85
    Closed Accounts Posts: 189 ✭✭seanb85


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Very interesting article here by a Swiss doctor, with references for the claims he makes.


    https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

    That's a good example of confirmation bias, author has clearly sought out references that back up what they already believe (many preprints or non-scientific), and ignore any evidence or papers that contradict what they assert (e.g. some of the IFR claims are backed up by studies that only included patients under 70). The upper estimate of an IFR of 0.3% would suggest Ireland has already had 600,000 infections, the lower estimate 1.8m. Most studies I have seen suggest an IFR of 0.5 - 0.7 % which would mean we've had maybe 250,000 cases which seems far more realistic


  • Advertisement
  • #3772
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    owlbethere wrote: »
    We definitely need doctors/hse to come out and tell us more. How many people are still suffering long term.

    There was a Facebook group set up for Irish long term coronavirus sufferers. Last time I checked there was approx. 400 people in the group. Now I know not everyone is on Facebook and doesn't give a true representation of figures. Them figures look like 1% of the total cases. I know its not a true representation but still. We definitely need the hse to come out and give us some more details.

    The virus is only with us since early February in the West so how can anyone give a comprehensive answer to long term affects? Do you know how long it takes to conduct a 'long term study' . It's not measured in months .


  • #3773
    gabeeg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    The virus is only with us since early February in the West so how can anyone give a comprehensive answer to long term affects? Do you know how long it takes to conduct a 'long term study' . It's not measured in months .

    He didn't mention a long term study.


  • #3774
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    gabeeg wrote: »
    He didn't mention a long term study.

    How does one address long term affects without a long term study'?
    Btw I'm fairly sure the poster is a she.


  • #3775
    ACitizenErased
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    gabeeg wrote: »
    He didn't mention a long term study.
    Long term effects require a long term study, it's kinda in the name


  • #3776
    jackboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,048 ✭✭✭jackboy


    seanb85 wrote: »
    That's a good example of confirmation bias, author has clearly sought out references that back up what they already believe (many preprints or non-scientific), and ignore any evidence or papers that contradict what they assert (e.g. some of the IFR claims are backed up by studies that only included patients under 70). The upper estimate of an IFR of 0.3% would suggest Ireland has already had 600,000 infections, the lower estimate 1.8m. Most studies I have seen suggest an IFR of 0.5 - 0.7 % which would mean we've had maybe 250,000 cases which seems far more realistic

    Confirmation bias has been rife amongst scientists since the start of Covid. Lots of Irish scientists that said masks were dangerous a few months ago now say they are essential. Their change of opinion is not based on new data but on what opinion is politically correct at the time. Covid has revealed the dearth of really top class scientists in Ireland who we can trust.


  • #3777
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,038 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I' m content that I don't try to scare the sh*t out of others.
    Tbh, plum, the people who insist everything is fine, and that everyone should ignore the virus ARE scary.

    Even if AWTFairies is over the top, for example, I've no fear that they're going to contribute to the spread of covid.


  • #3778
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    jackboy wrote: »
    Confirmation bias has been rife amongst scientists since the start of Covid. Lots of Irish scientists that said masks were dangerous a few months ago now say they are essential. Their change of opinion is not based on new data but on what opinion is politically correct at the time. Covid has revealed the dearth of really top class scientists in Ireland who we can trust.

    I remember K .De Gascun on PrimeTime dismissing the findings by a Czech expert that masks suppressed the virus. There was also a professor from Trinity or Maynooth (can't remember which) that agreed with DeG.
    If you want to see a daily change of opinion look up McConkey.


  • #3779
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    ACitizenErased wrote: »
    Long term effects require a long term study, it's kinda in the name

    This is a study just published on the potential long term effects of Covid-19. Grim reading.


  • #3780
    gabeeg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭gabeeg


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    How does one address long term affects without a long term study'?
    Btw I'm fairly sure the poster is a she.

    Apologies for assuming she was a bloke.

    You take a sample of a thousand people that are known to have had it and survey them.

    It's what the CDC did. Not complicated and can be done quickly


  • Advertisement
  • #3781
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    In just the past few days I've heard of two people who have been given a cancer diagnosis with a very poor prognosis. In both cases the person's test was delayed due to Covid. There is a possibility that delayed cancer testing could push the school issue into second place.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement