ceadaoin. wrote: » Wasn't there another cluster at a meat plant earlier in the outbreak where the vast majority were also asymptomatic at the time of testing positive? Did many of them get very very sick? I remember people saying the same thing, "just wait" but I dont remember hearing any further updates about hospitalisations or deaths.
gabeeg wrote: » From the WHO "On average it takes 5–6 days from when someone is infected with the virus for symptoms to show, however it can take up to 14 days." So many of them will be on their way to getting very, very sick from about today. So it would likely have scared the **** out of us and we'd have locked down anyway
Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: » Somebody said to me that we were lucky in seeing what happened in Lombardy. My reply was that we were unlucky. How would we have reacted if the first Irish case of Corona had been Brady’s Ham plant in Kildare. One person with symptoms but at least quarter (80 so far) of the workforce infected and showing no symptoms. I don't think we would have shut the schools and locked down the country.
MadYaker wrote: » It’s amazing how many experts there are on boards that know better than a team of scientists and doctors with hundreds of collective years experience.
bb1234567 wrote: » I followed it since January and I would say that a lot of information was made available on the situation in Wuhan. The profile of victims was well established, we knew that most children were asymptomatic for example, just the fact Italy had such a high number of at risk individuals caused a lot of deaths, which triggered knee jerk reaction globally.
Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: » This is a fair point and you can't blame them for how they acted then. But once the danger (or lack of) became obvious they should have changed course. I genuinely believed that they would change course back in May/June. But instead they doubled down. I naively didn't consider that these politicians are not ready to retire so couldn't admit to choosing the wrong path and have a legacy of wasting some much money.
john4321 wrote: » If you were in charge at the time back in March when we had exponential growth of cases what decision would you have made? Also what statistics were readily available to the decision makers on a new novel virus? From what I remember at the time all we had were images coming out of Italy of the army being called in to transport coffins from Bergamo which might have influenced the decision to enforce a lockdown.
bb1234567 wrote: » Flu and pneumonia killed 4500 in New Yorkers in 2017, one of the worst flu seasons in recent history. New York City is 42% of NY population so presumably 1890 flu/pneumonia deaths in the city that year.https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/newyork/newyork.htm .... It still sounds really bad given that instead because you have half of those deaths occurring from one main cause of death in a 3 month period vs dozens of causes over 12 months usually
FintanMcluskey wrote: » You are completely correct here, was a different one on facebook that was taken in France but posted as Italy
Bit cynical wrote: » But the population of the whole of China is not particularly relevant as Wuhan was already quarantined from the rest of the country.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Almost certain that image was debunked as utter horse**** from facebook, Ill look for the explanation
john4321 wrote: » https://nationalpost.com/news/world/covid-19-italy-videos-show-military-fleet-transporting-coffins-of-coronavirus-victims-out-of-overwhelmed-town Source: Reuters
tobefrank321 wrote: » Better protection for nursing homes. Ban visitors for 3 months. Better PPE for nursing home staff. Better separation of covid and non covid wards in hospitals More education for hospital staff. And some other measures. All of these were eventually carried out and may have made a bigger difference than our lockdown.
john4321 wrote: » Looking back at the time again in China I don't think there was a whole lot of information available for decision makers in Europe to use. They reported 42 deaths on the 1st March from a population of 1.5 billion people.
john4321 wrote: » From what I remember at the time all we had were images coming out of Italy of the army being called in to transport coffins from Bergamo which might have influenced the decision to enforce a lockdown.
john4321 wrote: » I'm not highlighting this part to be confrontational only just to discuss. Did we really know this in detail in March? I didn't think we knew a lot about the virus until it hit Europe (Italy) from what I can remember.
Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: » A pecentages is a combination of three numbers The graphs from bit cynical are taking the numbers for Sweden and Ireland to show mortality by percentage for each age group. Its simply visualising the known data. A model or theory could for example use logistical regression to predict if a person could catch and die from corona virus using variables such as enthnicity, age, weight, housing, health, nationality, climate, season, location etc as predictors in the model. Or linear regression to calculate the likely number of dead. But with all the unknowns I'd assume any such model would just overfit the data. It would even be a stretch to consider Michael Levitts theory to be a mathematical model in my opinion. Your euromomo graphs are using maths, z score normalisation for each country to show the deaths. Speaking of which, I assume you didnt get an actual number of excess deaths from that?
bb1234567 wrote: » Well to be fair the lockdown could have been a bit more nuanced..flexible and adaptable. We were well aware of the fact the virus killed mostly people over 70 by the time the outbreak occurred in Europe. I think everyone can agree it was shocking how many elderly people it did kill and so quickly in addition to how infectious it was but still Lombardy has a very old population, some logical thinking would dictate that Ireland with a much smaller elderly population would experience at least a considerably smaller nuber of deaths and so there wasn't the need for some of the regulations introduced, to be introduced so harshly or for as long as they were in place.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Following other countries in blind lockdown harmony irrespective of consequences and ignoring the statistics readily available, all the while defending the actions at all costs
Bit cynical wrote: » In military psychology this is called group-think and is considered something to be avoided.
greyday wrote: » The IMF and OECD warned the Country had a housing bubble, international experts warned for a number of years and were ignored, your analogy isn't disproving my point in any way, Politicians gambled we didn't have a housing bubbly and a 3 bed semi in Dublin was worth more than a similar property in a good neighbourhood in New York, it didn't end well as we know.
