Relaxation of Restrictions, Part V - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

hmmm wrote: »

Death numbers can be months out of date. It's not a useful number for figuring out the trends with the disease.

I think that it just isn't possible to "win" this debate, it is almost absurd that people like you want to dismiss the death rate as a key metric.

It used to be that deaths were the only thing that mattered, that economic and social issues paled in significance next to people dying from this virus. Flatten the curve to save lives was the only thing that mattered.

But now that the death rate is clearly not rising along with cases you don't want to talk about it. It isn't important any more, not a useful figure.

Whats the old saying? You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into...

MadYaker wrote: »

If 50 deaths were being announced today we'd have already been on lockdown for a month by now.

You're missing my point.

But thankfully, it's looking increasingly unlikely we'll have to face that situation

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You're missing my point.

But thankfully, it's looking increasingly unlikely we'll have to face that situation

I understood your point. But the example you used to make it wasn't a good one. There's no possible situation where we're seeing 50 covid deaths a day and we haven't already been on lockdown for some time. It takes a while for someone to die of covid. 2 weeks after infection to show symptoms, maybe another week or two to get bad enough to end up in hosptial, then another week or two in hospital until death. Could be 6 - 8 or more weeks from infection to hospitalisation. This is why NPHET are worried about cases, because they never know how many of those cases will translate into an ICU bed and we haven't got that many to spare but one thing is for certain, more cases = more used ICU beds. A lot of people on this thread say deaths are all that matter but the two are intrinsically linked. It is good that less people are now getting a less serious form of the illness, but it still needs to be considered as something that can and does happen.

MadYaker wrote: »

but one thing is for certain, more cases = more used ICU beds.

But as the number of cases grow the rate of hospitalization is not increasing in line with that growth, just as the death rate is not either?

bucketybuck wrote: »

But as the number of cases grow the rate of hospitalization is not increasing in line with that growth, just as the death rate is not either?

This is true. Hospital admissions and deaths are not increasing in line with case numbers and that's a good thing. But some people will still get a severe illness and as case numbers increase that number will too, albeit likely slower than it did in April/May due to a younger demographic getting infected. I don't think it's cause for us to simply forget about everything we've been doing for the last few months.

topper75 wrote: »

Makes no sense. How are you going to assess 'risk levels' if you don't use a measure like cases?
A case of covid is a case of covid, is it not?



We didn't beat the first wave. We experienced it in full. We were way up the table for cases per head of population globally. The lack of deaths here was because the disease is not what they said it was and our demographic weighting was nothing as messed up as Italy's.
The 'actions' were for nothing but you'll be reminded of them on your payslips for years.

Read this about the PCR test.
its from the journal of the Bulgarian Pathology Association
https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

If you think deaths which can take months to register are a useful indicator of the current trends in the virus you're clearly not too bright. The deaths you are seeing recorded now are probably unfortunate people who got infected back in March/April.

The most useful indicator on current trends available to the public are hospitalisations. That's a bit of a lagging indicator, so positivity rate is also important as an early warning indicator. I'm sure NPHET have access to data such as average number of contacts, mobility data etc which are even better early indicators.

How will we know things are getting better? If the positivity rate stops increasing (just about) and starts to drop (not yet). Hospitalisations stop increasing (not yet) and start to drop.

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

How do you know this? You make these assertions like you have data that no one else does.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/12/coronavirus-kills-average-185-days/

We've had very few admissions to ICU after the initial lockdown period. I don't have inside information, just basing it on the figures we have. Covid takes time to kill, particularly when you have great doctors and nurses giving small number of patients top-class care. We also have very few current clusters (that we know of) in vulnerable groups.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The trend being that very few are dying?

It genuinely seems like you and others on this thread would almost prefer the opposite, just so you'd be "right".

Low deaths, low numbers in ICU and a situation where the majority who catch this thing recover and may not even realise they had it are all extremely good news stories for something that was predicted to potentially kill tens of thousands in this country only a few months ago.

I assume you're as happy as the rest of us that those predictions didn't bear out, so I can only guess that at this point it's about not being "wrong" in front of a bunch of Internet randomers?

I'm not being funny either. It's deeply worrying how many people can't recognise the situation for the relief it is.

This article explains a lot about our present prfedicament
https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

hmmm wrote: »

Sorry I edited the post subsequently. Deaths in vulnerable settings (e.g. nursing homes) definitely were faster to occur, but as far as I'm aware we do not currently have a significant number of clusters in settings like these.

Thats true.

What was the death rate from ICU? I hadn't seen any info on that stat

Actually one of the primers recommended by the WHO for use in the pcr test is an exact copy of the Homo Sapiens Chromosone 8. Though this DNA sequence is not necessarily used in all PCR tests, if it is used, it means that everyone (all humans) will have it and this can be amplified in the lab process with this particular primer, thus giving high numbers of positive results from essentially healthy people.

Where is the old idea that if you are feeling good, you are probably (if not definitely) healthy. With the draconian legislation being introduced in Australia and elsewhere, healthy people (and or their children, or anyone at risk)can be (like Michael Ryan of Who ´´predicted´´much earlier in March) forceably removed from their homes as a direct result of a faulty test.. Imagine that!!

2 recent major clusters in "pub restaurants" were mentioned today in the NPHET and HSE press briefing. These need to be publicly named. Will they be?

deisedevil wrote: »

Who is herding the sheep and why are they doing it. To what end? Why are governments, top scientists and health authorities all pushing this? If it's not for the greater good then what's the real end goal?

Economies have been severely hit, people's freedoms curtailed, jobs lost, and massive investments made into the search for a vaccine (which of course will need to be recouped). Plus the media and experts aren't providing this blanket coverage for nothing.

To turn around now and admit that actually, based on the latest figures things aren't actually that bad at this point wouldn't be good business.

In other words.. aside the initial few weeks (which were wholly justified at that time given what we knew), the reaction has since turned out to be hugely disproportionate in places like Ireland. But the damage is done and now it needs to be justified.

Hospitalisations up in France:
Official figures released today showed more than 5,400 confirmed new cases in just 24 hours, with admissions to hospital and intensive care units on the rise.
More than 800 coronavirus patients are being admitted to hospital every week on average, up from 500 six weeks ago, the prime minister said.

hmmm wrote: »

We've had very few admissions to ICU after the initial lockdown period. I don't have inside information, just basing it on the figures we have. Covid takes time to kill, particularly when you have great doctors and nurses giving small number of patients top-class care. We also have very few current clusters (that we know of) in vulnerable groups.

Well an elderly family friend of mine went into hospital 4 weeks ago with pneumonia and tested negative for Covid 3 times. He finally tested positive and died last week.

So I think you’re possibly playing fast and loose with numbers to suit your argument.

Average time of death is 18 days according to that article from March and as you believe, the virus hasn’t changed.