Covid 19 Part XXII-30,360 in ROI(1,781 deaths) 8,035 in NI (568 deaths)(10/09)Read OP

majcos · 04-09-2020 12:42AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nope you can't. Myocarditis is a reaction to a viral infection brought on by an immune response. But you can't catch it.

I think you are being pedantic. A previous poster mentioned catching ‘Covid and/or myocarditis’. I understood that the poster was implying catching Covid-related myocarditis.

If a virus is the most commonly identified cause of myocarditis, then it stands to reason that catching a virus increases your risk of developing myocarditis. The more people who catch a virus, the more likely there are to be cases of myocarditis even if this complication only happens in a tiny percentage. That was what I was trying to infer by my post about catching myocarditis.

ceadaoin. · 04-09-2020 12:49AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This is from the USA today article about the big 10 footballers

So even the doctor who revealed these findings concedes that it probably isn't serious. Seems like its more about not wanting to take the risk. The big 10 is set to start in October anyway. Other college football conferences are starting this week. So its not even correct to say that NCAA football has been "cancelled".

And further to this the college in question has come out not too long ago and said that its completely wrong. In fact there have been zero cases of myocarditis in Penn state or any big ten athletes. Doubt that will be splashed all over the media though. Will the person who tweeted the fear mongering stats retract their tweet? Doubtful. That incorrect figure will be quoted over and over as fact.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bonaguraespn/status/1301644428025540608?s=21

JP Liz V1 · 04-09-2020 01:06AM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The new food record rule is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen

What has that got to do with public health?

What is it?

majcos · 04-09-2020 01:13AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/09/03/big-ten-coronavirus-myocarditis/

This Washington post article says there were no confirmed cases in Penn State but quotes that Sebastianelli had been verbally given preliminary study data by a colleague.

The study that colleague was referring to later showed a rate close to 15% of myocarditis based on MRI findings among athletes who had Covid but most were asymptomatic or mild cases.

majcos · 04-09-2020 01:18AM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

What is it?

That restaurants and pubs have to record the actual food order made by each customer and keep the records for at least 28 days.

Arghus · 04-09-2020 01:19AM

I've been behind most of their rules, even if they seemed on the surface a bit nonsensical. I could understand the logic behind banning things like spectators at sporting events, even if it wasn't immediately apparent.

But I am struggling with the 28 days receipts thing a bit. It feels like a bit of harebrained idea.

Though I also think that the claims from the VFI that it places an onerous burden on establishments to be also a bit laughable. They'll have to hire extra staff is the claim, come on. It's hardly that much of a titanic effort to keep the records of food purchased on the premises. Considering that you are already, in most cases, taking customers personal details and taking the order and serving the food and taking the payment for it - keeping a record of that transaction isn't unbelievably difficult in and of itself.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the most thought out proposal ever, but the reaction to it is a bit OTT.

Oranage2 · 04-09-2020 01:24AM

It's probably to make sure people are ordering food. Probably just write pizza down now without actually ordering it

MrMusician18 · 04-09-2020 01:29AM

Arghus wrote: »

I've been behind most of their rules, even if they seemed on the surface a bit nonsensical. I could understand the logic behind banning things like spectators at sporting events, even if it wasn't immediately apparent.

But I am struggling with the 28 days receipts thing a bit. It feels like a bit of harebrained idea.

Though I also think that the claims from the VFI that it places an onerous burden on establishments to be also a bit laughable. They'll have to hire extra staff is the claim, come on. It's hardly that much of a titanic effort to keep the records of food purchased on the premises. Considering that you are already, in most cases, taking customers personal details and taking the order and serving the food and taking the payment for it - keeping a record of that transaction isn't unbelievably difficult in and of itself.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the most thought out proposal ever, but the reaction to it is a bit OTT.

Since they are already issuing receipts, I can't see the problem myself.

Unless of course it show that there is a significant proportion of non-compliance in pubs serving food. Then i can see why they might have a problem with it. This is the reason for it - it's to ensure there is evidence to make the case for or challenge a closure order.

Arghus · 04-09-2020 01:41AM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Since they are already issuing receipts, I can't see the problem myself.

Unless of course it shops that there is a significant proportion of non-compliance in pubs serving food. Then if see why they might have a problem with it. This is the reason for it - it's to ensure there is evidence to make the case for or challenge a closure order.

I think everybody is aware of a proportion of non compliance in pubs.Not everybody is at it of course, but there's definitely some who are. It's the motivation behind the proposal really. I think that's where some of the over reaction is coming from tbh. The publicans doth protest too much methinks.

Essentially establishments are being asked to hold onto their receipts for 28 days. It's been talked of like it's simply outrageous. It's hardly that much of a challenge.

Goldengirl · 04-09-2020 02:12AM

Arghus wrote: »

I've been behind most of their rules, even if they seemed on the surface a bit nonsensical. I could understand the logic behind banning things like spectators at sporting events, even if it wasn't immediately apparent.

But I am struggling with the 28 days receipts thing a bit. It feels like a bit of harebrained idea.

Though I also think that the claims from the VFI that it places an onerous burden on establishments to be also a bit laughable. They'll have to hire extra staff is the claim, come on. It's hardly that much of a titanic effort to keep the records of food purchased on the premises. Considering that you are already, in most cases, taking customers personal details and taking the order and serving the food and taking the payment for it - keeping a record of that transaction isn't unbelievably difficult in and of itself.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the most thought out proposal ever, but the reaction to it is a bit OTT.

Get a small piece of wood with a wire threaded through it and stick all the receipts onto it like they did in the old days .
Kept for 6 years " statutes barred " my oul fella used to say, in case Revenue were looking for them .
If the Rev get a few smelly cardboard boxes of these to go through they won't be long saying ..." Aah he-ar , Minister ?"

Always_Running · 04-09-2020 02:19AM

Rare for the HSE not to give a daily operations update?

Strumms · 04-09-2020 02:26AM

I know uniformed Gardai have been spot checking but as you say, if I’m with a mate sculling pints only tomorrow, four uniformed Gardai are seen pulling up, marked car, barman has a couple of order dockets pre printed for food printed up and lashes them on the counter, orders put through food follows chips and sambos 9 euros ...

I’m not aware how checks / stings are done but...
If two Gardai are plain clothes, come in, accompanied by say dept of health staff, mumble about ordering an alcoholic drink for two DOH..Gardai mention they are designated drivers, just a coke each. Both in jeans and shirt, dept of health staff a pint and a gin say, so gardai don’t drink on duty, round is repeated... health staff exit, Gardai txt result of sting, with number of patrons on premises now food, distancing .ie FAIL/11... a van or two of colleagues, call, clear house, close up shop.

s1ippy · 04-09-2020 02:42AM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The new food record rule is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen

What has that got to do with public health?

What if everyone who ate the wings or the prawns gets covid? I can see why they would do it but it doesn't tally with the messaging they have been sending about how safe food always is...

Goldengirl · 04-09-2020 02:51AM

s1ippy wrote: »

What if everyone who ate the wings or the prawns gets covid? I can see why they would do it but it doesn't tally with the messaging they have been sending about how safe food always is...

No . It is purely to catch out the pubs that they already know are not complying .
Everyone else is ok and probably will never be asked for receipts .
VFA shooting themselves in the foot on this one , looks dodgy that they are not supporting it .
No more difficult than keeping a box of receipt rolls in the till drawer .

Oranage2 · 04-09-2020 03:03AM

Crazy pubs and restaurants had very little transmissions have strict messures yet the factories that have 100s of known cases can operate as they will.

I'd love to see the Gardai doing 'spot checks' on these premises, making sure all guidelines are being followed.

MOR316 · 04-09-2020 03:05AM

This whole thing is just classic Ireland

dalyboy · 04-09-2020 03:33AM

Oranage2 wrote: »

Crazy pubs and restaurants had very little transmissions have strict messures yet the factories that have 100s of known cases can operate as they will.

I'd love to see the Gardai doing 'spot checks' on these premises, making sure all guidelines are being followed.

Don’t want to pee off lord Larry now do they ?

patnor1011 · 04-09-2020 03:49AM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Since they are already issuing receipts, I can't see the problem myself.

Unless of course it shops that there is a significant proportion of non-compliance in pubs serving food. Then if see why they might have a problem with it. This is the reason for it - it's to ensure there is evidence to make the case for or challenge a closure order.

It is not that simple. They also want your phone number and address. I do not think everyone would want to give their phone number to every pub/restaurant they visit.

patnor1011 · 04-09-2020 03:52AM

Goldengirl wrote: »

No . It is purely to catch out the pubs that they already know are not complying .
Everyone else is ok and probably will never be asked for receipts .
VFA shooting themselves in the foot on this one , looks dodgy that they are not supporting it .
No more difficult than keeping a box of receipt rolls in the till drawer .

They are supposed to add contact details on receipts too. Like name, phone number and probably address too. If it is a party of people then at least one should surrender their details.
That is why VFA does not like it.

s1ippy · 04-09-2020 03:52AM

I'm not convinced that pub /"restaurants" here have fared as well as one might imagine. Obviously it would be economic suicide to actually indicate that to people who are willing to go out and spend money. But I don't think it's too much of a stretch to guess that a lot of "community transmission" could be traced back to these settings if only the contact tracing setup was that bit more functional.

Cue the attacks, but I couldn't give a sh!t at this stage. The new normal is so Orwellian, like doublethink where we're just expected to accept whatever sh!t we're fed.

OK, 2m distancing in every situation except schools and pubs where it's mysteriously only 1m. Got it.

You'd really have to be thick to accept that narrative.

So why the sudden logging of food when Safe Food and Bord Bia have repeatedly said it's not a risk, and somehow shopping is totally void of risk too.

Like, i accept that to try and encourage people to totally overhaul their lives is unreasonable (though there was no problem doing it at one point) but at least don't muddy the waters so we're guessing about every fucKing thing we decide to do. There is no clarity on virtually anything anymore, so no wonder people are putting two and two together to make five.

BobbyMalone · 04-09-2020 07:34AM

majcos wrote: »

That restaurants and pubs have to record the actual food order made by each customer and keep the records for at least 28 days.

I wonder why they settled on 28 days?

Doctors room ghost · 04-09-2020 07:48AM

BobbyMalone wrote: »

I wonder why they settled on 28 days?

I’d say it was some pen clicker In an office somewhere made it up thinking they were programming some nuclear device.a load of fcukin sh1te

caveat emptor · 04-09-2020 08:26AM

Is it an acceptable cost to cut on average 10 years off a persons life. This data is from Florida.
As a society if that's what we want then fine, just be up front about it and get back to normal.
I suspect most people when they reach that age would then like to reassess their views on the issue and perhaps even change their mind
on their earlier views to get back to normal.

We should have a grown up conversation about it rather than going around in endless cycles of lockdowns and economic harm,.

On average, covid robs people of 10 years of life in the US
Of the 11,649 Florida resident covid deaths, their mean & median ages are 76.7 & 79 years.
But life expectancy at this age is 9.2-12.3 yrs

https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1301743166857424896?s=20

Source used in tweet.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_07-508.pdf

is_that_so · 04-09-2020 08:36AM

A quote from NPHET on a growing issue.

Meanwhile, the Government has been urged not to “stigmatise” people who contract Covid-19 by placing too much emphasis on “individual responsibility” to avoid the illness.

The warning comes from the behavioural change group, a subgroup of the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET). Members of the group received the results of an ESRI study which revealed that even with severe Covid-19 symptoms, one in four people reported being unlikely to call their GP immediately.

Comes from this IT piece on the reaction to the new "genius" regulations.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/covid-19-restaurants-and-pubs-furious-over-authoritarian-new-rules-on-meals-1.4346194

04-09-2020 08:41AM

caveat emptor wrote: »

Is it an acceptable cost to cut on average 10 years off a persons life. This data is from Florida.
As a society if that's what we want then fine, just be up front about it and get back to normal.
I suspect most people when they reach that age would then like to reassess their views on the issue and perhaps even change their mind
on their earlier views to get back to normal.

We should have a grown up conversation about it rather than going around in endless cycles of lockdowns and economic harm,.

https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1301743166857424896?s=20

Source used in tweet.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_07-508.pdf

Not at all aligning with the they were going to die anyway brigade, however that is lazy analysis. Those who die of Covid are generally not representative of the average person, and the bulk of them would be at the lower end of life expectancy for people their age due to pre existing conditions. It is likely that most of those who died of Covid would have lived for some considerable time longer had they not caught the virus, however most would not have made the mean or Median for the average person

seamus · 04-09-2020 08:42AM

BobbyMalone wrote: »

I wonder why they settled on 28 days?

That's the current requirement - to hold onto contact details for 28 days.

This new measure merely asks them to staple a food receipt to the records that they're already keeping for 28 days.

Definitely too much protesting going on about this. Their problem is that it makes it harder to ignore the legislation or underdeclare your income to Revenue.

odyssey06 · 04-09-2020 08:49AM

s1ippy wrote: »

Cue the attacks, but I couldn't give a sh!t at this stage. The new normal is so Orwellian, like doublethink where we're just expected to accept whatever sh!t we're fed.
OK, 2m distancing in every situation except schools and pubs where it's mysteriously only 1m. Got it.
You'd really have to be thick to accept that narrative.
So why the sudden logging of food when Safe Food and Bord Bia have repeatedly said it's not a risk, and somehow shopping is totally void of risk too.

Nobody in NPHET said any of those things were void of risk.
It is about managing and balancing the risk of what can be done, what is essential and what is not.
The risks are different in a setting where there are the same group in repeated contact, and we know who the fixed group members are (schools, factories).

2m is safer than 1m, 1 metres is minimum acceptable, 2 metres is recommended. Who said 1 metre was as safe as 2 metres?

The logging of food has been done for obvious reasons.
Remember where the €9 rule and food requirement came in when pubs demanded to be allowed open and serve food when restaurants re-opened?
Remember the publicans who said well shure I'll just give people a package of peanuts and there's your meal.
These new rules are being brought up because too many pubs are ignoring the rules.

You're not thick, but there does seem to be a bit of acting the thick in some quarters when it comes to understanding the 'why' of some of these restrictions.

is_that_so · 04-09-2020 08:54AM

seamus wrote: »

That's the current requirement - to hold onto contact details for 28 days.

This new measure merely asks them to staple a food receipt to the records that they're already keeping for 28 days.

Definitely too much protesting going on about this. Their problem is that it makes it harder to ignore the legislation or underdeclare your income to Revenue.

Very poorly communicated once again if that's what it is. IMO it's the putting manners on people approach that Martin and Donnelly favour. Each one of these things they tack on to legislation shows even less planning ability. It really does not bode well for September 14th and the next six months.

caveat emptor · 04-09-2020 08:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all aligning with the they were going to die anyway brigade, however that is lazy analysis. Those who die of Covid are generally not representative of the average person, and the bulk of them would be at the lower end of life expectancy for people their age due to pre existing conditions. It is likely that most of those who died of Covid would have lived for some considerable time longer had they not caught the virus, however most would not have made the mean or Median for the average person

I take your point. Well made. Just thinking about it though. What percent of people will have a comorbidity by that age? I'd estimate nearly all of them.

There is also the economic argument.

Assuming that the economy will get back to normal is an assumption. A lot of people won't want to take the risk as fun as a few pints are.
Assuming that there are no long term consequences is again just that. It's 8 months old, I'd wait a bit more before pronouncing it's grand.

Our income tax receipts were unchanged because this isn't affecting higher income households.
The US data has shown that it is the higher income earners that are not spending because they don't want to take risks.

drunkmonkey · 04-09-2020 08:57AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4AYn6WPfxw

Can we just make this guy Taoiseach

Covid 19 Part XXII-30,360 in ROI(1,781 deaths) 8,035 in NI (568 deaths)(10/09)Read OP

Comments