Covid 19 Part XXIII-33,444 in ROI(1,792 deaths) 9,541 in NI(577 deaths)(22/09)Read OP

Boggles wrote: »

They are testing people 72 hours before they are allowed attend a hospital for elective procedures.

If they test positive, it is canceled.

They don't get anywhere near them.

Yeah I never said they did, I said hosptial labs seeing an increase as per the earlier post.

Someone might test negative in the initial test and a follow up during admission might test postive for example.

gipi wrote: »

The daily numbers are so low that to give out information like that might identify the deceased.

When someone dies in a car accident, why is their age and name reported in the news? Now, perhaps their name is only reported at the consent of the family - I’m not sure - but surely a patient’s age dying from Covid during a pandemic is more a public health concern than a car accident.

In other counties they report so much more than we do re Covid cases - what locations they’d been to, what public transport they were in and at what time, etc

Worth noting that 2/3rds of hospitalisations are in Dublin. Outside of Dublin there is very little movement.
Yesterday for example was Vincents +1 and James +1, only other admission was in Drogheda

El Sueño wrote: »

The whole "maximum x number of people from y different households" thing is so convoluted and confusing.

I think they should just say you can have a maximum of 4 visitors at a time or something similar, keep it simple.

Agree on the convolution and confustion.

Personally I think it should just limit the number of mixing households and get rid of the limit of number of people. If they say max 3 households, then it's easy to understand. When they say 6 from 3 households, you get all these questions like what if 6 live in the house, can we have 6 more from 3 other households even if thats 12 total from 4 households?

Given spread is difficult to control within a single household, the household itself should be considered the entity. So yeah you'll have people living alone or people living in a house with 9 others, but the average is probably two point something.

If you've a household of 8 and one of them has covid, inviting one of them or all 8 of them will very likely have the same outcome. Put out the simple message "no more than 3 households mixing" and you've got a simple to understand, logical message.

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Agree on the convolution and confustion.

Personally I think it should just limit the number of mixing households and get rid of the limit of number of people. If they say max 3 households, then it's easy to understand. When they say 6 from 3 households, you get all these questions like what if 6 live in the house, can we have 6 more from 3 other households even if thats 12 total from 4 households?

Given spread is difficult to control within a single household, the household itself should be considered the entity. So yeah you'll have people living alone or people living in a house with 9 others, but the average is probably two point something.

If you've a household of 8 and one of them has covid, inviting one of them or all 8 of them will very likely have the same outcome. Put out the simple message "no more than 3 households mixing" and you've got a simple to understand, logical message.

They should be a little stronger on the messaging.

"For the next two weeks we are urging that there should be no households mixing. `In order to safeguard public health, civil penalties will be applied for x, y, z"

Controls work generally for the 95% on hearts and minds, for the other 5% you need the threat of penalties.

Happydays2020 wrote: »

They should be a little stronger on the messaging.

"For the next two weeks we are urging that there should be no households mixing. `In order to safeguard public health, civil penalties will be applied for x, y, z"

Controls work generally for the 95% on hearts and minds, for the other 5% you need the threat of penalties.

You'll get a lot more than 5% of households up in arms about the threat of penalties. Get Harris out there to nag people into compliance! The only ones people might listen to at present is Glynn and maybe Nolan, Martin and Donnelly are just being ignored.

Happydays2020 wrote: »

They should be a little stronger on the messaging.

"For the next two weeks we are urging that there should be no households mixing. `In order to safeguard public health, civil penalties will be applied for x, y, z"

Controls work generally for the 95% on hearts and minds, for the other 5% you need the threat of penalties.

If they think the majority of people are going to stop seeing family over 47 hospital cases and 10 in ICU then you are sadly mistaken.

We are in the "boy who cried wolf" situation now. Everything has been "concerning" or "very concerning" for months now, even with low numbers. Most have just tuned out at this stage, which is a worry if we do see a large spike because people will be a lot slower to react.

Iran appears to now be going through a third wave, after a few weeks of decrease deaths and cases are now increasing yet again. It's crazy how long this is lasting in places with relaxed controls such as there but also Brazil, India, Mexico etc, and yet it seems to have just disappeared quickly in countries like Sweden who also have relaxed control. What could be the cause of it? Some countries seem to go through a brief intense infection curve, but in many others it is just a very elongated and drawn out spread of epidemic.

DangerScouse wrote: »

Headed in the wrong direction

It's pretty clear that the "right direction" of reducing hospital numbers is no longer the goal.

More severe restrictions are really the only way to reduce hospital numbers. And they're not forthcoming.

We are genuinely into the "living with it" stage now. Infection rates and hospital numbers will be managed to try and keep them flat or growing very slowly. Zero covid is a non-runner, the opportunity has passed.

The only feasible goal now is to get back to some semblance of normality while keeping hospitalisations at a manageable level and protecting the most vulnerable groups.

The problem is that we're still in the short-term framing of this. People are still being told of temporary measures, giving a false sense that "if we just get over these 3 weeks, things will improve". 6 person limit in a house will work for 3 weeks or a month.

Beyond that people will get complacent. Now we need workarounds. Ways for families of 25/30 to actually meet up while remaining safe. Tell people that this is the new normal and innovation will take over - e.g. someone will use their yard as a place to host gatherings of 30 people outside under a Gazebo with gas heaters, for €20/hour.

But in order to inspire this innovation, the message needs to be clear - "This is the way things are going to be for the forseeable future. So it's time to stop sitting in limbo, and come up with new ways of getting back to old habits."

Flu season hasn't started yet

That said one would imagine the numbers will be lower this year

There is a huge push for the flu vaccine.they haven't started yet because they don't want to vaccinated too early.

And with less gatherings of people it won't spread as easily.

Hopefully with those two factors it will bring down hospitalizations and more importantly deaths

seamus wrote: »

It's pretty clear that the "right direction" of reducing hospital numbers is no longer the goal.

More severe restrictions are really the only way to reduce hospital numbers. And they're not forthcoming.

We are genuinely into the "living with it" stage now. Infection rates and hospital numbers will be managed to try and keep them flat or growing very slowly. Zero covid is a non-runner, the opportunity has passed.

The only feasible goal now is to get back to some semblance of normality while keeping hospitalisations at a manageable level and protecting the most vulnerable groups.

The problem is that we're still in the short-term framing of this. People are still being told of temporary measures, giving a false sense that "if we just get over these 3 weeks, things will improve". 6 person limit in a house will work for 3 weeks or a month.

Beyond that people will get complacent. Now we need workarounds. Ways for families of 25/30 to actually meet up while remaining safe. Tell people that this is the new normal and innovation will take over - e.g. someone will use their yard as a place to host gatherings of 30 people outside under a Gazebo with gas heaters, for €20/hour.

But in order to inspire this innovation, the message needs to be clear - "This is the way things are going to be for the forseeable future. So it's time to stop sitting in limbo, and come up with new ways of getting back to old habits."

Fully agree Seamus. This muddling along is terrible. Some restrictions for 2 weeks, others for 3 weeks, number of households changing, outdoor sports etc. The messaging has been all over the place for months now and if it doesn't change then people will do what they have always done and ignore all these convoluted guidelines and just do whatever works for them.

arrianalexander wrote: »

Flu season hasn't started yet

That said one would imagine the numbers will be lower this year

There is a huge push for the flu vaccine.they haven't started yet because they don't want to vaccinated too early.

And with less gatherings of people it won't spread as easily.

Hopefully with those two factors it will bring down hospitalizations and more importantly deaths

Would agree with this, face masks and distancing with no large crowds should greatly reduce flu spread