Have NPHET lost the attention of people?

vid36 · 11-09-2020 01:28PM

Double O Seven wrote: »

Sweden had feck all restrictions except high school and colleges went online only and bars + restaurants went table service only & what about Belarus? They should all be dropping like flies according to NEHET, Neil Ferguson etc.

Crowds were also limited to 50 in Sweden, travel was limited to one hour from your home.Sports events were played without spectators.Concerts and festivals were cancelled. Many employees were also encouraged to work from home.

MrMusician18 · 11-09-2020 01:38PM

Hellrazer wrote: »

Whats ruined peoples view of NPHET is the fact that they lied blatantly to us at the start of this and are continuing to lie to us.

At the start of this they told us we`d have 100,000 deaths. We`ve had 1780.

Then they try to tell us the reason we didnt have 100,000 deaths is because of their actions and what the Irish people did to control the spread which is a complete load of b*llox.

Sweden who had little or no lockdown - 5800 deaths
The UK - late to the lockdown still only have 41,000 with more than 10 times our population.

There was no way that Ireland was going to have 100,000 deaths even if we went the way of Sweden with zero lock downs.

Yet here we are 6 months later with very little deaths in the last month and they are still giving out bad advice to the population.
Cases are at a reasonable level compared to some other countries and are manageable.

Id have a lot more respect for them if they just told the truth. I actually think Donnelly , Martin and Glynn want to destroy the country and the economy.

Again this shows your own misunderstanding rather than poor guidance on their part. Or it shows you cherry picking phrases without context.

They said there was the POTENTIAL for 100,000 deaths at the upper end of we did nothing to get the virus under control. Virus deaths would escalate massively they said if the limited capacity of the health services was overwhelmed (which it was very much on the road to). It wasn't because we managed to get it under control.

You can have your opinions but you can't create facts.

kippy · 11-09-2020 01:44PM

Double O Seven wrote: »

Sweden had feck all restrictions except high school and colleges went online only and bars + restaurants went table service only & what about Belarus? They should all be dropping like flies according to NEHET, Neil Ferguson etc.

You don't think people were practicing handwashing, social distancing, mask wearing, in addition to the governmentmandated restrictions put in place?

growleaves · 11-09-2020 02:20PM

karlitob wrote: »

What?!?

The increase in any virus is due to non-adherence to Infection Prevention and Control precautions - in this instance, droplet precautions.

What you’re saying is that infection prevention and control precautions don’t work. I look forward to seeing the evidence-base you have on that.

Er no I'm saying that it's not proven that they work. The person who is making a positive claim re a scientific hypothesis (you, in this instance) is the one who supplies evidence and/or proof. So let's have it.

d161 · 11-09-2020 02:28PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They said there was the POTENTIAL for 100,000 deaths at the upper end of we did nothing to get the virus under control. Virus deaths would escalate massively they said if the limited capacity of the health services was overwhelmed (which it was very much on the road to). It wasn't because we managed to get it under control.

The main problem is that the modelling is based on assumptions such as infection fatality rate and the contagiousness which is still unknown.

The modeling for reproductive rate is even worse although other countries are using the same model so at least it's a common measure.

facehugger99 · 11-09-2020 02:33PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Again this shows your own misunderstanding rather than poor guidance on their part. Or it shows you cherry picking phrases without context.

They said there was the POTENTIAL for 100,000 deaths at the upper end of we did nothing to get the virus under control. Virus deaths would escalate massively they said if the limited capacity of the health services was overwhelmed (which it was very much on the road to). It wasn't because we managed to get it under control.

You can have your opinions but you can't create facts.

Irony alert.

Nothing you've said is remotely provable - it's all literally speculation.

You have chosen to believe that restrictions have prevented 100,000 deaths and attempted to create a fact around this belief.

If only there was another country in Europe which didn't introduce such draconian restrictions, then we'd be able to see if your belief was any way valid.

Hellrazer · 12-09-2020 12:22AM

kippy wrote: »

We have approximately 700K people over 65 in the country. Knowing what we do about the effect of the virus on this cohort, you dont think we'd have major issues were it allowed to run free? We have many thousands in nursing homes and at high risk. You don't think they would have been in bother without intervention?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Again this shows your own misunderstanding rather than poor guidance on their part. Or it shows you cherry picking phrases without context.

They said there was the POTENTIAL for 100,000 deaths at the upper end of we did nothing to get the virus under control. You can have your opinions but you can't create facts.

The death rate from covid 19 is roughly 1.4% (and that's being generous - some sources say between 0.5 and 0.65%) ie out those that have a positive test 1.4% will die.

If you want to use your 700k of over 65s then that equates to 9800 deaths.
If you want to use the total population of the Republic @ 5 million that still only equates to 70,000 deaths and that's assuming that every man ,woman and child has a positive test.

So Im not making up facts - the facts are covid has a death rate in those with positive test of around 1.4%

NPHET told us there was a (Ill use Mr Musicians words here) potential of 100000 deaths - weve had no where near that and wont have near that even if we had no lock down.

As a matter of FACT theres only 2 countries in the world that has exceeded 100000 deaths.

At the time when NPHET announced the potential of 100k deaths China were sitting at around 2000 deaths and I remember having a conversation with a friend who is a microbiologist and he even said NPHET were blatantly lying to frighten the public into accepting theirs and only theirs advice and any one that tried to argue with their advice did not get any air time.

As a matter of fact he said our deaths would top out at 10k before this pandemic runs its course - Id actually say it will be closer to 9000 but so far hes been more correct than NPHET has.

While I agree that our strategy has saved some lives it definitely has not saved 92,000 lives!!!

kippy · 12-09-2020 06:50AM

Hellrazer wrote: »

The death rate from covid 19 is roughly 1.4% (and that's being generous - some sources say between 0.5 and 0.65%) ie out those that have a positive test 1.4% will die.

If you want to use your 700k of over 65s then that equates to 9800 deaths.
If you want to use the total population of the Republic @ 5 million that still only equates to 70,000 deaths and that's assuming that every man ,woman and child has a positive test.

So Im not making up facts - the facts are covid has a death rate in those with positive test of around 1.4%

NPHET told us there was a (Ill use Mr Musicians words here) potential of 100000 deaths - weve had no where near that and wont have near that even if we had no lock down.

As a matter of FACT theres only 2 countries in the world that has exceeded 100000 deaths.

At the time when NPHET announced the potential of 100k deaths China were sitting at around 2000 deaths and I remember having a conversation with a friend who is a microbiologist and he even said NPHET were blatantly lying to frighten the public into accepting theirs and only theirs advice and any one that tried to argue with their advice did not get any air time.

As a matter of fact he said our deaths would top out at 10k before this pandemic runs its course - Id actually say it will be closer to 9000 but so far hes been more correct than NPHET has.

While I agree that our strategy has saved some lives it definitely has not saved 92,000 lives!!!

You may not be making up facts but you defo don't understand them.
The death rate from the disease is lower than 1 percent. I get that.
What's the death rate in the over 65's who get it? Or what would the death rate be were the health service overwhelmed (which would happen without intervention)
I get figures, I really do, but there are different death rates for different age groups and to suggest that without intervention the world would be fine, is a worrying attitude to take based on what the disease has done to the world with more interventions made than at any time in history.

Wanderer78 · 12-09-2020 06:53AM

kippy wrote:

The death rate from the disease is lower than 1 percent. I get that. What's the death rate in the over 65's who get it? Or what would the death rate be were the health service overwhelmed (which would happen without intervention) I get figures, I really do, but there are different death rates for different age groups.

.....and not forgetting the potentially serious long term effects of the virus, in which our health services will also have to deal with. .....

Hellrazer · 12-09-2020 07:35AM

kippy wrote: »

You may not be making up facts but you defo don't understand them.

I understand them quite well...its the general public that don't understand them.

The death rate from the disease is lower than 1 percent. I get that.
What's the death rate in the over 65's who get it? Or what would the death rate be were the health service overwhelmed (which would happen without intervention)

It depends - Age 50-59 its still at or around 1.5%.Age 60-69 its around 3%
70+ Its can be as high as 12%

I get figures, I really do, but there are different death rates for different age groups and to suggest that without intervention the world would be fine, is a worrying attitude to take based on what the disease has done to the world with more interventions made than at any time in history.

I never said anything about having no intervention and obviously one deth is too much. Im merely stating as per the thread that NPHET have been the harbringers of doom since the start of this pandemic..right from the start with their 100k deaths..which is and always was impossible.

2m distancing,the national lockdown etc did not save 92,000 people no matter what way you look at it.

The question asked is has NPHET lost public support and I feel that if they haven't they are going the right way about it.

Look at what they have told people.

1. Masks don't help.A few months later they make it compulsory - how many people died of the 1781 dead died from community transmission that masks could have saved? The other problem I have with masks is that it is not being enforced. Ive been in numerous places where mask wearing is compulsory yet people are flouting these rules.

2. A 9.00 euro meal will save you from covid - theres not much I can say about that.

3.Travel is bringing in the virus - another blatant lie. Travel accounts for less than 0.2% of cases.

They need to start telling the truth if they want to keep the public on their side. But now the government have hired a company of spin doctors we`ll all be grand!!!

kippy · 12-09-2020 08:16AM

I understand them quite well...its the general public that don't understand them.

The evidence would display otherwise.

It depends - Age 50-59 its still at or around 1.5%.Age 60-69 its around 3%
70+ Its can be as high as 12%

So lets say there's a 9 percent death rate in the over 65's. There's over 600k people in the country in that age group. Add that to the rest and you're not a million miles off 100k - and that's a death rate in an environment where various pieces of regulation and lockdowns are in place. Would the death rate be higher with no interventions.

I never said anything about having no intervention and obviously one deth is too much. Im merely stating as per the thread that NPHET have been the harbringers of doom since the start of this pandemic..right from the start with their 100k deaths..which is and always was impossible.
HPHET produce one angle of factually based information. If that information is negative - what are they to do? Indeed should they not err on the side of caution?

2m distancing,the national lockdown etc did not save 92,000 people no matter what way you look at it.
Totally disagree. And based on your own numbers above you'd be foolish to take a different stance.

The question asked is has NPHET lost public support and I feel that if they haven't they are going the right way about it.
People only have so much patience, everyone is different in this regard. NPHET know this. No much they can do to change that. The message is stark, repetitive and effects everyone in the country in many ways.
Look at what they have told people.

1. Masks don't help.A few months later they make it compulsory - how many people died of the 1781 dead died from community transmission that masks could have saved? The other problem I have with masks is that it is not being enforced. Ive been in numerous places where mask wearing is compulsory yet people are flouting these rules.
Again, if you make masks mandatory back in March, April, May you have 5 million people looking for them, as well as all of the front line staff requirements - how do you think that would have worked?
2. A 9.00 euro meal will save you from covid - theres not much I can say about that.
I don't get this either TBH, but I suspect coupled with the time limit, its and effort to keep people sober and less likely to be more of an idiot
3.Travel is bringing in the virus - another blatant lie. Travel accounts for less than 0.2% of cases.
The only reason the virus got into the country was international travel - the virus has been circulating in the community ever since. The horse has bolted on that on but limiting international travel is sensible.

They need to start telling the truth if they want to keep the public on their side. But now the government have hired a company of spin doctors we`ll all be grand!!!
What do you think the truth is? This stuff is rarely binary, which appears to the issue most people have

irishblessing · 12-09-2020 08:16AM

It's easy now to look back in hindsight and use the outcome we're in now as a stick to beat NPHET with. They did their best with what they knew at the time, at each stage. They kept the health service from being overwhelmed.
It is a new virus, there's still a lot scientists don't know. It was always best to err on the side of caution than not enough. If those massive numbers were to have hit, or somewhere close, because they weren't cautious enough there would be riots and calls for blood.

The post above from Hellrazer is very disingenuous.

Pkiernan · 12-09-2020 08:23AM

Genuine question:

How is 1781 deaths from 31000 known infections a 1% death rate?

irishblessing · 12-09-2020 08:32AM

What I would like to know is why NPHET haven't changed their mask guidelines in line with WHO/Unicef/CDC findings that children 10 years of age contract and spread the virus at least as well as adults do.

is_that_so · 12-09-2020 08:57AM

irishblessing wrote: »

What I would like to know is why NPHET haven't changed their mask guidelines in line with WHO/Unicef/CDC findings that children 10 years of age contract and spread the virus at least as well as adults do.

They follow the ECDC guidelines more and they talk about them as combined measures, which is a lot more difficult to do with younger children. The spread /non-spread of virus by kids is still up for debate but they seem less affected.

irishblessing · 12-09-2020 09:26AM

is_that_so wrote: »

They follow the ECDC guidelines more and they talk about them as combined measures, which is a lot more difficult to do with younger children. The spread /non-spread of virus by kids is still up for debate but they seem less affected.

Oh? Do they all not inform themselves of the epidemiological research and confer with other leading health bodies? (Rather than "following") NPHET team is comprised of Ireland's leading health experts who can evaluate published research independently, no?

So if the published research that is guiding WHO/Unicef/CDC and led to their recommendations on children wearing face masks, SD, etc., then why hasn't NPHET reached the same conclusions from the same available research?

Perhaps they seem less affected because schools, clubs, mixing has all been shut down for months and we're just now understanding the true impact since schools have reopened. Hence the latest recommendations on face masks...

Schools in some parts of the US seemed to have copped on to this before even the newest recco's. They have started the first term of back to school either completely via remote learning or a hybrid model. And at least acknowledging many people are vulnerable with vulnerable family members, and/or will become sick or need to quarantine so a plan b was needed regardless. Smart.

normanoffside · 12-09-2020 10:00AM

Pkiernan wrote: »

Genuine question:

How is 1781 deaths from 31000 known infections a 1% death rate?

You said it yourself. Known infections. There were so many infections more than have been recorded.

Today is the opposite of March. Now we’re are catching hundreds of people who aren’t even sick.

Back in March you could be very sick and couldn’t get a test.

Anyway the IFR is known to be a lot less than 1%

is_that_so · 14-09-2020 08:30AM

irishblessing wrote: »

Oh? Do they all not inform themselves of the epidemiological research and confer with other leading health bodies? (Rather than "following") NPHET team is comprised of Ireland's leading health experts who can evaluate published research independently, no?

So if the published research that is guiding WHO/Unicef/CDC and led to their recommendations on children wearing face masks, SD, etc., then why hasn't NPHET reached the same conclusions from the same available research?

Perhaps they seem less affected because schools, clubs, mixing has all been shut down for months and we're just now understanding the true impact since schools have reopened. Hence the latest recommendations on face masks...

Schools in some parts of the US seemed to have copped on to this before even the newest recco's. They have started the first term of back to school either completely via remote learning or a hybrid model. And at least acknowledging many people are vulnerable with vulnerable family members, and/or will become sick or need to quarantine so a plan b was needed regardless. Smart.

They don't just work off published research, a whole lot of which is less than compelling and contradictory, they use guidelines, There is a very big list of people on NPHET and it's a pretty wild claim that they don't know what's going on. Judging by this, your views here are driven by your continued beef with schools opening.

irishblessing · 14-09-2020 10:20AM

is_that_so wrote: »

They don't just work off published research, a whole lot of which is less than compelling and contradictory, they use guidelines, There is a very big list of people on NPHET and it's a pretty wild claim that they don't know what's going on. Judging by this, your views here are driven by your continued beef with schools opening.

For one, I don't have a 'continued beef with schools opening.' You pulled that out of your arse as what, some kind of put down because that's all you have?

My critical stance as regards to schools reopening is a lack of a plan b, a hybrid/blended learning plan. As my posts clearly show.

How do you know the inner workings of NPHET, pray tell. According to you they don't just work off published research? What and who's guidelines are they using, so? And where did those guidelines become informed from? :pac:

I also never claimed they don't know what's going on, more disingenuous commentary from you. Perhaps you can just stick to what I actually wrote and the views I've actually expressed, I'd appreciate it.

kippy · 14-09-2020 10:51AM

irishblessing wrote: »

For one, I don't have a 'continued beef with schools opening.' You pulled that out of your arse as what, some kind of put down because that's all you have?

My critical stance as regards to schools reopening is a lack of a plan b, a hybrid/blended learning plan. As my posts clearly show.

How do you know the inner workings of NPHET, pray tell. According to you they don't just work off published research? What and who's guidelines are they using, so? And where did those guidelines become informed from? :pac:

I also never claimed they don't know what's going on, more disingenuous commentary from you. Perhaps you can just stick to what I actually wrote and the views I've actually expressed, I'd appreciate it.

This is the thing - and I agree with your fully on the schools. Some schools APPEAR to be putting in place a far better system/process for if/when the region/school/class/individual is asked to return to and stay at home. But there is very little joined up and co-ordinated thinking/assistance being provided here.
This time there should be no surprises - the expectations should be set out at an individual, school and national level so that the level of engagements from the teacher(s) is age and ability appropriate for the kids if the kids end up at home again.

is_that_so · 14-09-2020 12:00PM

irishblessing wrote: »

My critical stance as regards to schools reopening is a lack of a plan b, a hybrid/blended learning plan. As my posts clearly show.

How do you know the inner workings of NPHET, pray tell. According to you they don't just work off published research? What and who's guidelines are they using, so? And where did those guidelines become informed from?

I also never claimed they don't know what's going on.Perhaps you can just stick to what I actually wrote and the views I've actually expressed, I'd appreciate it.

If the aim is to keep schools open and they've stated it is, there is no need for Plan B. Plan B is utterly useless for primary anyway.

NPHET choose their own guidance based off the ECDC. That's not my claim, Holohan et al said it dozen of times. He also stated that they applied measures that they deemed suitable to our situation, as authorities elsewhere have done.

For example some went for masks everywhere in public and Italy will be doing temperature checks on kids going to school.

Dempo1 · 14-09-2020 12:16PM

The more I listen to leaks about this Governments Road map living with Covid-19, the more it's becoming apparent, Nothing & I mean nothing is changing, the nonsensical notion of restrictions in Dublin households is essentially non advice, who's going to police this? Just more stupidity.

Commendable government want schools, crèches to stay open but 200, 300 new cases daily does not inspire confidence in me on what's being proposed in the road map.

I guess it will sound better with the new external PR company appointed, Roll Eyes

irishblessing · 14-09-2020 02:51PM

is_that_so wrote: »

If the aim is to keep schools open and they've stated it is, there is no need for Plan B. Plan B is utterly useless for primary anyway.

NPHET choose their own guidance based off the ECDC. That's not my claim, Holohan et al said it dozen of times. He also stated that they applied measures that they deemed suitable to our situation, as authorities elsewhere have done.

For example some went for masks everywhere in public and Italy will be doing temperature checks on kids going to school.

Very limited way of looking at it considering all the needs people and family's have.

Of course there's a need for a plan b, there always has been. Some teachers and students are medically vulnerable. Some students and teachers live with medically vulnerable people. Not just the very high risk group, which seems to be the only high threshold getting some consideration. Those risk groups may want/need a remote learning option.

You also have those who will become ill, or need for quarantine for two weeks. There is a known teacher/sub shortage, and we've already had at least one school shut down due to lack of teacher sourcing.

Then you have others who are simply not comfortable sending their children in during a pandemic, and would prefer to keep them home either full or part time. Those who want or are able to keep their children at home full or part time would lower the class sizes for those in school full time, thus achieving another desireable outcome.

Many other countries have a blended/remote/hybrid learning model It's not some radical or unique idea. Uni's have it going here already.

And what do you think is informing the ECDC...?

Dempo1 · 14-09-2020 03:08PM

irishblessing wrote: »

Very limited way of looking at it considering all the needs people and family's have.

Of course there's a need for a plan b, there always has been. Some teachers and students are medically vulnerable. Some students and teachers live with medically vulnerable people. Not just the very high risk group, which seems to be the only high threshold getting some consideration. Those risk groups may want/need a remote learning option.

You also have those who will become ill, or need for quarantine for two weeks. There is a known teacher/sub shortage, and we've already had at least one school shut down due to lack of teacher sourcing.

Then you have others who are simply not comfortable sending their children in during a pandemic, and would prefer to keep them home either full or part time. Those who want or are able to keep their children at home full or part time would lower the class sizes for those in school full time, thus achieving another desireable outcome.

Many other countries have a blended/remote/hybrid learning model It's not some radical or unique idea. Uni's have it going here already.

And what do you think is informing the ECDC...?

Honestly I don't think there's a plan B, there's just one at that's keeping schools open, full stop, no matter what. Oy short of an entire schools staff testing positive will a school close by the sounds of it.

The latest 14 day self isolation guidence is just mind boggling. It's just been announced if you test positive, you self isolate for 10 days, if your a close contact your advised to self isolate for 14 days???, maybe I'm reading this wrong but if not, does this make any sense whatsoever.

Link on www.rte.ie

irishblessing · 14-09-2020 03:16PM

Dempo1 wrote: »

Honestly I don't think there's a plan B, there's just one at that's keeping schools open, full stop, no matter what. Oy short of an entire schools staff testing positive will a school close by the sounds of it.

The latest 14 day self isolation guidence is just mind boggling. It's just been announced if you test positive, you self isolate for 10 days, if your a close contact your advised to self isolate for 14 days???, maybe I'm reading this wrong but if not, does this make any sense whatsoever.

Link on www.rte.ie

You're right there's not, and that's the problem!

Not reading it wrong from what I can see... wouldn't it be nice though if they would explain the difference in isolation days! Maybe someone has a better link to explain the reasons behind it.

One of my kids has a child in their class who hasn't been in in almost 2 weeks now. Their other sibling is sick so they're been at home too without any teaching. Some schools/classes will close, and probably multiple times before Christmas even. I just can't believe there's been no national plan for continuing education.