Covid 19 Part XXIV-37,063 ROI (1,801 deaths) 12,886 NI (582 deaths) (02/10) Read OP

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Even if we had the most exemplary health service in the world this is a highly transmissable novel virus which can cause serious complications requiring hospitalisation for a certain percentage of people who catch it. We have discovered some things to increase patient survival (early increased oxygen support, early surveillance for evidence of thrombotic effects) but there is no easy treatment for this.

They increased spread within the community has necessitated measures to break potential transmission chains. Being mad at NPHET or the government won't alter that reality. The way to ensure these businesses can stay open is to adhere to social distancing guidelines and limit the number of close contacts to decrease the level of circulating covid 19 within the community. When that is achieved pubs and restaurants will be less likely to be sources of community transmission. If everyone acted responsibly we would have more freedoms.

Its entirely reasonable to be mad at NPHET and/or government - these are the people responsible for the infrastructure and putting the mechanisms in place to manage the virus, yet they have done sweet FA since March...

New York hired thousands of people to contact trace, made sure people understand the requirements if identified as a close contact and implemented an efficient process - we on the other hand ran a massive campaign looking for ex pats to come home to help the cause - then hired almost none of them and didn't make any structural investments to increase the testing, tracing capacity.... so its pretty understandable if people are annoyed as we're clearly continuing to demonstrate that we are incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery

I wonder what would happen if twitter was banned, I'd say some posters on here would need some serious counseling to help with their bad news withdrawal.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Even if we had the most exemplary health service in the world this is a highly transmissable novel virus which can cause serious complications requiring hospitalisation for a certain percentage of people who catch it. We have discovered some things to increase patient survival (early increased oxygen support, early surveillance for evidence of thrombotic effects) but there is no easy treatment for this.

They increased spread within the community has necessitated measures to break potential transmission chains. Being mad at NPHET or the government won't alter that reality. The way to ensure these businesses can stay open is to adhere to social distancing guidelines and limit the number of close contacts to decrease the level of circulating covid 19 within the community. When that is achieved pubs and restaurants will be less likely to be sources of community transmission. If everyone acted responsibly we would have more freedoms.

Yes, but what happens then once you break those transmission chains and then re-open again? The transmission chains just re-forge again right ?

The problem with a policy which aspires to everyone acting responsibly has two major problems: (1) it is unrealistic in the first instance to centre a policy on the belief that everyone will act responsibly all the time and (2) a yo-yo lockdown strategy seems to invariably lead to people, particularly the young, getting fed up and acting all the more “irresponsibly” when they are given any kind of opportunity to regain some form of normal social interaction.

It’s perfectly reasonable to talk about the medical reality ...of course lockdowns and restrictions will ultimately suppress the transmission of a virus. But medical realities, as often logically sound as they are, are also at the mercy of sociological (and indeed economic) realities.

Ultimately, it makes a ton of sense that the most effective and quick way of stopping this virus would be for the entire human population to adopt the logical step of ceasing absolutely all social contact outside their homes for a few weeks. Is this going to happen? No it probably isn’t — and even if there was a well co-ordinated global strategy it still probably couldn’t be policed thoroughly enough to ensure absolute wipeout of the virus.

It’s probably also worth pointing out that the healthcare “reality” is not in a state of total consensus. I’ve seen differing opinions, including an Oxford University epidemiologist opining that the rise in cases among young people might actually be a good thing as we head into the cooped up environments of the winter months and Christmas.

is_that_so wrote: »

As if there are not already enough "issues" with contact tracing.




https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0924/1167291-food-waste-ice-cream/

Dublin-based chef turns food waste into ice cream?

Boggles wrote: »

You see the thing about that "theoretical epidemiologist" is she knows her "strategy" will never be taken seriously and implemented at any level.

For many many different reasons, mainly though because it is a completely unworkable "strategy". So largely because of her ego, she pretends to know the way forward, but when she is asked any practical question she falls apart.

So when you say there isn't consensus, there absolutely is among the people that matter, the actual public health officials and scientists tasked with trying to steer countries through the pandemic and save their health systems.

Highlighting some fringe loons to say that the scientific community are someway split on it is pretty disingenuous and not a reflection on actual reality.

I don’t see how knowing that a strategy won’t ever be implemented precludes it from being valid or at least of some value in taking certain points for the purposes of refining an existing strategy. You talk about her ego in ‘knowing’ the way forward ....because of course once a healthcare expert starts advising a government they suddenly cannot possibly have egos or vested interests in giving certain opinions? Politics could absolutely never contaminate their opinions, is that what you’re saying?

You’re obviously rolling with the dismissive view that only the people who advise the government can ever be considered “the ones who matter”, and the problem with that dismissive approach is that it has clearly led you into believing that there is a universal healthcare consensus on tackling the virus. There isn’t — I mean, Sweden anyone? Whether you think their approach is right or wrong, they still have a different approach which is based on the opinions of the particular experts they had advising them. Then there are other countries whose strategies are of course closer to Ireland’s than Sweden’s, but still differ on certain elements such as the stringency of restrictions. So, you can dismiss whichever viewpoints you want (and I presume that you must be well-qualified to know which ones to dismiss), it doesn’t change the fact that claiming that there is universal consensus among all credible scientists and healthcare experts around the world is just not correct.

At present, the problem with our strategy is that it has only slightly evolved from the “flatten the curve” strategy, which was designed with a short term goal in mind, which in turn helped to get the people behind the message. If a vaccine comes very soon, then great. But if it’s only going to be rolled out to the point where vaccine herd immunity is going to be reached as late as sometime next summer or even early 2022 (or if it will ever come at all) we need a longer term strategy. The sustainability of the lockdown approach will only depreciate each time it is implemented, and the socioeconomic consequences aren’t just going to kindly stand by and wait for us to beat Covid.

But go ahead, dismiss all that because the healthcare experts advising the Irish government have it absolutely right and are beyond all criticism because non-doctors are all stupid and other healthcare experts are fringe loons....

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Covid.

But go ahead, dismiss all that because the healthcare experts advising the Irish government have it absolutely right and are beyond all criticism because non-doctors are all stupid and other healthcare experts are fringe loons....

She isn't a health care expert she is a "theoretical epidemiologist" who has never left the comforts of her academic setting.

She is a fringe loon not because I disagree with her nonsense, it's because reality and science has all ready proven she is a complete spoofer.

Now by all means, if you want to further her cause and the debate the ins an outs of her proposals, be my guest.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So, you can dismiss whichever viewpoints you want (and I presume that you must be well-qualified to know which ones to dismiss),

I do love this old chestnut, you can't have an opinion on something unless you are suitably qualified or at a higher level than the person you are disagreeing with. :rolleyes:

2 things is all that is needed by and large, basic maths and common sense.

SCAMADEMICS? Right-Wing Lobbying Groups - Reviving ‘Herd Immunity’ in the UK

If anyone has a spare 10 minutes, this is well word a read.

Explains it and puts it in perspective what actual public officials have to deal with it.