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

Azatadine · 29-09-2020 10:42PM

plodder wrote: »

Winning and losing misses the point imo. Feeley was hesitant and uncomfortable. For some people that means he "lost". I'm not sure what to make of it tbh. But, I think the points he was trying to make deserve more discussion.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Feeney won it alright. Its good that debates are now happening.

29-09-2020 10:42PM

douglashyde wrote: »

Public ignorance like this mixed with media sensationalism is the perfect storm.

I believe what you are referring to is the IFR (infection fatality rate)
For the flu the IFR is .01% and the CFR (case fatality rate) is 0.1%

For CV-19, the CFR in March/April was estimated by the WHO to be 3-4% with media reporting up to 25%. This is number is constantly being downgraded (thankfully). Here is the most recent 14 day epidemiology report from the HSE. The case fatality rate is .1%

That’s an incorrect reading of the data, admittedly caused by a misleading way of reporting the data. Deaths today are representative of cases 3 weeks ago, on average.

CiarraiManc · 29-09-2020 10:42PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

What does potent mean in your world?

Fatalities and other ill effects caused by the virus, heart problems diabetes, lung scarring, neurological problems etc

screamer · 29-09-2020 10:42PM

caveat emptor wrote: »

Pierce Doherty making good points in favour of unemployed people and mortgage payment breaks. Government should pressure the banks to play ball as it’s stressful enough for people.

I agree, but the banks pulling up the oars in blanket payment breaks is mandated by the EU. They have no choice but to comply

hynesie08 · 29-09-2020 10:43PM

CiarraiManc wrote: »

Fatalities and other ill effects caused by the virus, heart problems diabetes, lung scarring, neurological problems etc

So, considering the numbers, it's not potent at all.

ACitizenErased · 29-09-2020 10:44PM

Potent is an interesting way to describe a virus.

Santy2015 · 29-09-2020 10:45PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Potent is an interesting way to describe a virus.

My s**t was potent earlier...... nobody died.

Happydays2020 · 29-09-2020 10:45PM

boggerman1 wrote: »

McConkey is a fraud at this stage.fair play to that man for showing him up

Who is that man?

Jim_Hodge · 29-09-2020 10:46PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Potent is an interesting way to describe a virus.

In several senses of the word it actually fits quite well.

CiarraiManc · 29-09-2020 10:46PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Potent is an interesting way to describe a virus.

I'm not getting dragged into word games. It's fully understandable what context potent was used in.

hynesie08 · 29-09-2020 10:46PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Potent is an interesting way to describe a virus.

Whiskey is potent, and you've probably more chance of death by drinking a litre of whiskey.

29-09-2020 10:47PM

BringBackMick wrote: »

Just look at this clique

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Health_Emergency_Team_(2020)

We all know many in the medical field are well up their own arse, imagine have 26 top brass of these making these decisions with no oversight....it is scary.

Yes, let’s have posters on boards making these decisions

Anti intellectual clap trap - they report the hse and are accountable to the government, as elected by the people

Happydays2020 · 29-09-2020 10:47PM

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Who is that man?

Now I see. It was Feeney. He was a
Rock of sense last week in the IT and some here think it is acceptable in Ireland in 2020 for someone with a contrary view to have to leave their job. We are not Turkey or Hungary.

CiarraiManc · 29-09-2020 10:50PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

So, considering the numbers, it's not potent at all.

Right you have 1802 families to tell that to. Best get going

Newbie20 · 29-09-2020 10:53PM

Feeney was very impressive. Not sure if I agree with him or not but very impressive at getting his points across very strongly.
The thing about McConkey is we all know his views, he has been on Prime Time and The Tonight show 4/5 times a week for the last 6/7 months. Sick of hearing him now, nothing new to add.

hynesie08 · 29-09-2020 10:55PM

CiarraiManc wrote: »

Right you have 1802 families to tell that to. Best get going

I'd hope they understand basic maths, but nice attempt at emotive deflection.

FintanMcluskey · 29-09-2020 10:58PM

CiarraiManc wrote: »

Right you have 1802 families to tell that to. Best get going

You have no interest in statistical debate.

Thats emotional nonsense that wont work anymore.

More that 1802 died this year.

If excess deaths are to be believed the figure of excess death until July is circa 800.

Its by no means been the worst year for deaths recently.

ACitizenErased · 29-09-2020 11:02PM

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

In several senses of the word it actually fits quite well.

I would not associate it with COVID though, I would say something that’s fast and deadly is potent, something like ebola.

Glenomra · 29-09-2020 11:08PM

Poor mcconkey. I actually felt sympathy for him by the end. He was literally demolished by an old school doctor who appeared logical and reasonable. Abject performance by mcconkey.

caveat emptor · 29-09-2020 11:08PM

Disney not seeing any return to normality in its resort business. Mass layoffs in US.

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1311049550317203456?s=21

Sconsey · 29-09-2020 11:08PM

Azatadine wrote: »

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Feeney won it alright. Its good that debates are now happening.

I wouldn't say Feeney won it at all but anyway, what really struck me were two things...
The host kept interrupting the other guy when he was talking, in fact Feeney interrupted him too, but Feeney was given free reign to talk away. Literally every time the other guy was talking he was interrupted by the host.

The other thing I don't get is that Feeney is saying staff in hospitals, care homes, etc. can wear the same level of PPE as ICU staff? that is mental, take a look at the level of protection that ICU staff have to take. He is dreaming if he thinks all carers, support staff, cleaners can wear that level of PPE.

normanoffside · 29-09-2020 11:13PM

CiarraiManc wrote: »

Right you have 1802 families to tell that to. Best get going

According to the Department of Health 1802 people died with Covid or with Suspected Covid.
That's not the same as 1802 people dying because of Covid.

I'm pretty sure that a lot more than 1802 will eventually die because of our reaction to Covid.

Happydays2020 · 29-09-2020 11:14PM

Sconsey wrote: »

I wouldn't say Feeney won it at all but anyway, what really struck me were two things...
The host kept interrupting the other guy when he was talking, in fact Feeney interrupted him too, but Feeney was given free reign to talk away. Literally every time the other guy was talking he was interrupted by the host.

The other thing I don't get is that Feeney is saying staff in hospitals, care homes, etc. can wear the same level of PPE as ICU staff? that is mental, take a look at the level of protection that ICU staff have to take. He is dreaming if he thinks all carers, support staff, cleaners can wear that level of PPE.

Yes because those people who are hooked up to a ventilator in ICU are (obviously not) expelling more air than a patient on a ward bearing in mind it is as much about protecting the patients from the staff as much as anything else. He is talking sense.

29-09-2020 11:16PM

Sconsey wrote: »

I wouldn't say Feeney won it at all but anyway, what really struck me were two things...
The host kept interrupting the other guy when he was talking, in fact Feeney interrupted him too, but Feeney was given free reign to talk away. Literally every time the other guy was talking he was interrupted by the host.

The other thing I don't get is that Feeney is saying staff in hospitals, care homes, etc. can wear the same level of PPE as ICU staff? that is mental, take a look at the level of protection that ICU staff have to take. He is dreaming if he thinks all carers, support staff, cleaners can wear that level of PPE.

For all the talk of shielding the vulnerable and letting everyone else get on with it, I haven't seen one coherent argument for how it could be done. You'd have to also shield all the people they come into contact with, you'd have to split households. The number of people you'd be asking to remove themselves from society would be staggering.

NIMAN · 29-09-2020 11:19PM

I thought the figures given or discussed by George Lee on the 9 o clock news were very interesting.

We are often told this is the 2nd wave and it's going to be as bad if not worse than 1st one, but the figures shown make it sound nowhere near as bad.

It's quite clear that the older, more vulnerable people are staying clear of trouble, and it's the irresponsible younger folk catching it. And of course this doesn't seem to be translating to numbers in a serious condition in hospital.

Its nearly an accidental version of the herd immunity idea.

CruelSummer · 29-09-2020 11:28PM

Eod100 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SeanDefoe/status/1311051453889478657?s=19

The defacto government (NPHET) refusing to appear before elected members of the public to share data they’re currently hiding, explanations as to why thousands are being put out of work every week, details of how many of these ‘cases’ are asymptomatic, and many other questions stinks of their arrogance & completely feeble leadership that our Government possess. The Government and the Irish Public need to stand up and demand answers.

SleetAndSnow · 29-09-2020 11:38PM

Was in a pub tonight, correctly set up and yes students were there including myself in Cork. And yes, they stood and waited to be brought to their table, didnt go to the bar, they wore masks the minute they left their table to go to the toilet or for a smoke or to leave. So no, its not all students(including myself) its some students. Same for each age category. Its about 50/50 id say

ArthurDayne · 29-09-2020 11:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

For all the talk of shielding the vulnerable and letting everyone else get on with it, I haven't seen one coherent argument for how it could be done. You'd have to also shield all the people they come into contact with, you'd have to split households. The number of people you'd be asking to remove themselves from society would be staggering.

I guess what I don’t understand about this practicality-based argument is that the alternative (i.e. what we have now) is even less practical. I mean, it really doesn’t get any less practical than the wholesale freezing of society and the economy, does it? To me it’s almost like trying to balance on the shakiest tightrope and saying how difficult it would be to stand on one leg.

I mean, sure, there are practical difficulties inherent in shielding the vulnerable for a lot of households while the virus runs through the low-risk population. But there are even more practical difficulties inherent in imposing the practical difficulties caused by restriction and / or lockdown (both immediate difficulties and longer term ones) on every last person.

Now, what I would concede is that the practical difficulties you refer to would be real enough to reasonably expect that at least some further Covid deaths might happen than in a more restricted environment. But I think any sustainable long term strategy is going to involve that moral conundrum.

Goldengirl · 29-09-2020 11:47PM

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Yes because those people who are hooked up to a ventilator in ICU are (obviously not) expelling more air than a patient on a ward bearing in mind it is as much about protecting the patients from the staff as much as anything else. He is talking sense.

You are expelling a lot of ...air here

Patients in ICU are expelling high viral loads within aerosols because of procedures like intubation, suctioning , physio etc .
Much worse than any normal person breathing or even coughing .
Very high risk .

29-09-2020 11:53PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I guess what I don’t understand about this practicality-based argument is that the alternative (i.e. what we have now) is even less practical. I mean, it really doesn’t get any less practical than the wholesale freezing of society and the economy, does it? To me it’s almost like trying to balance on the shakiest tightrope and saying how difficult it would be to stand on one leg.

I mean, sure, there are practical difficulties inherent in shielding the vulnerable for a lot of households while the virus runs through the low-risk population. But there are even more practical difficulties inherent in imposing the practical difficulties caused by restriction and / or lockdown (both immediate difficulties and longer term ones) on every last person.

Now, what I would concede is that the practical difficulties you refer to would be real enough to reasonably expect that at least some further Covid deaths might happen than in a more restricted environment. But I think any sustainable long term strategy is going to involve that moral conundrum.

If someone sat down and wrote out a shielding plan I would judge it on its merits. But I haven't seen anything approaching this. Just empty statements.

Right now our plan is distancing, masks, hand hygiene and some business restrictions. In practice this is not stopping growth of cases, it is not keeping the reproductive number at or close to 1. If we allow growth to continue our health service will eventually be overwhelmed. So we're adding layers to the restrictions. It is a million miles from perfect but at least we know what the plan is.

As I said I still haven't seen a practical explanation of how you identify and then shield the vulnerable.

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

Comments