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

fritzelly · 30-09-2020 12:00AM

Just watched PT back and this sums it up for McConkey

Arghus · 30-09-2020 12:00AM

Okay, having now watched the famous debate, here's my view:

Feeney appeared to win the debate. He certainly spoke with more authority, confidence and clarity. McConkey flailed badly at times and often times went off script and didn't address the points Dr. Feeney was making.

But, when I say Feeney appeared to win the debate it isn't to say that his arguments were wholly convincing.

The crux of his argument was based on the idea that people who are at risk can be kept safe from the virus. He didn't outline to what extent the virus would be circulating in the community in this hypothetical situation. Does he believe in some level of containment or does he believe in none whatsoever? He wasn't clear on this. What about the argument that the logistics of keeping the quite large amount of vulnerable people - and the people they live with/their carers/their doctors etc - shielded for a indefinite period is, in my view, quasi impossible? He glossed over this. He also glossed over whether this has actually been achieved anywhere, not wanting to get into a discussion about different countries, saying this "was a waste of time". Which is his opinion, but I think if you're talking up the feasabilty of a new approach it's good to know whether such outcomes have actually been achieved anywhere else.

He also seemed remarkably unconcerned about the risk of transmission of Covid between patients and health care workers, when we all know, for a verifiable fact, that it's been a major problem and source of outbreaks throughout this pandemic. How does Dr. Feeney propose to deal with the fact that hospitals themselves will be even more of a no-go area the more you let Covid circulate in the community at large. He was not challenged on this.

He spoke well and was quick witted. But no-one challenged him on the numerous claims he made. McConkey did absolutely terribly in the debate. But I wasn't convinced by Dr. Feeney's arguments. He won the debate, but he didn't win me over.

polesheep · 30-09-2020 12:01AM

Strumms wrote: »

It’s hours since I saw it actually.

Lives get ruined when people die, when their loved ones die, the rest is fixable.

On the contrary, I'd say a fair few lives have been enhanced by an inheritance when an old person in a nursing home dies.

Arghus · 30-09-2020 12:05AM

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't watch it and I won't wAtch it either and who wins it loses a debate doesn't help us I've bit.
Based on what you've posted I'm if the opinion that Feeney, whoever he is, is a liar.

I don't think it's fair to call him a liar. I don't agree with him, but I think he's sincere.

eagle eye · 30-09-2020 12:06AM

Goldengirl wrote:

Feeney came across measured and intelligent . McConkey was all over the place and illogical . Feeney didn't say that young people weren't at risk but felt those that would be in vulnerable groups could be identified and shielded. I disagree with this as some who are adversely affected have been shown , while not so far in great numbers , as being from a group who would not be supposed to be at risk. He also said that with proper training and good PPE older people would not be infected by younger carers or nurses . This does not take into account the numbers if HCWs that are becoming infected every week however . Overall Feeney won the debate , whether you agree with him or not . I think McConkey's default position is a bit hysterical anyway .

I didn't watch it and I won't watch it either and who wins or loses a debate doesn't help us one bit.
Based on what you've posted I'm if the opinion that Feeney, whoever he is, is a liar.

JJayoo · 30-09-2020 12:06AM

The main problem with students is that they traditionally head home at weekends to mammy and daddy and the comforts of home, so there is a risk they might bring the virus home.

Happydays2020 · 30-09-2020 12:09AM

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't watch it and I won't watch it either and who wins or loses a debate doesn't help us one bit.
Based on what you've posted I'm if the opinion that Feeney, whoever he is, is a liar.

We need a debate. We need contrary opinions from experts and practitioners. Look at NPHET policy on contact tracing - the calling out of the ridiculous situation that they did not track down the “where” of an outbreak has now led to policy changes.

Only a fool is afraid of dissenting voices.

30-09-2020 12:10AM

Relatives of mine in Donegal say that there was a doctor from Lifford interviewed on RTE a few days back. He said that the 57 positive cases he recently dealt with could be traced back to 5 events. 2 house parties, 1 after gaa match party, 1 first communion, and 1 wake.

As well as that, there have been several bus loads of young people who travelled over the border into Derry over the last few weekends, to nightclubs and bars which were open in the North. Derry and Strabane have the highest incidence of Covid19 in NI, and the 4th highest in the UK.

30-09-2020 12:12AM

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, having now watched the famous debate, here's my view:

Feeney appeared to win the debate. He certainly spoke with more authority, confidence and clarity. McConkey flailed badly at times and often times went off script and didn't address the points Dr. Feeney was making.

But, when I say Feeney appeared to win the debate it isn't to say that his arguments were wholly convincing.

The crux of his argument was based on the idea that people who are at risk can be kept safe from the virus. He didn't outline to what extent the virus would be circulating in the community in this hypothetical situation. Does he believe in some level of containment or does he believe in none whatsoever? He wasn't clear on this. What about the argument that the logistics of keeping the quite large amount of vulnerable people - and the people they live with/their carers/their doctors etc - shielded for a indefinite period is, in my view, quasi impossible? He glossed over this. He also glossed over whether this has actually been achieved anywhere, not wanting to get into a discussion about different countries, saying this "was a waste of time". Which is his opinion, but I think if you're talking up the feasabilty of a new approach it's good to know whether such outcomes have actually been achieved anywhere else.

He also seemed remarkably unconcerned about the risk of transmission of Covid between patients and health care workers, when we all know, for a verifiable fact, that it's been a major problem and source of outbreaks throughout this pandemic. How does Dr. Feeney propose to deal with the fact that hospitals themselves will be even more of a no-go area the more you let Covid circulate in the community at large. He was not challenged on this.

He spoke well and was quick witted. But no-one challenged him on the numerous claims he made. McConkey did absolutely terribly in the debate. But I wasn't convinced by Dr. Feeney's arguments. He won the debate, but he didn't win me over.

That was pretty much my take, he certainly spoke well and with authority but did not back up his idea of what approach we should take with anything concrete that you could put into action.

douglashyde · 30-09-2020 12:13AM

Sconsey wrote: »

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.

I find shutting down counties, having a 10% unemployment, neglecting other health aliments, mental.

We don't need to protect all those with underlying health condition - just those that are significantly compromised - 1/3 of detected CV19 cases have under lying health conditions. But with the median age of death at 83 and comorbidity well above 90% -- some imaginative thinking is what we need.

CalamariFritti · 30-09-2020 12:13AM

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't watch it and I won't watch it either and who wins or loses a debate doesn't help us one bit.
Based on what you've posted I'm if the opinion that Feeney, whoever he is, is a liar.

And based on that statement alone I must say that nothing you say can be taken seriously at all.

hynesie08 · 30-09-2020 12:15AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Relatives of mine in Donegal say that there was a doctor from Lifford interviewed on RTE a few days back. He said that the 57 positive cases he recently dealt with could be traced back to 5 events. 2 house parties, 1 after gaa match party, 1 first communion, and 1 wake.

As well as that, there have been several bus loads of young people who travelled over the border into Derry over the last few weekends, to nightclubs and bars which were open in the North. Derry and Strabane have the highest incidence of Covid19 in NI, and the 4th highest in the UK.

Nightclubs aren't open in the North though....... and pint pubs opened the same day both sides of the border.

eagle eye · 30-09-2020 12:16AM

Happydays2020 wrote:

We need a debate. We need contrary opinions from experts and practitioners. Look at NPHET policy on contact tracing - the calling out of the ridiculous situation that they did not track down the â€œwhereâ€ of an outbreak has now led to policy changes.
Only a fool is afraid of dissenting voices.

How about we get unfiltered information and use our brains instead?

eagle eye · 30-09-2020 12:17AM

CalamariFritti wrote:

And based on that statement alone I must say that nothing you say can be taken seriously at all.

What? From the post I quoted it's clear he was telling lies

quartz1 · 30-09-2020 12:18AM

Personally I found Feeney very unconvincing but there's no harm in debate . Not sure what happens what he suggests a vulnerable person is to do if they have to leave their cocoon to shop, work or obtain medical treatment. By his own admission a vulnerable person could be overweight or have a medical condition aged 18. It easily to protect people when it's all theoretical but reality is a different matter.

30-09-2020 12:19AM

hynesie08 wrote: »

Nightclubs aren't open in the North though....... and pint pubs opened the same day both sides of the border.

ok, disco type bars are open, like McGowans of Phibsboro for example. There is no social distancing, and no one is wearing masks over the border, and that includes shopping centres etc.

Danno · 30-09-2020 12:25AM

douglashyde wrote: »

I find shutting down counties, having a 10% unemployment, neglecting other health aliments, mental.

We don't need to protect all those with underlying health condition - just those that are significantly compromised - 1/3 of detected CV19 cases have under lying health conditions. But with the median age of death at 83 and comorbidity well above 90% -- some imaginative thinking is what we need.

We have 8900+ healthcare workers who have had Covid-19. Test them for immunity and re-deploy those where feasible to work with those that are significantly compromised. That would be a start, but you'd probably have to burn the unions for that.

CalamariFritti · 30-09-2020 12:26AM

eagle eye wrote: »

What? From the post I quoted it's clear he was telling lies

Maybe you should get your eagle eyes tested.

quokula · 30-09-2020 12:27AM

As we’ve seen in so many political results around the world in recent years, simple comforting lies will always beat complex inconvenient truths in a debate.

30-09-2020 12:28AM

quartz1 wrote: »

Personally I found Feeney very unconvincing but there's no harm in debate . Not sure what happens what he suggests a vulnerable person is to do if they have to leave their cocoon to shop, work or obtain medical treatment. By his own admission a vulnerable person could be overweight or have a medical condition aged 18. It easily to protect people when it's all theoretical but reality is a different matter.

A good chunk of people who work in the health service would have to shield under his suggestion. I don't know how you'd manage that.

30-09-2020 12:29AM

Today there were 320 new cases in NI, and 350+ new cases in ROI. That is almost 700. The population of the Island of Ireland is approx 6 million, the population of the UK is upwards of 65 million, ten times that of the island of Ireland.

320 + 350 is almost 700, multiply that by 10 and we are on a par with the UK.

*The UK had 7000 new cases today

douglashyde · 30-09-2020 12:30AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Relatives of mine in Donegal say that there was a doctor from Lifford interviewed on RTE a few days back. He said that the 57 positive cases he recently dealt with could be traced back to 5 events. 2 house parties, 1 after gaa match party, 1 first communion, and 1 wake.

As well as that, there have been several bus loads of young people who travelled over the border into Derry over the last few weekends, to nightclubs and bars which were open in the North. Derry and Strabane have the highest incidence of Covid19 in NI, and the 4th highest in the UK.

Of 57 cases that would equate to .06% deaths (1 in 1,666)

Source.

It's 00:30 so forgive my very crude math and ignoring stat sig / case profile etc; BUT based on this, of these 57 cases, they are more likely to die of drowning in their lifetime, or 12 times more likely to die in a car accident, even AFTER contracting CV19.

Best of luck to all 57 cases, but I think they'll be grand.

30-09-2020 12:37AM

douglashyde wrote: »

Of 57 cases that would equate to .06% deaths (1 in 1,666)

Source.

It's 00:30 so forgive my very crude math and ignoring stat sig / case profile etc; BUT based on this, of these 57 cases, they are more likely to die of drowning in their lifetime, or 12 times more likely to die in a car accident, even AFTER contracting CV19.

Best of luck to all 57 cases, but I think they'll be grand.

Most of them will be grand, but there will be a percentage that will have lingering health conditions for God knows how long. There was a woman from Rehab Ireland interviewed this evening on Newstalk who talked of young people who contracted this illness 5 months ago who have overcome the dose, but who are still suffering from extreme fatigue, shortness of breath etc. and the rehab services in Ireland will not be able to deal with the mounting number of young people who will need some sort of support.

ArthurDayne · 30-09-2020 12:37AM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

But shouldn’t the shielding plans already more or less be in place in peoples own homes based on their own circumstances ? It already stands that if there there are vulnerable people in your home you need to take extra care on distancing, mask wearing and hand hygiene (as they should be doing already of course). Vulnerable people themselves need to do likewise (again as they should be doing already). As for within the house itself, aren’t those with vulnerable people in their home taking such measures already? To me, it would be fairly irresponsible if, by this stage, people were not already taking hygiene measures in their home if a vulnerable person is present. If by now there is no guidance whatsoever from the health authorities on how to mitigate the spread of Covid in the home, then that’s just another abject failure by those administering the current strategy.

Put simply — the shielding protocols in peoples’ homes should already be at least somewhat in place and if extra guidance is needed then I don’t think it is beyond the resources of the State to provide that.

As for knowing the plan — do we really know the plan? We were told to flatten the curve so that we could give our health service the capacity to deal with the surge and ramp up capacity. Now the narrative seems to be shifting to indefinite flattening of curves ...then reopening....then restricting again to deal with the inevitable re-rise of the virus once things reopen...and we just repeat this for a year or perhaps more. I mean, McConkey himself seemed confused as to what the plan was, jumping from Australia’s virus suppression to virus elimination in ..ehh..Greenland.

30-09-2020 12:39AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Today there were 320 new cases in NI, and 350+ new cases in ROI. That is almost 700. The population of the Island of Ireland is approx 6 million, the population of the UK is upwards of 65 million, ten times that of the island of Ireland.

320 + 350 is almost 700, multiply that by 10 and we are on a par with the UK.

*The UK had 7000 new cases today

And with Britain being more densely populated than Ireland you'd have to say they are doing better than us currently.

30-09-2020 12:44AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And with Britain being more densely populated than Ireland you'd have to say they are doing better than us currently.

Population density is a mute point if there is no adherence to social distancing rules, mask wearing etc. It is living proof of poor leadership.

30-09-2020 12:44AM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But shouldn’t the shielding plans already more or less be in place in peoples own homes based on their own circumstances ? It already stands that if there there are vulnerable people in your home you need to take extra care on distancing, mask wearing and hand hygiene (as they should be doing already of course). Vulnerable people themselves need to do likewise (again as they should be doing already). As for within the house itself, aren’t those with vulnerable people in their home taking such measures already? To me, it would be fairly irresponsible if, by this stage, people were not already taking hygiene measures in their home if a vulnerable person is present. If by now there is no guidance whatsoever from the health authorities on how to mitigate the spread of Covid in the home, then that’s just another abject failure by those administering the current strategy.

Put simply — the shielding protocols in peoples’ homes should already be at least somewhat in place and if extra guidance is needed then I don’t think it is beyond the resources of the State to provide that.

As for knowing the plan — do we really know the plan? We were told to flatten the curve so that we could give our health service the capacity to deal with the surge and ramp up capacity. Now the narrative seems to be shifting to indefinite flattening of curves ...then reopening....then restricting again to deal with the inevitable re-rise of the virus once things reopen...and we just repeat this for a year or perhaps more. I mean, McConkey himself seemed confused as to what the plan was, jumping from Australia’s virus suppression to virus elimination in ..ehh..Greenland.

The current attempt at shielding is based on the rest of society obiding by the present restrictions. If there was to be a return to normality for the non vulnerable the current shielding protocols would no longer be sufficient to protect the vulnerable as you would be intentionally allowing for a substantial increase of the prevalence of the virus in general society.

douglashyde · 30-09-2020 12:47AM

Deleted User wrote: »

A good chunk of people who work in the health service would have to shield under his suggestion. I don't know how you'd manage that.

No, but some laterally / creative thinking is needed. Pareto law principle.

- Ship N95 masks to every person over the age of x.
- Statistical analyse and identify conditions that lead to comorbidity alongside CV19 and apply guidelines to them - give them all financial benefits / protections / distance learning as required.
- Put stringent and regimented systems in nursing homes (rapid testing) / week on week off shift work / staff/patient pods.
- As previous poster suggested - Deploy health care workers who've had the disease to higher risk patient hospitals.
- Assign 2-3 hours of the day for shopping / recreational use for at risk people.
- Continue the use of clean hospitals like the Beacon (where no CV19 are present)

I'm not accepting rebuttal to these above points , they are just some random thoughts and I'm sure there is problems.

On a separate point, if the Case Fatality of this virus actually is .1-.2% range as seems now to be the case, I'd argue that even a lot of the above would not be needed.

quokula · 30-09-2020 12:51AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And with Britain being more densely populated than Ireland you'd have to say they are doing better than us currently.

Only when you include Northern Ireland with the ROI numbers and then round up a bit.

With slightly less crude rounding, Ireland is at approx 6.5 cases per 100k while the UK is at approx 10 cases per 100k per day

UK was also hit much, much harder than us in spring, with 60,000 excess deaths, meaning they’d have a higher level of base herd immunity going into the second wave which might keep their numbers a little bit more in check.

They also had 71 COVID 19 deaths today while Ireland had 1, which suggests better test coverage or better test targeting here.

30-09-2020 12:58AM

douglashyde wrote: »

No, but some laterally / creative thinking is needed. Pareto law principle.

- Ship N95 masks to every person over the age of x age.
- Statistical analyse and identify conditions that lead to comorbidity alongside CV19 and apply guidelines to them - give them all financial benefits / protections / distance learning as required.
- Put stringent and regimented systems in nursing homes (rapid testing) / week on week off shift work / staff/patient pods.
- As previous poster suggested - Deploy health care workers who've had the disease to higher risk patient hospitals.
- Assign 2-3 hours of the day for shopping / recreational use for at risk patients.
- Continue the use of clean hospitals like the Beacon (where no CV19 are present)

I'm not accepting rebuttal to these above points , they are just some random thoughts and I'm sure there is problems.

On a separate point, if the Case Fatality of this virus actually is .1-.2% range as seems now to be the case, I'd argue that even a lot of the above would not be needed.

As you are not accepting rebuttal, I'll leave it at that.

But in relation to your separate point the case fatality rate will be liable to rise sharply once a health service cannot provide treatment to all patients. 0.16% of the entire population of Lombardy died, 100% of the population did not catch the virus.

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

Comments