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

[QUOTE=Deleted User;114774398

Lidl do packs of 10 for a few euro which are CE marked[/QUOTE]

Just be careful as some CE marked stuff is fake,Chinese manufacturers use it to mean CHINA EXPORT

https://support.ce-check.eu/hc/en-us/articles/360008642600-How-To-Distinguish-A-Real-CE-Mark-From-A-Fake-Chinese-Export-Mark

Latest data on underlying health conditions
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1311242777628422145?s=19

s1ippy wrote: »

Eh it's going to be a countywide lockdown again next week I'd wager

Based on what ? No reference to that being made during this hearing anyway

Eod100 wrote: »

Doesn't sound great if restrictions are meant to end next week https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1311241946573279233?s=19

He said it himself, there won't be any impact of Dublin starting to filtering into numbers until today / tomorrow at earliest

stephenjmcd wrote: »

He said it himself, there won't be any impact of Dublin starting to filtering into numbers until today / tomorrow at earliest

Yeah I think 2/3 weeks is minimum. I just wouldn't be very confident that Dublin can have enough of a reduction in cases from the starting point it came from but yeah nothing will be decided today or anything.

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yes I am pretty sure it's that, the weather has taken a bit of a drop here and we all get something around this time of year.

I have taken his temperature multiple times and he's no fever, but his farts are really stinky ... the type of sick ones this is my lingering doubt ...

Big massive rips or silent and violent?It could be a case of extreme flatulance. Get him tested just in case. The virus could have mutated and this could be a new symptom.

Eod100 wrote: »

Yeah I think 2/3 weeks is minimum. I just wouldn't be very confident that Dublin can have enough of a reduction in cases from the starting point it came from but yeah nothing will be decided today or anything.

He's in a catch 22 really, question was asked about making a decision with plenty of notice, said it himself they could make one today for Sunday week but it might not be accurate when Sunday comes along but if they make the decision closer the time they can have more confidence in it.

Personally when 3 weeks was announced for Dublin I reckoned it would be around 4 or 5 based on Kildare.

Realistically though not much has changed in Dublin except in hospitality, will come down if people have reduced their contacts

growleaves wrote: »

The headline on one newspaper the first day of the Dublin Level 3.14 restrictions was "Short Sharp Lockdown"

With the one beside it probably saying "Goofy Glynn Gone Lockdown Looney"

Don't take newspaper headlines as fact. They're intended to be the equivalent of sh1t to a fly.

caveat emptor wrote: »

Very interesting about airport status and how it's down 88%. Question from TD regarding airport testing. Point in time testing won't stop it. They said the plan is to wait for the EU commissions traffic light system. Start saying colours, couldn't listen afterwards :rolleyes: The dogmatic approach to open borders (during a pandemic) will bleed us dry over the medium term.

In the same way not every country could join the EU unless they got their house in order regarding finances and corruption. Free travel should be suspended until every country gets their house in order regarding covid. Effectively a hard reset would get the system up and running quicker than the current strategy which is leading to mass redundancies and pain.

But if their house isn't in order they'll be on red list. There's a number of metrics that would see a country on green, orange or red. Testing is one of them.

The EU plan will be fairly straightforward to follow and updated centrally not by individual countries

quokula wrote: »

Ok, let’s say I’m 25 years old and have diabetes. Or I’m 35 and have asthma. Or I’m 75. Or I’m a healthy 40 year old but I’m caring for my elderly mother at home.

The country has followed your advice, the virus is now rampant across the country, hundreds of thousands of people have it, we’ve miraculously kept it to healthy people so only 0.1% of them have died, so that’s only a few hundred grieving families, no big deal.

Meanwhile I’m locked up for my designated 21 hours per day, waiting for my alarm to tell me I can go out and get food. Every surface in the supermarket has virus on it. The supermarket staff probably have the virus. But it’s between 8am and 11am so you’ve decided it’s safe for me to go and do my shopping, and we’ll just tell the virus not to infect anyone during those hours.

I’m not convinced that plan will work.

COVID free hospitals exist now because of the measures were taking now. If you let the virus run rampant, it won’t decide to stop at the door of the beacon.

I specifically said high risk, not those with alignments - Im a diabetic and not high risk, my niece has asthma and is not high risk.

I've already clarified this too - but again, the idea would be to isolate and protect those at significant high risk (an example would be - old age w/ advanced heart disease etc etc).

Eod100 wrote: »

Doesn't sound great if restrictions are meant to end next week https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1311241946573279233?s=19

Why can they never give a precise answer to anything.

What is the target case number for a county of ~1.4 million people?
Do they know?

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Latest data on underlying health conditions
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1311242777628422145?s=19

Mad to see it laid out like that. 95% of deaths have a serious underlying condition of some kind - Heart Disease being the big one.

However, it does bring up one obvious caveat - a third of those who died had some level of degenerative brain disorder like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.

Which tells us that the level of elderly people in the deaths stats is high. Which we know - 93% of deaths so far have been over 65.

Elderly people also have underlying health conditions. In fact, the number of people with underlying conditions is 81% at 65 years of age, rising to 93% above 75.

What's my point? That certain conditions - like heart disease - may be overrepresented as a risk factor. Because we would expect this to be present in a significant proportion of those over 65.

This all muddies the waters for me. Because there's been so much talk about underlying conditions being a huge risk factor. But if you look at the data, for the most part the biggest risk factor is simply being over 65.

We don't even know if those under 65 with underlying conditions are at a severely increased risk or just a slightly increased risk. Big ones like cancer or HIV, obviously. But it may be the case that Asthma or Obesity are much bigger problems under 65. But this is being overshadowed by the stats on heart disease coming out of the elderly cohort.