Covid 19 Part XXV-44,159 ROI (1,830 deaths) 21,898 NI (598 deaths) (13/10) Read OP

KrustyUCC · 08-10-2020 09:20AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not a good 24 hours for the trends

During the easing of restrictions NPHET were at pains to stress that any change will take 10 - 14 days to kick in

It will be the same with level three

New behaviours/restrictions won't kick in for 10 - 14 days

Funsterdelux · 08-10-2020 09:21AM

Mwengwe wrote: »

level 5 is inevitable.

You hear that Mr. Anderson?... That is the sound of inevitability....

Plumbthedepths · 08-10-2020 09:22AM

bush wrote: »

Its still inevitable I think, you can see them gearing up for it :mad:

Unless they are willing to tackle those in society that don't care what the level it's a waste if time. Although I think the economics of it is beginning to concentrate their minds. So I don't believe level 5 is a foregone conclusion.

Eod100 · 08-10-2020 09:22AM

bennyl10 wrote: »

but if level 3 taking time, results in our hospitals becoming clogged than it hasnt done the job.

if going to a high level now, means the econonmy takes a short hit, but we can keep the health service 'functioning' (as well as it ever does) than surely that is the better call.

That was NPHET'S idea. If we do level 3 and for to 5 surely it's a failure of government to implement the recommendations? It's a big gamble imo and more risk than reward involved with it.

KrustyUCC · 08-10-2020 09:23AM

is_that_so wrote: »

Not that simple at all. Issues with PUP, loan holidays, a massive increase in the funding requirements along with the psychological effect on an already tired country. There's also the question of how long, nobody on the public health side of things will stand over a promise of 4 weeks and it could be 6 or even 10 weeks.

Exactly

It's not as if the restrictions in March didn't get extended, extended and extended

It's never just going to be 4 weeks of level 5

is_that_so · 08-10-2020 09:23AM

bennyl10 wrote: »

but if level 3 taking time, results in our hospitals becoming clogged than it hasnt done the job.

if going to a high level now, means the econonmy takes a short hit, but we can keep the health service 'functioning' (as well as it ever does) than surely that is the better call.

Hospitals, while rising, are not alarming and HSE seem confident they can manage it. They are mostly clogged with normal patients. How short is short?

drunkmonkey · 08-10-2020 09:23AM

is_that_so wrote: »

That's what the plan is there for. Numbers need to stabilise and decline. Levels 4 & 5 are available but I don't think they want to go there if it can be avoided. I expect some efforts to tweak as much as possible before we go up a level. What PCR flaws?

The plan has been torn up, county's heading to level 1 are now in level 3 and being threatened with level 4/5 now, there is no plan, locking down everyone is not a plan.
A positive PCR test does not mean you currently have Covid, The CCO even admitted that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_cl63FgAhQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSgc5MDQ34

We need to stop testing people with no symptoms there not True positives. They could have had it months ago.

is_that_so · 08-10-2020 09:24AM

Eod100 wrote: »

That was NPHET'S idea. If we do level 3 and for to 5 surely it's a failure of government to implement the recommendations? It's a big gamble imo and more risk than reward involved with it.

I think the government will move to 4 not 5, but it might be in 2-3 weeks.

weldoninhio · 08-10-2020 09:25AM

stockshares wrote: »

What you posted above is a dangerous lie.

The virus is not an extremely mild virus.

It is unless you are over 80 and have chronic underlying conditions.

lawrencesummers · 08-10-2020 09:25AM

is_that_so wrote: »

It is PR, blunt, but an important one to discourage people who don't need to be on the move from travelling. I'm not that enamoured of the some of the crowd rousing slogans but the message now is crystal clear. Do this or Level 4 and 5 will be brought in and it's not an idle threat.

Anyone who wants to travel and is willing to ignore the restrictions will have an excuse ready.

lawrencesummers · 08-10-2020 09:26AM

Thomas.. wrote: »

Why are 3rd level students sharing accomodation when their courses are online

Don’t you know that most TD’s are landlords, Get with the program.

Golfman64 · 08-10-2020 09:27AM

Mwengwe wrote: »

level 5 is inevitable.

It's certainly possible but we have only just implemented Level 3. The affect of this will only be seen in 10-14 days so expect bad news until then.

Don't forget, there are very significant additional economic and health implications of moving to Level 5. The comment from Paschal Donohue regarding our access to Capital Markets for further government borrowing if we do not find an economic-health balance should not be under-estimated.

Gruffalux · 08-10-2020 09:27AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Worked well the first time didn't it.

It did actually. The lockdown ended on May 18th and since then we have had 5 months of as close as possible to normality in a pandemic. We stopped hospitals being over whelmed and reduced circulation of the virus to very low amounts. If we have to rinse and repeat it is better than letting it rip.

Mwengwe · 08-10-2020 09:28AM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It is unless you are over 80 and have chronic underlying conditions.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Boggles · 08-10-2020 09:29AM

159 confirmed cases in hospital, 27 in ICU.

12 discharges in last 24 hours.

17 admissions - highest daily admission size since May 10th.

stephenjmcd · 08-10-2020 09:29AM

Humberto Salazar wrote: »

Then bring it in. Bring Level 5 and stop messing about. This road strangulation tactic is useless and self defeating. Just pull the trigger and lock it down. I don't want that but drip feeding is worse.

Well that ain't going to happen the trigger won't be pulled anytime in the next 2 weeks at least.

Why? Because the finance minister made it pretty crystal clear, we can't afford it and lending would be difficult out on our own. The finances simply aren't there at the moment to support it. They'll wait for another country to go first.

SusanC10 · 08-10-2020 09:29AM

Golfman64 wrote: »

Don't forget, there are very significant additional economic and health implications of moving to Level 5. The comment from Paschal Donohue regarding our access to Capital Markets for further government borrowing if we do not find an economic-health balance should not be under-estimated.

Is there a record of him saying this apart from media reports ?

is_that_so · 08-10-2020 09:29AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The plan has been torn up, county's heading to level 1 are now in level 3 and being threatened with level 4/5 now, there is no plan, locking down everyone is not a plan.
A positive PCR test does not mean you currently have Covid, The CCO even admitted that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_cl63FgAhQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSgc5MDQ34

We need to stop testing people with no symptoms there not True positives. They could have had it months ago.

Not this crap again. Both deGascun an Nolan have spoken about this. False positives account for 1%-3%. It is not new and it is also known that mass testing can given you higher numbers. What do you think test operators do, just push a button and say grand that's 1000 positives?

prunudo · 08-10-2020 09:30AM

Here's a question, excuse my averages if they're off a bit but the point will still stand. We were getting on average, 400-500 cases a day recently. 600 may be the new average but we'll wait and see. So we're also testing about 12-14k a day.
Cases are continuing to rise and nphet are continuously being concerned. Are there gaps in the tracing? Are people spreading it before they're identified, not self isolating or is it simply a case that its so widespread its hard to keep a lid on it.

Plumbthedepths · 08-10-2020 09:31AM

Gruffalux wrote: »

It did actually. The lockdown ended on May 18th and since then we have had 5 months of as close as possible to normality in a pandemic. We stopped hospitals being over whelmed and reduced circulation of the virus to very low amounts. If we have to rinse and repeat it is better than letting it rip.

You keep rinsing and repeating there will be nothing left to open.

caveat emptor · 08-10-2020 09:31AM

The countries affected the most economically.

The less deprived are disproportionally affected by this.

Plumbthedepths · 08-10-2020 09:32AM

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Don’t you know that most TD’s are landlords, Get with the program.

You do realise certain elements of a course cannot take place on Zoom.

is_that_so · 08-10-2020 09:32AM

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Anyone who wants to travel and is willing to ignore the restrictions will have an excuse ready.

And it's not the travel that is the issue, it's non-compliance with the other stuff. Sure some will chance it but many will not - the aim of the exercise.

seamus · 08-10-2020 09:33AM

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Good to see the Gardai out in force making people’s morning commute even more difficult. The people on the road before 9 in the morning are not the ones causing problems and spreading the virus.

Talk about a waste of time, a stupid allocation of resources and ultimately a waste of money in what is effectively a PR exercise.

There are a lot of people on the road who don't need to be.

This Garda exercise is also a reminder that there's a general "you must work from home if you can" directive in place.

There are still too many people going into work because it suits them better.

bennyl10 wrote: »

but if level 3 taking time, results in our hospitals becoming clogged than it hasnt done the job.

if going to a high level now, means the econonmy takes a short hit, but we can keep the health service 'functioning' (as well as it ever does) than surely that is the better call.

"short hit" is underplaying the impact, IMHO.

It won't be four weeks, it'll be eight. And without the same comprehensive levels of supports introduced in April, many business will go under permanently. Even with them, many businesses will still go under, having already burned through their cash pile to stay afloat.

We have to balance the functioning of the health service with the functioning of the rest of society.

It'll be like those submarine movies where the ship dives deeper than it's officially rated for and everyone watches with baited breath listening to loud creaking noises and watching rivets pop, while willing the whole thing to stay in one piece.

It will work slowly and the health service will be under extreme strain, but we'll get there in the end.

Eod100 · 08-10-2020 09:34AM

is_that_so wrote: »

Not that simple at all. Issues with PUP, loan holidays, a massive increase in the funding requirements along with the psychological effect on an already tired country. There's also the question of how long, nobody on the public health side of things will stand over a promise of 4 weeks and it could be 6 or even 10 weeks.

The government can hardly guarantee that level 3 will be for 3 weeks only. It wasn't for Kildare, Dublin and Donegal. There's no guarantee in a pandemic.

drunkmonkey · 08-10-2020 09:34AM

is_that_so wrote: »

Not this crap again. Both deGascun an Nolan have spoken about this. False positives account for 1%-3%. It is not new and it is also known that mass testing can given you higher numbers. What do you think test operators do, just push a button and say grand that's 1000 positives?

I didn't mention false positives that's a different discussion. The simple fact of the matter and the CCO said it they could have had it weeks ago.
Nolan or DeGascun have never ever said that the daily reported cases are active covid cases capable of infecting anyone. It's a complete lie to suggest otherwise.
It's not crap it's how the test works. There is nobody suggesting otherwise anywhere in the world. It's a limitation of the test.
You need to understand that the test picks up rna of Covid it does not tell you if the covid is active or not.

Golfman64 · 08-10-2020 09:34AM

SusanC10 wrote: »

Is there a record of him saying this apart from media reports ?

From memory, I believe Leo Varadkar mentioned it specifically in his Monday evening interview. It was cited during the governmental meeting when they considering the NPHET advice from Sunday.

odyssey06 · 08-10-2020 09:35AM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It is unless you are over 80 and have chronic underlying conditions.

You need to look at the hospitalisation stats not just the fatalities.
If someone has been hospitalised, they don't have a mild case.

There have been hundreds of deaths in the UK of people under 60 without chronic underlying conditions. 5% of all coronavirus deaths had no underlying condition. 23% of ICU admissions have no underlying condition.
Those are just ICU admissions.

If you look at hospitalisations the median age will drop further.
In Ireland the median age for hospitalisations was 62.

08-10-2020 09:35AM

bennyl10 wrote: »

but if level 3 taking time, results in our hospitals becoming clogged than it hasnt done the job.

if going to a high level now, means the econonmy takes a short hit, but we can keep the health service 'functioning' (as well as it ever does) than surely that is the better call.

Its not a short hit to the economy. Lets just make that clear, another level 5 will be devastating to the economy. And if we're looking at a cycle of level 5 followed by level 4 (which seems inevitable the way we've handled it thus far), there will be serious issues.

I'd be shocked if the government make a change in the next week or two, the decision simply isn't as simple as it was in March, there are other factors involved.

odyssey06 · 08-10-2020 09:37AM

is_that_so wrote: »

Not this crap again. Both deGascun an Nolan have spoken about this. False positives account for 1%-3%. It is not new and it is also known that mass testing can given you higher numbers. What do you think test operators do, just push a button and say grand that's 1000 positives?

Just to note the maximum false positive rate is 0.2%, as that is the max that has been picked up some weeks in large scale testing.

Covid 19 Part XXV-44,159 ROI (1,830 deaths) 21,898 NI (598 deaths) (13/10) Read OP

Comments