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

ixoy · 08-10-2020 11:23AM

Kimbot wrote: »

What public facilities were closed?
Even with actual premises closed you do realise people could work from home etc.

Not sure how you run a museum or the libraries, including the National Library, from home..

polesheep · 08-10-2020 11:26AM

odyssey06 wrote: »

Figures clearly show that this disease has the potential to kill and hospitalise otherwise healthy people, albeit at a lower risk than those of advanced age or with pre-existing conditions.

20% of US covid deaths were under 65s.
Of those 17% had no comorbidity.

21% were 65 - 74.
Of those 22% had no comorbidity.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e1.htmEven

Starts off with a figure that sounds high, 20%, but what it actually means is that less than 4 out of every 100 people under 65 who died from Covid had no co-morbidities. And that's some age range, 0 to 65. Any chance you have the stats for 60 to 65?

Jinglejangle69 · 08-10-2020 11:28AM

Curfew and fines then jail.

Once people see a few getting done they will stop.

It's the only thing that will work now

GooglePlus · 08-10-2020 11:28AM

polesheep wrote: »

I don't see any difference between working from home and at home because you are not allowed to do your job.

What are you talking about, why wouldn't I be allowed do my job?

Kimbot · 08-10-2020 11:28AM

ixoy wrote: »

Not sure how you run a museum or the libraries, including the National Library, from home..

Virtual museum guides and pdf versions of books..... plain and simple.

Funsterdelux · 08-10-2020 11:29AM

ixoy wrote: »

Not sure how you run a museum or the libraries, including the National Library, from home..

Who do you think inserts the audio book CD into the other end of your borrowbox account?

:pac:

odyssey06 · 08-10-2020 11:31AM

polesheep wrote: »

Starts off with a figure that sounds high, 20%, but what it actually means is that less than 4 out of every 100 people under 65 who died from Covid had no co-morbidities. And that's some age range, 0 to 65. Any chance you have the stats for 60 to 65?

I think you've double applied a %... when I crunch the numbers it comes out at:

It means 17 out of every 100 people under 65 who died from Covid had no co-morbidities.

It means 4 out of every 100 people who died, were under 65 with no-cormorbidities.

I'm afraid the article didn't break down the stats to that level re: 60-65.

Paddygreen · 08-10-2020 11:31AM

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Curfew and fines then jail.

Once people see a few getting done they will stop.

It's the only thing that will work now

We could put them in the back of white vans softened up with a good beating and just disappear them somewhere like they did in China. Harvest their organs.

yourdeadwright · 08-10-2020 11:31AM

I think for everyone sake a proper lockdown should be applied now,
We need the country to be back open for Christmas not because of Santa or baby Jesus or any of that nonsense but for the money that will be spent and the economy ,

Look we all see a lockdown coming so we may as well get it out of the way now and let everyone back out and about to spend at Christmas time ,

bb1234567 · 08-10-2020 11:31AM

polesheep wrote: »

Starts off with a figure that sounds high, 20%, but what it actually means is that less than 4 out of every 100 people under 65 who died from Covid had no co-morbidities. And that's some age range, 0 to 65. Any chance you have the stats for 60 to 65?

It is high, that means approx 7500 people with no health conditions under 65 have died of covid in the US. That is a lot but luckily this figure doesnt look to be repeated anywhere in Europe, probably down to the American obesity rate

caveat emptor · 08-10-2020 11:32AM

polesheep wrote: »

We should go to level 5 today! Right Now! Otherwise there are some people who won't live long enough to catch Covid and die from it.

Your facetiousness is wearing thin.
If people put as much effort into understanding their circumstances as they do their posts here we wouldn't have a problem.

Zebra3 · 08-10-2020 11:33AM

Gruffalux wrote: »

You make a good point. Only 0.38% mortality rate on what could be said to be a reasonably accurate case count before things started to get out from under them again.
In Manaus there was no lockdown and so 44 - 66% of people got it - from blood tests they say that percentage. So let us go half ways and say 55% would have got it with no restrictions whatsoever. That would be 2,750,000 in Ireland. At 0.38% mortality rate, that is only 10,450 dead in wave 1! Hardly any!! Most of them oul lads and wans. By Jove, he's got it!!

And Brazil, with all its' poverty and obesity levels would be the perfect place to make a comparison with Ireland.

polesheep · 08-10-2020 11:34AM

GooglePlus wrote: »

What are you talking about, why wouldn't I be allowed do my job?

You are, other people are not and you are in favour of ensuring that they cannot work. So why should you be paid while they are not? Aren't we all in this together?

ThunbergsAreGo · 08-10-2020 11:35AM

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious they are looking at hospital and ICU capacity.
If \ when that is exceeded, start adding bunches of those in the last 2 months who were treated and recovered in hospital to the death % - cos the capacity won't be there to treat them.

What are the numbers for this?

Paddygreen · 08-10-2020 11:37AM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I think for everyone sake a proper lockdown should be applied now,
We need the country to be back open for Christmas not because of Santa or baby Jesus or any of that nonsense but for the money that will be spent and the economy ,

Look we all see a lockdown coming so we may as well get it out of the way now and let everyone back out and about to spend at Christmas time ,

Christmas isn’t sustainable, very bad for Mother Eamon, and the planet. Hopefully people will have no money to spend this year as they will be mostly unemployed, just the bare essentials.

shocksy · 08-10-2020 11:38AM

CBear1993 wrote: »

50 deaths in the last 2 months out of circa 13000 cases in Ireland.

0.38% - that’s what you’re looking at.

Close this forum down to f*ck and get back people back bickering about other normal stuff again. There will always be doomsday forecasters on here, sure they live for it. I bet they’ve both TVs on in the house with 2 different news channels.

Their heads are all melted. This country has gone cuckoo. Yes other parts of Europe are in lockdown; but majority are all getting on with life, it isn’t top of the headlines everyday. The set of the grim voice on RTE every evening “102938483930399 cases today in Ireland” piss away off

I think the majority of this thread would much prefer if you just pissed off.

polesheep · 08-10-2020 11:38AM

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think you've double applied a %... when I crunch the numbers it comes out at:

It means 17 out of every 100 people under 65 who died from Covid had no co-morbidities.

It means 4 out of every 100 people who died, were under 65 with no-cormorbidities.

I'm afraid the article didn't break down the stats to that level re: 60-65.

Nope, it doesn't. Let's break down your quote.
20% of US covid deaths were under 65s. Means 20 out of 100 were under 65.
Of those 17% had no comorbidity. Means 17% of the 20 had no co-morbidity.

Lord Spence · 08-10-2020 11:40AM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I think for everyone sake a proper lockdown should be applied now,
We need the country to be back open for Christmas not because of Santa or baby Jesus or any of that nonsense but for the money that will be spent and the economy ,

Look we all see a lockdown coming so we may as well get it out of the way now and let everyone back out and about to spend at Christmas time ,

Why? the more time we don't go into lockdown the more time were not in lockdown and the economy can keep ticking along , as I see it the uk are starting to come under pressure from various qualified professionals all saying that lockdowns dont work and are not the answer and will cause more long term damage then good, If the Uk stop doing lockdowns then our copycat government will stop also.

Also another thing, we need to stop our children wearing masks all day in school, its not healthy in any way shape or form, our young are healthy and putting a bacteria infected cloth over their face all day is nothing short of child abuse, this needs to stop

polesheep · 08-10-2020 11:41AM

bb1234567 wrote: »

It is high, that means approx 7500 people with no health conditions under 65 have died of covid in the US. That is a lot but luckily this figure doesnt look to be repeated anywhere in Europe, probably down to the American obesity rate

But not accurate. That's the point.

Seamai · 08-10-2020 11:44AM

There seems to be a school of thought developing over the last week or so that we can have very tight restrictions or complete lockdown over the next two months, a window of relative normality for a few weeks around Christmas and then invariably back into lockdown in the first few days of January again. I could see some people partying like it was the last days of the Roman Empire throwing all caution to the wind knowing what was coming down the line and possibly endangering the lives of many more vulnerable members of society in the process. Anyone else a bit uneasy with this scenario?

polesheep · 08-10-2020 11:44AM

caveat emptor wrote: »

Your facetiousness is wearing thin.
If people put as much effort into understanding their circumstances as they do their posts here we wouldn't have a problem.

I could say the same about the fake and massaged stats regularly posted.

polesheep · 08-10-2020 11:45AM

Seamai wrote: »

There seems to be a school of thought developing over the last week or so that we can have very tight restrictions or complete lockdown over the next two months, a window of relative normality for a few weeks around Christmas and then invariably back into lockdown in the first few days of January again. I could see some people partying like it was the last days of the Roman Empire throwing all caution to the wind knowing what was coming down the line and possibly endangering the lives of many more vulnerable members of society in the process. Anyone else a bit uneasy with this scenario?

It's a crazy idea, but then so is lockdown.

completedit · 08-10-2020 11:46AM

When I originally heard 'circuit breaker', I thought it was a plan to lax the restrictions for a week or so to give people a bit of breathing room so as to boost morale (hopefully) ensuring greater compliance afterwards. The idea that people having experience a bit of normality would find it a bit easier to comply if they didn't feel the situation was endless. The metaphor was completely lost on me.

Paddygreen · 08-10-2020 11:47AM

Seamai wrote: »

There seems to be a school of thought developing over the last week or so that we can have very tight restrictions or complete lockdown over the next two months, a window of relative normality for a few weeks around Christmas and then invariably back into lockdown in the first few days of January again. I could see some people partying like it was the last days of the Roman Empire throwing all caution to the wind knowing what was coming down the line and possibly endangering the lives of many more vulnerable members of society in the process. Anyone else a bit uneasy with this scenario?

Just lock the plebs down for longer in January February and March after the temporary release. Simple as that, people need to toe the line and know their place.

Lord Spence · 08-10-2020 11:48AM

Seamai wrote: »

There seems to be a school of thought developing over the last week or so that we can have very tight restrictions or complete lockdown over the next two months, a window of relative normality for a few weeks around Christmas and then invariably back into lockdown in the first few days of January again. I could see some people partying like it was the last days of the Roman Empire throwing all caution to the wind knowing what was coming down the line and possibly endangering the lives of many more vulnerable members of society in the process. Anyone else a bit uneasy with this scenario?

Im a bit uneasy that anyone now thinks locking down for any period is a good idea, their simply is no evidence that it works, take a look at the uk's current local lockdowns their not working cases are still rising why?

SeaBreezes · 08-10-2020 11:49AM

landofthetree wrote: »

Government revenue falls.

Savage austerity.

Ban on recruitment of Doctors and Nurses.

More people die than usual from lack of proper healthcare.

Let's not kid ourselves that lockdown will not cost lives elsewhere. Of course the optics are much better that their deaths won't be announced every day which is all that matters in this kip of a country.

540.Health Care workers dead in UK.
Sweden doesnt look so hot heading into winter too.
150,000 delayed surgeries, 100 docs quit, 100s of HC workers quit, 4,700 hc workers injured due to covid.

https://twitter.com/saveswedencov19/status/1314152498463006720?s=20

Sweet.Science · 08-10-2020 11:49AM

TexasTornado wrote: »

There will be no safe widely available vaccine until next summer at the earliest.

Why do people keep saying this ? Its clearly not true

Looney1 · 08-10-2020 11:49AM

I'm hearing that schools may be given an extra week off for midterm and a circuit breaker 3 week lockdown around then.

Paddygreen · 08-10-2020 11:50AM

completedit wrote: »

When I originally heard 'circuit breaker'; I thought it was a plan to lax the restrictions for a week or so to give people a bit of breathing room and to boost morale so as to ensure greater compliance. The metaphor was completely lost on me.

I thought it was something to do with my meter box. It is catchy though, I love the way our leaders and experts started repeating it like toddlers with a new word after they heard Boris Johnson say it.

Eod100 · 08-10-2020 11:52AM

Seamai wrote: »

There seems to be a school of thought developing over the last week or so that we can have very tight restrictions or complete lockdown over the next two months, a window of relative normality for a few weeks around Christmas and then invariably back into lockdown in the first few days of January again. I could see some people partying like it was the last days of the Roman Empire throwing all caution to the wind knowing what was coming down the line and possibly endangering the lives of many more vulnerable members of society in the process. Anyone else a bit uneasy with this scenario?

NPHET expect adherence to drip over Christmas. They're thinking is whether thsts 50 cases or 500 cases entering Christmas makes a huge difference with exponential growth

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

Comments