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

eagle eye · 11-10-2020 03:46PM

ACitizenErased wrote:

I think people have a moral obligation to protect their community tbh and taking a vaccine which has been approved by the European Medicines Agency and HPRA is part of that, maybe thats just me

Ever hear if people making up their own minds about things. I'm talking normal, smart people with a bit if cop on who read up on things and make sensible safe decisions for themselves and their family's health.
The previous poster is right that this is far too fast. We don't know enough about this virus yet to have a vaccine. We don't know enough about any vaccine that hasn't had at least 12' months of human trials.
We have learned not to trust government's with our health during this pandemic.

speckle · 11-10-2020 03:51PM

Deshawn wrote: »

I could sit down and read it but I most likely wouldn't understand it. It's also coming from the pharmaceutical industry rather than an independent source.
I'm not in an at risk category so even if I changed my mind I would put myself at the back of the queue and let those who are at risk and those who are keen to be vaccinated first.

I have some health issues that do interfere with my daily life and would be concerned that a vaccine side effectsmight compound these problems.
Peripheral neuropathy , arthritis.

I can't take that risk

I feel for you. The general information is becoming more plain english like on websites like the CDC, ECDC, WHO and HSE, unlike in past years.
But for people with auto immune diseases the answers can be more complex. Hence discuss with your specialist, disease advocacy group, read research papers or even an immunologist.

I have been asking on the vaccine thread, will it be tested on people with autoimmune illnesses, especially if the will be in the high risk groups to receive it first but have not got an answer yet.

There are some papers and medical advice online from reputable sources regarding other vaccines and R.A. and what vaccines are ok and which ones should be avoided.

Polar101 · 11-10-2020 03:53PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Ever hear if people making up their own minds about things. I'm talking normal, smart people with a bit if cop on who read up on things and make sensible safe decisions for themselves and their family's health.
The previous poster is right that this is far too fast. We don't know enough about this virus yet to have a vaccine. We don't know enough about any vaccine that hasn't had at least 12' months of human trials.
We have learned not to trust government's with our health during this pandemic.

"We" do know quite a bit about vaccines, that's why they are running advanced trials on them as we speak. There already are vaccines, so we do know enough about the virus too. Whether you like it or not, it seems quite likely there will be a vaccine available in the near future.

I'd rather trust experts than normal people with a bit of cop on myself, but of course not everyone wants to do that.

Nonoperational · 11-10-2020 03:55PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your arguing about data, where's your data I've presented it numerous times referencing the UK data. You say it's there show it to me or stick a sock in it as it's become quite tedious you not backing up any statement you've made. Come on man show me this Irish data.

What are you talking about the 'Irish data'? You've fundamentally misinterpreted and misunderstood the maths behind screening tests, screening test performance and what constitutes a false positive. It doesn't matter if its Ireland or Timbuktu.

As to the actual test performance in Ireland and the sensitivity and specificity that's different, I don't know the exact figures, I'm not arguing with you about that. I'm just talking about the maths behind the stats and how you have presented them incorrectly numerous times.

statesaver · 11-10-2020 03:57PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

At least they didn't hold a party to celebrate defeating Covid....https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53244688

That didn't age well :pac:

bennyl10 · 11-10-2020 04:05PM

Any word on swabs today?

eagle eye · 11-10-2020 04:05PM

Polar101 wrote:

"We" do know quite a bit about vaccines, that's why they are running advanced trials on them as we speak. There already are vaccines, so we do know enough about the virus too. Whether you like it or not, it seems quite likely there will be a vaccine available in the near future.

Tell me about the long term affects if this virus then.

Polar101 wrote:

I'd rather trust experts than normal people with a bit of cop on myself, but of course not everyone wants to do that.

There'll be loads who'll take it and smart people can hold off and see if there's a reaction to it before deciding to take it themselves.

Deshawn · 11-10-2020 04:06PM

speckle wrote: »

I feel for you. The general information is becoming more plain english like on websites like the CDC, ECDC, WHO and HSE, unlike in past years.
But for people with auto immune diseases the answers can be more complex. Hence discuss with your specialist, disease advocacy group, read research papers or even an immunologist.

I have been asking on the vaccine thread, will it be tested on people with autoimmune illnesses, especially if the will be in the high risk groups to receive it first but have not got an answer yet.

There are some papers and medical advice online from reputable sources regarding other vaccines and R.A. and what vaccines are ok and which ones should be avoided.

Thanks for reading and understanding my thoughts or why I have them.

The other poster that just threw out the "anti vaxer" reply annoyed me. Some people only consider their own situation. Just human nature I suppose

Always_Running · 11-10-2020 04:06PM

bennyl10 wrote: »

Any word on swabs today?

None on a Sunday. Tomorrow gives a 48 hour swab and testing count.

drunkmonkey · 11-10-2020 04:07PM

Nonoperational wrote: »

What are you talking about the 'Irish data'? You've fundamentally misinterpreted and misunderstood the maths behind screening tests, screening test performance and what constitutes a false positive. It doesn't matter if its Ireland or Timbuktu.

Again back with no data, give it a rest you've presented nothing while claiming there's a loads of data there if I was bothered to look it up. Yet I have looked it up and presented it but all the Scientist and Professors are wrong that I reference but you haven't referenced anyone yet your correct without question. I have no idea what on earth your trying to prove until you back up it up with something.

Plumbthedepths · 11-10-2020 04:07PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Ever hear if people making up their own minds about things. I'm talking normal, smart people with a bit if cop on who read up on things and make sensible safe decisions for themselves and their family's health.
The previous poster is right that this is far too fast. We don't know enough about this virus yet to have a vaccine. We don't know enough about any vaccine that hasn't had at least 12' months of human trials.
We have learned not to trust government's with our health during this pandemic.

I find your post strange. You have already said you will keep your kids at home until a vaccine is available. Now you have an issue with a vaccine when it becomes available. No pleasing some people.

Gods Gift · 11-10-2020 04:09PM

bennyl10 wrote: »

Any word on swabs today?

Virus relaxes and puts its 48 feet up on a Sunday.

Nonoperational · 11-10-2020 04:09PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your first one is just a simple math question, it gives a negative result depending on what figures you use. If we were doing our current 19,000 tests a day and only getting 152 positives the pubs will be open.

As for your second question it's relevant now as most people didn't realize the issue until recently. The CCO admits it's a flaw here in the testing, this is a fact.

Listen again to the CCO, as your second question is saying that's a lie when it's clearly not.

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

I ignored them the first time as your on a witch hunt, oh look if we use these numbers I can show he comes up with a minus figure for cases to prove something that isn't happening. I haven't said covid is a hoax but I do rightly question the constant daily cases numbers that are restricting people lives in so many ways when they include people who are not sick and can not spread the virus.

I want to know one simple question that no poster can answer and that's how many cases are actually sick with symptoms and contagious out of the daily figures. I think it's called a True positive, has symptoms and tests positive.

Again you are completely wrong. A true positive is simply a test indicated as positive that correctly identifies Viral genetic material as being present. It has nothing to do with symptoms at all. It's a widely used term and concept when studying screening test performance.

Amazing.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Again back with no data, give it a rest you've presented nothing while claiming there's a loads of data there if I was bothered to look it up. Yet I have looked it up and presented it but all the Scientist and Professors are wrong that I reference but you haven't referenced anyone yet your correct without question. I have no idea what on earth your trying to prove until you back up it up with something.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4389712/

Start here:

Sensitivity is the test's ability to correctly designate a subject with the disease as positive; it is the conditional probability (Pr{T+|D+})7, denoted by the symbol S that a subject who has the disease, D+, tests positive, T+. A highly sensitive test means that there are few false negative results; few actual cases are missed. Ceteris paribus, tests with high sensitivity have potential value for screening, because they rarely miss subjects with the disease (Goetzinger & Odibo, 2011).

Specificity is the test's ability to correctly designate a subject without the disease as negative; it is the conditional probability (Pr{T−|D−}), denoted by the symbol Sp that a subject who does not have the disease, D−, tests negative, T−. A highly specific test means that there are few false positive results. Therefore, high specificity tests perform well for diagnosis because of low false positive errors. Tests with low specificity have the disadvantage that (among other things) many subjects without the disease will screen positive and potentially receive unnecessary (and possibly invasive, risky or expensive) follow-up diagnostic or therapeutic procedures.

Then look up the sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available tests. Then see if it adds up to how you presented it.

s1ippy · 11-10-2020 04:10PM

bennyl10 wrote: »

Any word on swabs today?

Not on a Sunday.

drunkmonkey · 11-10-2020 04:13PM

OscarMIlde wrote: »

We know that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people with sars-cov-2 are contagious. That is one of the major reasons this is such a difficult disease to suppress. You're deliberately underplaying the issue by claiming only people sick with symptoms are true positives. Anyone with a positive PCR result is a true positive, the test copies the viral genetic material until it reaches a level where it can be detected. It cannot amplify anything if the viral RNA is not present.

Your missing the point entirely, a positive result just means they have picked up the virus sometime in the last 80 days, it does not mean the person is contagious right at this moment it could have been weeks ago.
Asymptomatic don't seem to be a major source of spread, have you information to say they are. The main people to avoid are the people showing any symptoms from what I can see.

stephenjmcd · 11-10-2020 04:17PM

Deshawn wrote: »

I could sit down and read it but I most likely wouldn't understand it. It's also coming from the pharmaceutical industry rather than an independent source.
I'm not in an at risk category so even if I changed my mind I would put myself at the back of the queue and let those who are at risk and those who are keen to be vaccinated first.

I have some health issues that do interfere with my daily life and would be concerned that a vaccine side effectsmight compound these problems.
Peripheral neuropathy , arthritis.

I can't take that risk

I will just say the EMA isn't part of the industry, if they don't like what they see it won't be approved, that's quite straightforward.

Your own decsion but I feel like you've not looked into this and its more out of fear. There are more papers emerging on the data so far which are more straightforward to read.

I myself won't be front of the queue as I've no underlying issues but when my turn comes no issue getting it.

xhomelezz · 11-10-2020 04:18PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your missing the point entirely, a positive result just means they have picked up the virus sometime in the last 80 days, it does not mean the person is contagious right at this moment it could have been weeks ago.
Asymptomatic don't seem to be a major source of spread, have you information to say they are. The main people to avoid are the people showing any symptoms from what I can see.

I strongly believe this was proven as bs so many times already.

pauly58 · 11-10-2020 04:19PM

I've just read this : https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/we-can-make-level-3-work-taoiseach-insists-health-service-has-the-ability-to-cope-with-covid-19-39610246.html

Is the man deluded or simply doesn't know whats going on ? I was thinking he was referring to beds & in particular, ICU beds. Now I could well be doing the man a wrong & he simply was referring to stuff like fire extinguishers & staplers.

OscarMIlde · 11-10-2020 04:22PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your missing the point entirely, a positive result just means they have picked up the virus sometime in the last 80 days, it does not mean the person is contagious right at this moment it could have been weeks ago.
Asymptomatic don't seem to be a major source of spread, have you information to say they are. The main people to avoid are the people showing any symptoms from what I can see.

If that is the case why are numbers rising now week on week? Why is the test positivity rate increasing week on week also? Why are increased levels of covid 19 RNA being detected in Dublin sewage at the same time we have rising rates of positive cases in the Dublin area?

If these are comprised of mainly old infections why weren't these people picked up before during testing? The bulk of our testing is conducted on symptomatic people OR close contacts of confirmed positives. It stands to reason that these are newly infected people.

drunkmonkey · 11-10-2020 04:25PM

Nonoperational wrote: »

Again you are completely wrong. A true positive is simply a test indicated as positive that correctly identifies Viral genetic material as being present. It has nothing to do with symptoms at all. It's a widely used term and concept when studying screening test performance.

Amazing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4389712/

Start here:

Sensitivity is the test's ability to correctly designate a subject with the disease as positive; it is the conditional probability (Pr{T+|D+})7, denoted by the symbol S that a subject who has the disease, D+, tests positive, T+. A highly sensitive test means that there are few false negative results; few actual cases are missed. Ceteris paribus, tests with high sensitivity have potential value for screening, because they rarely miss subjects with the disease (Goetzinger & Odibo, 2011).

Specificity is the test's ability to correctly designate a subject without the disease as negative; it is the conditional probability (Pr{T−|D−}), denoted by the symbol Sp that a subject who does not have the disease, D−, tests negative, T−. A highly specific test means that there are few false positive results. Therefore, high specificity tests perform well for diagnosis because of low false positive errors. Tests with low specificity have the disadvantage that (among other things) many subjects without the disease will screen positive and potentially receive unnecessary (and possibly invasive, risky or expensive) follow-up diagnostic or therapeutic procedures.

I said I think, I didn't say I'm 100% sure. Either way a person with symptoms and a positive result is the best confirmation of an active virus. What is that called?
Again we do not know when any of the daily case numbers being reported had the virus and if they are currently contagious.
If you really want to dispute something show me where I am wrong with those facts about the current state of testing.

I'm not sure why your posting all that about testing sensitivity etc, I'll make it easy for you what's the Irish false positive rate and how did you get that figure. We were taking about PCR rates in the UK versus Ireland. It's a simple enough question and I've provided the UK figures. If you want to prove me wrong show me the Irish figures. I know you can't do that as there not available so you'll have to accept for now it's all just assumptions but mine is an educated one based on what I've read from the UK experience.

Necro · 11-10-2020 04:26PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your missing the point entirely, a positive result just means they have picked up the virus sometime in the last 80 days, it does not mean the person is contagious right at this moment it could have been weeks ago.
Asymptomatic don't seem to be a major source of spread, have you information to say they are. The main people to avoid are the people showing any symptoms from what I can see.

Ok I see what you're sort of saying here but...

I had the antibody test for Covid back in June and got a negative result in August.

Tested positive on Thursday after showing symptoms. So definitely in my case anyways, I was infected sometime in the past week.

drunkmonkey · 11-10-2020 04:27PM

xhomelezz wrote: »

I strongly believe this was proven as bs so many times already.

Quite the opposite. Were dealing with limited studies but they don't seem to be responsible.

quartz1 · 11-10-2020 04:29PM

Some deaths arising sadly from the Portlaoise Nursing Home , may the poor souls Rest in Peace .

xhomelezz · 11-10-2020 04:32PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Quite the opposite. Were dealing with limited studies but they don't seem to be responsible.

Ok, just Google it and avoid some iffy pages.

hmmm · 11-10-2020 04:33PM

Deshawn wrote: »

Thanks for reading and understanding my thoughts or why I have them.

The other poster that just threw out the "anti vaxer" reply annoyed me. Some people only consider their own situation. Just human nature I suppose

If people aren't going to take vaccines for whatever reason - happy to let others be the guinea pigs, no interest, anti-vax etc., then the rest of society will need to be protected from the consequences of that choice. It's important that the "vulnerable" who have had such a difficult time trying to keep themselves safe don't have to continue restricting themselves because of the selfishness of others.

At that point we need to flip the rules on cocooning/restrictions etc. The people who haven't taken a vaccine will need to be kept out of places where they may spread the disease, e.g. pubs, restaurants, schools, workplaces, international travel. They may be happy to take their chances with this virus, but the rest of the population shouldn't have to continue to restrict themselves as a consequence. Over time we will eventually achieve herd immunity thanks to a combination of vaccines and natural infections at which time society can re-open fully.

growleaves · 11-10-2020 04:33PM

Necro wrote: »

Ok I see what you're sort of saying here but...

I had the antibody test for Covid back in June and got a negative result in August.

Tested positive on Thursday after showing symptoms. So definitely in my case anyways, I was infected sometime in the past week.

Get well soon

niallo27 · 11-10-2020 04:34PM

growleaves wrote: »

Get well soon

I don't think the poster is sick in any way thank god.

drunkmonkey · 11-10-2020 04:35PM

Necro wrote: »

Ok I see what you're sort of saying here but...

I had the antibody test for Covid back in June and got a negative result in August.

Tested positive on Thursday after showing symptoms. So definitely in my case anyways, I was infected sometime in the past week.

That's a Stones sorry to hear hopefully you'll bounce out of it. Any idea how you got it?

Your exactly what I'm talking about though your 100% a positive active case. I called it a True positive I'm not sure or the right phrase.
When we go blanket testing were picking up possibly old cases might be only two weeks old but could be two months. That's my issue, your gone from testing active cases to random sampling for RNA and including them as positives the exact same way that your case has been recorded when there two different beasts.

Necro · 11-10-2020 04:35PM

niallo27 wrote: »

I don't think the poster is sick in any way thank god.

Nah, even the heaviness in my chest has pretty much abated. Slept for about 14 hours last night though

drunkmonkey · 11-10-2020 04:37PM

xhomelezz wrote: »

Ok, just Google it and avoid some iffy pages.

Could you even be bothered for every study that says one thing there's another to say the polar opposite.

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

Comments