Covid 19 Part XXVI- 50,993 ROI (1,852 deaths) 28,040 NI (621 deaths) (19/10) Read OP

martingriff · 16-10-2020 04:58PM

We can't afford a 6 weeks Level 5. Not sure what we can afford but I know it will be minimum 2 at some point. However if this is the case the government have to do 2 things.

1. Increase the PUP to what it is for the duration of the Level 5 along but with the levels decreasing depending on how much you earn

2. Do not stop appointments for people who are under investigation for serious ilnesses such as cancers. This should be done by getting the plan with the private hospitals and using them for these appointments

3. Also treatments need to continue, of course under strict rules and in the private hospitals

rob316 · 16-10-2020 04:59PM

Boggles wrote: »

I'd be fairly disappointed but not surprised if there wasn't a plan ready to go.

That may have been a valid excuse a fortnight ago but it's not like the deterioration of circumstances since then has been a secret.

Also I don't think I need to point that it's not loons on the internet "shouting for lockdown".

It's emergency public health telling us that needs to happen in order for them to try and keep the cabinets core priorities functioning.

We were told 2 Sundays ago about an escalation of a very serious situation, well it has escalated and is even more serious now.

Time to stop fumbling and fúcking around the place, they have had the best of 2 weeks of that, time to put in place an actual plan that will work.

No more excuses.

Jesus your absolutely desperate for a lockdown. Your so called realism in your posts is just misery and negativity.

Nermal · 16-10-2020 05:00PM

Wolf359f wrote: »

62% have symptoms at the time of testing.
16% don't have and the remainder unknown according to hpsp reports.
Where are you getting the 80%?

We are not testing randomly.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/more-than-80-positive-cases-in-covid-study-had-no-core-symptoms

frank8211 · 16-10-2020 05:02PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Data also suggests it’s not spreading in retail, restaurants, pubs and hair salons and yet here we are.
All this lockdown will do is highlight that it is the schools that are major sources

Yes. I suppose the sooner the smoke lifts and the schools are in clear sight, the better, Up to now, they've been hidden behind the other alleged culprits like pubs

martingriff · 16-10-2020 05:02PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Indeed. Why would they have a plan for level 5? It was only just recently recommended by the nphet recently. I presume they went through potential plans then before deciding on level 3. I hope they didn't just ignore that recommendation without looking at what level would require. Has the economic outlook changed that much?

Of course they have to have a plan for Level 5 why else then have a Level 5. Plan for the worst hope for the best. There should have been a detailed plan of what economic stimulus would be needed for each step and if not then that is bad planning. Basically you are saying Level 5 was but there as a threat but not to be used which is a bad threat

Boggles · 16-10-2020 05:03PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Given the budget was key concern in the last week I honestly wouldn't expect them to have any sort of plan done up, nothing to the extent that plans for hundreds of thousands back onto welfare overnight.

Nah, not buying that. Any department should be able to walk and chew gum, especially when something telegraphed.

Anyway....

Department of Finance draw up the budget, we even have 2 ministers now.

Department of Social Protection handle unemployment.

Cop out if they echo that TBH.

This is 100% on the government now and the layer of fat they squeezed in between themselves and NPHET.

Heavy is the crown.

Time for coherence and plan, no more wait and see bs.

Tracing collapsed 2 weeks ago, positivity rate now at 7%.

They have lost control of it.

speckle · 16-10-2020 05:03PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah that’s what I can’t get my head around. It’s very strange

Because they don't think we are grown adults able to judge risks. And wont accept the fact that the vaste majority of kids and teachers are low risk. I would rather high risk teachers work from home... web class or marking exams etc. Other low risk teachers carry on as normal.And high risk kids familys bubble at home learning and teacher assistants etc come to them or total separate part of school.
The parents that have to stay home work from home and their collegues carry the can fir a bit.
But to do this we need strong communication on why and lists of who exactly are high risk. Rapid testing and proper contact tracing and targeted closures.

Amirani · 16-10-2020 05:04PM

Nermal wrote: »

We are not testing randomly.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/more-than-80-positive-cases-in-covid-study-had-no-core-symptoms

No symptoms "on the day they took the test" does not mean all of those people were asymptomatic throughout their infection.

Clinical evidence suggests quite different figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003346

caveat emptor · 16-10-2020 05:05PM

Update from WHO live.

Boggles · 16-10-2020 05:05PM

rob316 wrote: »

Jesus your absolutely desperate for a lockdown. Your so called realism in your posts is just misery and negativity.

You think we will just wash our hands faster and that will fix our collapsed tracking network and make the virus go away?

Again I see you don't refute any actual point I made and just went straight for a personal pop.

Good for you.

It's remedial and childish and above all else boring, but if makes you happy, work away.

Polar101 · 16-10-2020 05:06PM

caveat emptor wrote: »

Prof Nolan fact checking Dr Jack Lambert. Fair play to him calling bullsh!t. The quackos will pick this up and run with it to justify getting back to their sense of normality. No fvcks given if hospitals overrun, just keep repeating mental health and live with the virus.

Interesting. Dr Lambert had 10 points which seemed sensible enough - if that is going to be used as "proof that lockdowns aren't needed", then there's something seriously wrong with the public discourse.

Also I'm thinking he's a few months late with this stuff.

woohoo!!! · 16-10-2020 05:07PM

rob316 wrote: »

Jesus your absolutely desperate for a lockdown. Your so called realism in your posts is just misery and negativity.

A lockdown is far from what anyone wants. It's a blunt method to try and get an handle of a situation that is spiralling out of control.

The best method of avoiding the need for such future blunt methods is a combination of effective test and trace, and social buy in to protect oneself and loved ones from covid.

Christy42 · 16-10-2020 05:08PM

martingriff wrote: »

Of course they have to have a plan for Level 5 why else then have a Level 5. Plan for the worst hope for the best. There should have been a detailed plan of what economic stimulus would be needed for each step and if not then that is bad planning. Basically you are saying Level 5 was but there as a threat but not to be used which is a bad threat

Exactly they should have a plan. So they should be meeting ASAP (I understand they may have other things on first) and deciding on the near future restrictions one way or another.

landofthetree · 16-10-2020 05:09PM

The epidemic is growing between 4% and 7% per day..'

Sir Patrick Vallance says the current lockdown measures are working to reduce the rate of transmission but warns "more work is needed" to get the R number 'at one or below'.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1317128866486456322

Brits not panicked like us.

polesheep · 16-10-2020 05:11PM

mohawk wrote: »

You know what most of us would cope with that better because it would give us certainty in our lives.

For some it would be the certainty of bankruptcy or losing their home.

Amirani · 16-10-2020 05:12PM

Polar101 wrote: »

Interesting. Dr Lambert had 10 points which seemed sensible enough - if that is going to be used as "proof that lockdowns aren't needed", then there's something seriously wrong with the public discourse.

Also I'm thinking he's a few months late with this stuff.

Jack Lambert badly used numbers in his article, without even getting into the health matters.

Comparing daily values in April against weekly values now is pretty poor analysis.

I don't think numbers are his strong point, he's got them quite wrong before. He had to later admit to being wrong on these numbers:

https://twitter.com/colettebrowne/status/1252352108101169152?lang=en

rob316 · 16-10-2020 05:12PM

Boggles wrote: »

You think we will just wash our hands faster and that will fix our collapsed tracking network and make the virus go away?

Again I see you don't refute any actual point I made and just went straight for a personal pop.

Good for you.

It's remedial and childish and above all else boring, but if makes you happy, work away.

The ramifications of a level 5 lockdown for 6-8 weeks go beyond the state of the health service. The government is bad for not following the recommendations of NPHET 2 weeks ago is the narrative your pushing, when its was far from a simple decision then and still is now. They are still extremely reluctant to push the nuclear button.

brighterspark · 16-10-2020 05:12PM

Maybe the future for our young people is worth considering - how many will lose out on their education - online is ok for a week or so but is no substitute for a classroom. All my colleagues in school have commented on how flat and cheerless the students have been in class and school since we returned - the joy has been leached from them. We had some 'fun' activities today in school and it was the first time I saw any animation on their faces (behind masks) - to take away from them again the support they gain from each other would be cruel and damaging.

I note posters describe the return of school as an 'experiment' but what is potentially depriving our young people of an education, and all the social networks and welfare supports that come with it for months on end - but an even greater experiment?

hmmm · 16-10-2020 05:14PM

Polar101 wrote: »

Interesting. Dr Lambert had 10 points which seemed sensible enough - if that is going to be used as "proof that lockdowns aren't needed", then there's something seriously wrong with the public discourse.

Yeah strange I thought Dr Lambert's article was pretty innocuous. There was better stuff to jump on, like that bull**** full page ad in the Irish Times yesterday.

Still I don't want to discourage Prof Nolan from Twitter, he has consistently been one of the best and most effective communicators with his Twitter threads.

Boggles · 16-10-2020 05:14PM

rob316 wrote: »

The ramifications of a level 5 lockdown for 6-8 weeks go beyond the state of the health service. The government is bad for not following the recommendations of NPHET 2 weeks ago is the narrative your pushing, when its was far from a simple decision then and still is now. They are still extremely reluctant to push the nuclear button.

The ramifications began when they published their absolute aspirational nonsense 'living with covid' plan.

Didn't just happen 2 weeks ago.

GeorgeBailey · 16-10-2020 05:15PM

is_that_so wrote: »

HSE and data say they are not.

When they're not testing contacts of confirmed cases then the data will indeed say all is fine. My wife is a teacher. A student in the class tested positive. Nobody else sent for testing. The pod were told to stay home with everyone else to carry on as normal.

caveat emptor · 16-10-2020 05:16PM

Randomised trial show that these drugs don't decrease mortality. All propertied as effective treatments to so degree. No effect shown.

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1316877188596002817?s=20

copeyhagen · 16-10-2020 05:17PM

here we go again.

nphet recommend level 5 for 6 weeks.
Govt will go to level 5 for 3 weeks.
people will rejoice that its only a 3 week lockdown and not 6..

"thank God, we got away lightly"

so fooking obvious

Amirani · 16-10-2020 05:17PM

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

When they're not testing contacts of confirmed cases then the data will indeed say all is fine. My wife is a teacher. A student in the class tested positive. Nobody else sent for testing. The pod were told to stay home with everyone else to carry on as normal.

There's a 2% positivity rate from school testing, that's significantly below the national average.

That would likely be lower if the testing criteria was expanded to include all contacts rather than just symptomatic contacts.

rob316 · 16-10-2020 05:18PM

Boggles wrote: »

The ramifications began when they published their absolute aspirational nonsense 'living with covid' plan.

Didn't just happen 2 weeks ago.

Endorsed by NPHET I might add.

rob316 · 16-10-2020 05:19PM

copeyhagen wrote: »

here we go again.

nphet recommend level 5 for 6 weeks.
Govt will go to level 5 for 3 weeks.
people will rejoice that its only a 3 week lockdown and not 6..

"thank God, we got away lightly"

so fooking obvious

There is nothing to rejoice about level 5

Kh1993 · 16-10-2020 05:19PM

caveat emptor wrote: »

Prof Nolan fact checking Dr Jack Lambert. Fair play to him calling bullsh!t. The quackos will pick this up and run with it to justify getting back to their sense of normality. No fvcks given if hospitals overrun, just keep repeating mental health and live with the virus.

https://twitter.com/President_MU/status/1317113211854913537?s=20

https://twitter.com/President_MU/status/1317114246350647299?s=20

Whatever about the need to be calling people out over social media (bit childish), surely the main thing to take from that is Nolan admitting we are testing 3 times more and finding half of the infections.

And yet still we need a lockdown. Something gone wrong massively here

Mwengwe · 16-10-2020 05:20PM

caveat emptor wrote: »

Update from WHO live.

surprisingly boring, this

froog · 16-10-2020 05:20PM

still haven't heard even an attempt at a alternative plan today from the let it rip merchants.

GeorgeBailey · 16-10-2020 05:23PM

Amirani wrote: »

There's a 2% positivity rate from school testing, that's significantly below the national average.

That would likely be lower if the testing criteria was expanded to include all contacts rather than just symptomatic contacts.

OR, there's a 2% positivity rate because most sent for testing just had colds because kids with covid are mostly asymptomatic. Meanwhile kids who have it are unknowingly passing it to other kids who are passing it to adults when they go home. Then if you don't test the close contacts of the rare confirmed cases then you can point at the low positivity rate and say the stats show kids aren't spreading it and keep the schools open.

When they were keeping pubs/restaurants open the story was that there was no evidence of spread from them. Then when they started closing them they said even though most cases are in the home it starts from places like pubs/restaurants.

Covid 19 Part XXVI- 50,993 ROI (1,852 deaths) 28,040 NI (621 deaths) (19/10) Read OP

Comments