Why is it so complicated to daily find out the ages of those who passed?

ShineOn7 · 20-10-2020 7:23pm #1

And if they had underlying symptoms etc

The HSPC site is like the old Revenue website where they purposely made it complicated for the average Joe to figure out

What ages were those who passed away today for example?

It's "somewhere" in here? https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/COVID-19_Daily_epidemiology_report_(NPHET)_20201019%20_Website.pdf

The ages should be given daily in the main Gov.ie daily press releases. We shouldn't have to jump into complicated PDFs like this where you've no idea where the info is unless you know the HSPC website inside out

L'prof · 20-10-2020 7:26pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

And if they had underlying symptoms etc

The HSPC site is like the old Revenue website where they purposely made it complicated for the average Joe to figure out

What ages were those who passed away today for example?

It's "somewhere" in here? https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/COVID-19_Daily_epidemiology_report_(NPHET)_20201019%20_Website.pdf

The ages should be given daily in the main Gov.ie daily press releases and we shouldn't have to jump into complicated PDFs like this where you've no idea where the info is unless you know the website HSPC inside out

Nothing should be given daily if you ask me. Weekly would suffice, even monthly. It’s just feeding into everybody’s anxieties

ShineOn7 · 20-10-2020 7:31pm

L'prof wrote: »

It’s just feeding into everybody’s anxieties

No, what feeds into people's anxieties is headlines like today with no ages given and no information on if they had underlying symptoms

DaSilva · 20-10-2020 7:36pm

Can't say for today, but from the last two reports (Page 11):
Change from midnight 14th to midnight 17th

65-74: 2
75-85: 4
85+: 5

Stewball · 20-10-2020 7:39pm

L'prof wrote: »

Nothing should be given daily if you ask me. Weekly would suffice, even monthly. It’s just feeding into everybody’s anxieties

Yeah, censorship is the way to go in case some people's feelings are hurt.

Whelo79 · 20-10-2020 7:42pm

Because they don't want us knowing that they are all 70+ and had underlying conditions. They want us afraid, they want us thinking that you, I, our brother, mother, sister, father could all drop dead tonorrow if we catch it tomorrow. Rule by fear.

Stewball · 20-10-2020 7:44pm

Whelo79 wrote: »

Because they don't want us knowing that they are all 70+ and had underlying conditions.

Is a life worth less if the person is 70+ and has underlying conditions?

daydorunrun · 20-10-2020 7:47pm

Whelo79 wrote: »

Because they don't want us knowing that they are all 70+ and had underlying conditions. They want us afraid, they want us thinking that you, I, our brother, mother, sister, father could all drop dead tonorrow if we catch it tomorrow. Rule by fear.

If I had of read the above not so long ago I’d have been thinking tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory etc etc, Now I’m not so sure! Information is definitely being treated and released strategically.

Whelo79 · 20-10-2020 7:54pm

Stewball wrote: »

Is a life worth less if the person is 70+ and has underlying conditions?

No it's not, but let's protect the vulnerable, safeguard them, and let the rest of us get back to normality. We can't go in and out of lockdown forever.

Let's flip your question, is a few hundred lives of those 70+ worth more than our economy, more than the lives of over 4 million citizens who are being turned upside down, movements restricted, many battling mental health issues etc etc etc?

Pete_Cavan · 20-10-2020 7:58pm

I'd love to know why it's so complicated to get the numbers right. The total cases has been rised down by 80 this month alone which is ridiculous. Surely after all these months and with all the resources put into it they would be able to get this right. Also to be denotifying deaths is nonsense, just wait until you have confirmation before putting a death down to Covid. This info is too important to be constantly revising published figures.

Jinglejangle69 · 20-10-2020 8:01pm

Whelo79 wrote: »

No it's not, but let's protect the vulnerable, safeguard them, and let the rest of us get back to normality. We can't go in and out of lockdown forever.

Let's flip your question, is a few hundred lives of those 70+ worth more than our economy, more than the lives of over 4 million citizens who are being turned upside down, movements restricted, many battling mental health issues etc etc etc?

Or flip it again, were the 60 flu deaths last year not as worthy as covid deaths to call a lockdown?

Those lives could have been saved.

20-10-2020 8:05pm

They asked Glynn about this already and he said he didn’t want to give out the information because it might send out the wrong message.

He also said median age of deaths was late 80s.

20-10-2020 8:06pm

Stewball wrote: »

Is a life worth less if the person is 70+ and has underlying conditions?

Yes of course.

Sardonicat · 20-10-2020 8:10pm

Whelo79 wrote: »

No it's not, but let's protect the vulnerable, safeguard them, and let the rest of us get back to normality. We can't go in and out of lockdown forever.

Let's flip your question, is a few hundred lives of those 70+ worth more than our economy, more than the lives of over 4 million citizens who are being turned upside down, movements restricted, many battling mental health issues etc etc etc?

I've repeatedly asked this question whenever I read 'protect the vulnerable ': what do you mean by that? And what are YOU doing to protect them?

ShineOn7 · 20-10-2020 8:14pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The total cases has been rised down by 80 this month alone which is ridiculous.

80 cases were de notified?

20-10-2020 8:15pm

Sardonicat wrote: »

I've repeatedly asked this question whenever I read 'protect the vulnerable ': what do you mean by that? And what are YOU doing to protect them?

Tell them to stay home.
Paying taxes so they have a pension and access to healthcare.

ShineOn7 · 20-10-2020 8:35pm

Stewball wrote: »

Yeah, censorship is the way to go in case some people's feelings are hurt.

I think they're well aware of how sociable and rebellious Irish people can be and they also know how much they've lost the public with all their missteps since April

So if they said, almost daily, "All who passed today were over 80" they know damn well the uproar there'd be

Sardonicat · 20-10-2020 9:45pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tell them to stay home.
Paying taxes so they have a pension and access to healthcare.

Ah OK. What about access to food? Medication? Hygiene? Exercise? You understand that those products icing those things for vulnerable groups have to be protected too? How do you propose that works?

Beasty · 20-10-2020 10:05pm

Would have thought it was quite straightforward. Providing an age and in particular adding underlying conditions could easily identify an individual. Would you really like to find out someone you are close to has died from the daily HPSC stats?

ShineOn7 · 20-10-2020 10:09pm

Beasty wrote: »

Providing an age and in particular adding underlying conditions could easily identify an individual.

Out of 5 million people? :rolleyes:

Whatever about them not providing underlying conditions, the ages should 100% be given to us without having to dig deep into the HSPC site

Beasty · 20-10-2020 10:18pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Out of 5 million people? :rolleyes:

Whatever about them not providing underlying conditions, the ages should 100% be given to us without having to dig deep into the HSPC site

How many in the country are, say, 98? You know your 98 year old grannie has been ill for a few days. You then read a 98 year old has died from Covid-19. You draw your own conclusions, which may or may not be correct. Regardless they are not going to provide any info which encourages anyone to put two and two together

Then what is the use of that info even if they provide it? More ammo for scaremongers?

Hego Damask · 20-10-2020 10:21pm

Whelo79 wrote: »

Because they don't want us knowing that they are all 70+ and had underlying conditions. They want us afraid, they want us thinking that you, I, our brother, mother, sister, father could all drop dead tonorrow if we catch it tomorrow. Rule by fear.

This 100%

Thierry12 · 20-10-2020 10:26pm

Joke alright

When someone under 35 dies again you can be sure as the sun will rise tomorrow it will be all over RTE

Thierry12 · 20-10-2020 10:27pm

daydorunrun wrote: »

If I had of read the above not so long ago I’d have been thinking tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory etc etc, Now I’m not so sure! Information is definitely being treated and released strategically.

Exactly

I would have thought the same

Eye opening times now

fits · 20-10-2020 10:38pm

Thierry12 wrote: »

Joke alright

When someone under 35 dies again you can be sure as the sun will rise tomorrow it will be all over RTE

No it won’t. Someone fitting that description has died of Covid in the last week. Why should they be sprawled over the media for people to question the cause of death.

fits · 20-10-2020 10:40pm

Also this obsession with the underlying conditions is crazy as if those deaths are somehow lesser.

I think what that’s really about is that people Want to think well, it won’t happen to me so it doesn’t count.

alias no.9 · 20-10-2020 10:49pm

Perhaps its to do with a resurgence in nursing homes. They ****ed up in March / April, have they put in adequate controls since then or were they too focused on €9 Pizzas?

13 deaths announced today, if they were in the last 24 hours, most were not in ICU based on the ICU admissions, discharges and running total in ICU. It suggests that they weren't suitable candidates for ICU.

ShineOn7 · 20-10-2020 11:43pm

alias no.9 wrote: »

if they were in the last 24 hours, most were not in ICU based on the ICU admissions, discharges and running total in ICU. It suggests that they weren't suitable candidates for ICU.

Interesting

Laura on Reddit Ireland has said she'll do monthly breakdowns of those who passed. The first one around November 1st

I think Spookwoman posts data on here with the ages somewhere in there too. But again, I find it's hard to decipher those charts

Graces7 · 21-10-2020 3:28am

Beasty wrote: »

Would have thought it was quite straightforward. Providing an age and in particular adding underlying conditions could easily identify an individual. Would you really like to find out someone you are close to has died from the daily HPSC stats?

Thank you for this; I posted something very similar in another thread.

Families need privacy and space to mourn their lost loved ones. Shocked that anyone even questions that.

Graces7 · 21-10-2020 3:35am

Sardonicat wrote: »

Ah OK. What about access to food? Medication? Hygiene? Exercise? You understand that those products icing those things for vulnerable groups have to be protected too? How do you propose that works?

Thank you

It can be done with help from shops and from the excellent community services that have been set up.

And the huge issue for most in isolation is just that; isolation. I am used to being alone as I have been in isolation due to immune issues for a long while and am a natural loner

But many of our old folk need human company to survive.

Maybe the folk advocating this will act in kindness and visit someone?

NIMAN · 21-10-2020 7:53am

Can NPHET not be asked this simple question daily?

For example yesterday we had 13 deaths.

What would be wrong with asking "Dr Holohan, how many of these people died due to CV19". Where there any terminally ill cancer patients among the 13? Where there any RTAs among the 13? Where there any heart attacks/strokes etc among the 13?"

Wibbs · 21-10-2020 8:55am

Stewball wrote: »

Is a life worth less if the person is 70+ and has underlying conditions?

Not to be a dick, but in reality yes. I'm 52, am I "worth" less than an average 18 year old with a life ahead of them? Yes, frankly and by most metrics and those 18 year old's futures are currently being hammered by this, never mind younger kids, or parents paying mortgages and the like. Never mind those younger with underlying conditions in need of regular medical attention who are very much affected. This is certainly not the time to discover you have cancer for example, if it's discovered at all because of reduced services and putting it off.

Set against that is we can't risk hospitals and ICU capacities being overwhelmed. We can't risk, nor don't want to be Italy in March and April, because those issues above wiuld get even worse. It's a hard balance to strike and if we did open up more as we've seen the numbers start to climb and pretty rapidly.

timmyntc · 21-10-2020 9:49am

Stewball wrote: »

Is a life worth less if the person is 70+ and has underlying conditions?

A 70+ year old person has lived a fairly full life - not that it's okay that they die, but it's wrong to stop everything and put everyone elses lives on hold just to try and squeeze out an extra year or two of that 70+ year old.

You might be giving an 80 year old man an extra year of life, but you've taken a year of life away from so many younger people. This past year people have basically put their lives on hold. It's not really living so much as it is existing.

charlietheminxx · 21-10-2020 9:52am

The thinking that we can protect the vulnerable while the rest of us carry on like normal is seriously flawed. We can't protect anyone while there is widespread community transmission.

Also I think around third of our population has a "pre-existing condition" which can be something as simple as well-managed asthma or diabetes. Someone with a pre-existing condition who dies of Covid isn't necessarily someone who was at death's door beforehand and they shouldn't be treated as such.

21-10-2020 9:54am

Wibbs wrote: »

Not to be a dick, but in reality yes. I'm 52, am I "worth" less than an average 18 year old with a life ahead of them? Yes, frankly and by most metrics and those 18 year old's futures are currently being hammered by this, never mind younger kids, or parents paying mortgages and the like.

Completely disagree with this. Its absolutely abhorrent to me that anyone would discuss what a life is worth or put a value on anyone's life based on their age.

Plus, it will not be 18 year olds "with a life ahead of them" who'll be paying for this. Not by a long shot. Most of them will spend on average the next 10 to 15 years living rent free in Mammy's, "saving" while people of our age, those in their forties and fifties, will be the ones who pay for this. Still of working age for another almost 20 years, by which stage the current crisis will be paid for and the current generation of 18 year olds will probably thinking of moving out of home.

DaSilva · 21-10-2020 9:54am

charlietheminxx wrote: »

The thinking that we can protect the vulnerable while the rest of us carry on like normal is seriously flawed. We can't protect anyone while there is widespread community transmission.

Curious why you think that, I hear this exact phrase said often, but I also regularly hear people suggest a country can be protected despite widespread global transmission. I know they are not exactly the same thing, but the concept is the same, just the scale is different.

timmyntc · 21-10-2020 9:56am

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely disagree with this. Its absolutely abhorrent to me that anyone would discuss what a life is worth or put a value on anyone's life based on their age.

Plus, it will not be 18 year olds "with a life ahead of them" who'll be paying for this. Not by a long shot. Most of them will spend on average the next 10 to 15 years living rent free in Mammy's, "saving" while people of our age, those in their forties and fifties, will be the ones who pay for this. Still of working age for another almost 20 years, by which stage the current crisis will be paid for and the current generation of 18 year olds will probably thinking of moving out of home.

What world do you live in where current 18 year olds are living at home until their late 30s/early 40s?

Ironhead93 · 21-10-2020 9:57am

Because it would make it glaringly obvious that unless you're near life expectancy or past it, or already severely ill and unhealthy, covid won't kill you. They want people scared so they'll follow these ridiculous restrictions

charlietheminxx · 21-10-2020 10:10am

DaSilva wrote: »

Curious why you think that, I hear this exact phrase said often, but I also regularly hear people suggest a country can be protected despite widespread global transmission. I know they are not exactly the same thing, but the concept is the same, just the scale is different.

Ok so let's imagine you have an elderly person called Nora living alone and the answer is to keep her there to protect her and the rest of us carry on with the R0 the way it currently is. Nora will be allowed to have no visitors but the lovely carers sent out to look after her. It is usually 2 - 3 carers in rotation on a week in a homecare situation - let's call them Mary, Pat and Jo.

In this imaginary scenario, Jo lives in a houseshare, her housemates are a teacher and another carer and her boyfriend is a builder. Someone in Jo's circle picks up Covid, or maybe she even catches out while at the hairdressers but either way there is widespread community transmission, so Jo has it, and being young and healthy she is asymptomatic and has no idea. Jo brings it to Nora. It doesn't end there, because now Pat has picked it up from Nora and he brings it to another elderly client.

So how to we minimise this happening? We have to limit the community transmission. Nobody can be fully isolated from other people, especially our most vulnerable.

DaSilva · 21-10-2020 10:12am

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Ok so let's imagine you have an elderly person called Nora living alone and the answer is to keep her there to protect her and the rest of us carry on with the R0 the way it currently is. Nora will be allowed to have no visitors but the lovely carers sent out to look after her. It is usually 2 - 3 carers in rotation on a week in a homecare situation - let's call them Mary, Pat and Jo.

In this imaginary scenario, Jo lives in a houseshare, her housemates are a teacher and another carer and her boyfriend is a builder. Someone in Jo's circle picks up Covid, or maybe she even catches out while at the hairdressers but either way there is widespread community transmission, so Jo has it, and being young and healthy she is asymptomatic and has no idea. Jo brings it to Nora. It doesn't end there, because now Pat has picked it up from Nora and he brings it to another elderly client.

So how to we minimise this happening? We have to limit the community transmission. Nobody can be fully isolated from other people, especially our most vulnerable.

Your hypothetical situation is like a country trying to prevent outbreaks while letting visitors in from other parts of the world without any testing, bound to fail. The countries that prevent outbreaks emerging, quarantine and test incoming visitors. Why can't Jo be regularly tested?

charlietheminxx · 21-10-2020 10:17am

DaSilva wrote: »

Your hypothetical situation is like a country trying to prevent outbreaks while letting visitors in from other parts of the world without any testing, bound to fail. The countries that prevent outbreaks emerging, quarantine and test incoming visitors. Why can't Jo be regularly tested?

Because you can receive negative results for days after being infected. How often do you propose testing every carer in Ireland?

phormium · 21-10-2020 10:18am

Beasty wrote: »

How many in the country are, say, 98? You know your 98 year old grannie has been ill for a few days. You then read a 98 year old has died from Covid-19. You draw your own conclusions, which may or may not be correct. Regardless they are not going to provide any info which encourages anyone to put two and two together

Then what is the use of that info even if they provide it? More ammo for scaremongers?

Is not the info we are given on deaths based on the info when the death is registered rather than when it actually happens?

I think it is and in that case it's definitely going to be days/weeks after the death so I'm sure you would have heard about your granny from someone before that, even if it was actually on the evening news on the day after she died then surely in this age of communication you would still have heard. I seriously doubt anyone is going to discover a relative died from any of these statistics.

suicide_circus · 21-10-2020 10:19am

If a 14 year old dies of leukaemia is it viewed as more tragic than an 80 year old dying of heart failure? I would say yes...but why?

Sardonicat · 21-10-2020 10:22am

DaSilva wrote: »

Your hypothetical situation is like a country trying to prevent outbreaks while letting visitors in from other parts of the world without any testing, bound to fail. The countries that prevent outbreaks emerging, quarantine and test incoming visitors. Why can't Jo be regularly tested?

The situation you replied to actually occurred in several locations throughout the country during the first wave. 4 elderly people in my locality died as a result, 5 carers and some of their family were consequently infected leaving the home care team short of carers and one carer has been left unable to return to work. It is why many family carers have cancelled their home help package indefinitely, are cocooning with the person they are caring for and have been working, without a break, since March. Many vulnerable people are living alone and cannot cancel their home help package. Protecting the vulnerable is the responsibility of everyone in society. Wash your hands, wear a mask, keep your distance and reduce your contacts are tiny sacrifices to make compared to what the vulnerable and their carers have been enduring since March.

jim salter · 21-10-2020 10:29am

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely disagree with this. Its absolutely abhorrent to me that anyone would discuss what a life is worth or put a value on anyone's life based on their age.

Plus, it will not be 18 year olds "with a life ahead of them" who'll be paying for this. Not by a long shot. Most of them will spend on average the next 10 to 15 years living rent free in Mammy's, "saving" while people of our age, those in their forties and fifties, will be the ones who pay for this. Still of working age for another almost 20 years, by which stage the current crisis will be paid for and the current generation of 18 year olds will probably thinking of moving out of home.

Welcome to the way politicians and very 'senior' (non politician) civil servants (puppet masters) view each end every one of us.

The reality is: we are viewed as a number that returns taxes.

This virus targets a very specific demographic - the 'vulnerable' (primarily) those over 78 (or whatever the exact age is). Why not focus on that minority and not crash everything else?

charlietheminxx · 21-10-2020 10:37am

jim salter wrote: »

This virus targets a very specific demographic - the 'vulnerable' (primarily) those over 78 (or whatever the exact age is). Why not focus on that minority and not crash everything else?

Can you explain how this is done while we have widespread community transmission?

timmyntc · 21-10-2020 10:38am

suicide_circus wrote: »

If a 14 year old dies of leukaemia is it viewed as more tragic than an 80 year old dying of heart failure? I would say yes...but why?

Because an 80 year old has lived a full lifetime - a 14 year old has not.
That 14 year old had their future taken away from them, whereas the 80 year old has lived a long life and had time to fulful his potential.

DaSilva · 21-10-2020 10:39am

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Because you can receive negative results for days after being infected. How often do you propose testing every carer in Ireland?

There is belief that negative tests despite being infected also mean low chance of transmission, but it would make more sense to do more than 1 test. And how frequently? Every day.

Sardonicat wrote: »

The situation you replied to actually occurred in several locations throughout the country during the first wave. 4 elderly people in my locality died as a result, 5 carers and some of their family were consequently infected leaving the home care team short of carers and one carer has been left unable to return to work. It is why many family carers have cancelled their home help package indefinitely, are cocooning with the person they are caring for and have been working, without a break, since March. Many vulnerable people are living alone and cannot cancel their home help package. Protecting the vulnerable is the responsibility of everyone in society. Wash your hands, wear a mask, keep your distance and reduce your contacts are tiny sacrifices to make compared to what the vulnerable and their carers have been enduring since March.

It makes no sense to me that we actually put the lives of our most vulnerable in the hands of everybody in the country. We can and should protect them as intelligently as we can, and the first step there would involve regular testing rather than hoping people don't encounter the virus

timmyntc · 21-10-2020 10:42am

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Can you explain how this is done while we have widespread community transmission?

Test all carers and their close contacts as often as possible. We have the testing capacity, so these people should get priority. As should healthcare workers.

Or we build some robot carers instead

charlietheminxx · 21-10-2020 10:50am

DaSilva wrote: »

There is belief that negative tests despite being infected also mean low chance of transmission, but it would make more sense to do more than 1 test. And how frequently? Every day.

It makes no sense to me that we actually put the lives of our most vulnerable in the hands of everybody in the country. We can and should protect them as intelligently as we can, and the first step there would involve regular testing rather than hoping people don't encounter the virus

Ok let's say we do it it your way. Widespread community transmission. Jo is tested and now has to isolate. Mary's son has picked it up and now she has to isolate. Who is looking after the vulnerable when it's running through the community and carers have to isolate?

My mam works in a maternity hospital, say she picks it up in your scenario but she's getting tested every day so she finds out quickly. I mean she's frontline medical staff in her 60's, so it's not great for her if she gets it, but it's worse if she brings it home to my sister, who is higher risk. So where does she go then? We've had to actually have these conversations in my family.

To some of us, this isn't all hypotheticals.

I'm absolutely sick of the way things are, but I wouldn't trade someone else's life to improve the short-term quality of mine.

21-10-2020 10:57am

timmyntc wrote: »

What world do you live in where current 18 year olds are living at home until their late 30s/early 40s?

The real one. Apparently the average age to leave home now is early thirties. Especially if you're in Dublin. Lots of posts on this forum about it, usually related to paying rent to parents while still living at home.

Also, I never said late 30s or 40s. Don't embellish what I posted.

Why is it so complicated to daily find out the ages of those who passed?

Comments