Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

stephenjmcd · 03-11-2020 08:06PM

py2006 wrote: »

Looks like the pubs and restaurants have been dealt another blow

Eh not really. Its fairly straightforward so it doesn't have to be signed back in every few weeks. Can be ceased at any time.

Doesn't exactly have much impact on the business operations once their in line with guidelines. Its literally the legislation to ask them to comply with any guidelines issued on the trade and giving Gardai the power to close them if not.

pjohnson · 03-11-2020 08:08PM

Thierry12 wrote: »

600 died in France today, absolute madness they let that happen again

We are some dummies in the West, governed by absolute morons

When this thing is over people might finally realise the brains of the world are over in Korea, China etc

I'm sure some probably will claim the French managed things better than the Irish.

wadacrack · 03-11-2020 08:09PM

CoronaBlocker wrote: »

Anyone know what's happening in Switzerland? It's like they've let all the French in or something. Is it not a bit early for skiing yet?

Link

WHO might need to re-allocate their HQ

Stheno · 03-11-2020 08:12PM

wadacrack wrote: »

WHO might need to re-allocate their HQ

The head of the WHO is in self isolation after contact with a confirmed case

feelings · 03-11-2020 08:13PM

Northern Ireland: "A total of 117 care homes are dealing with outbreaks of the virus.". Is that number correct? Seems very high. Were the number of outbreaks in nursing homes here that high?

ruth123456 · 03-11-2020 08:14PM

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

Schools closed 8 days ago so have zero impact on recent drops.

They closed Friday 23rd, 10 days ago

Pete_Cavan · 03-11-2020 08:15PM

CoronaBlocker wrote: »

Anyone know what's happening in Switzerland? It's like they've let all the French in or something. Is it not a bit early for skiing yet?

Link

They have had light to no restrictions since May, bars and restaurants open and even now they still are and only have to be closed by 11pm. Their Kantons have a lot of autonomy so difficult to coordinate national restrictions, some requiring masks in shops but others not, etc. Worth nothing that their schools were back open earlier than in Ireland but yet the second surge has come at the same time.

ArthurDayne · 03-11-2020 08:15PM

Tomtom3105 wrote: »

So good to see the numbers coming down so quick but I'm afraid of a spike towards the end of the week as a result of all the halloween parties etc,
Hard to believe we will keep the numbers low enough for them to open us back up at the start of December, even though that would make for quite a good Christmas in my opinion if they did.

I find peoples’ views on this a little strange I must say.

So, for the past while we have been fed a narrative that our valiant efforts to stop the virus have been hampered by selfish people being out and about socialising etc. Yet all I hear is people talking about how we need to save Christmas, and how getting numbers down means we all get the pet on the head from the State of being allowed home to see family. What’s the difference here ? We criticise the young for wanting to socialise and then we also advocate hunkering down in lockdown again so that we can ..ehhhhh...socialise at Christmas.

If people really cared about the cases rising or putting our health service at risk (given the purported ability of this virus to cripple our society) — then nobody should even be entertaining the idea of wanting to socialise at Christmas. Socialising at Christmas, even with a change in behaviour from usual Christmas fare, invariably means that cases will likely rise again and that at least some people will die.

I just find it fascinating that so many on here criticise the selfishness and moral deficiency of others but are perfectly happy to accept the moral choice that people dying is a price worth paying to socialise a bit at Christmas. Surely the more morally perfected approach is to stay on lockdown indefinitely until there is a vaccine? Shouldn’t the Great Prophets of Morality be leading by example and dissuading the idea of people “selfishly” wanting to socialise ?

is_that_so · 03-11-2020 08:19PM

Goldengirl wrote: »

I do not agree with that .
Hr has consistently " under reported " by not giving negative information when indeed figures were extremely negative , and as my example above there shows , misrepresenting the reason for a drop in figures .
It is disingenuous to say that there is a drop in figures in ICU , when it is not due to recovery , but deaths .
Not that I am a fan of George Lee either , the opposite extreme , but it needs to be highlighted when false or misleading information is given by our national TV station , ON BOTH sides .

Again if you'd read my post you can clearly see I did not refer to his real time reporting. This seems to be more about your own issues with people's choice of language not matching your own worldview but each to their own.

Ger Roe · 03-11-2020 08:22PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I find peoples’ views on this a little strange I must say.

So, for the past while we have been fed a narrative that our valiant efforts to stop the virus have been hampered by selfish people being out and about socialising etc. Yet all I hear is people talking about how we need to save Christmas, and how getting numbers down means we all get the pet on the head from the State of being allowed home to see family. What’s the difference here ? We criticise the young for wanting to socialise and then we also advocate hunkering down in lockdown again so that we can ..ehhhhh...socialise at Christmas.

If people really cared about the cases rising or putting our health service at risk (given the purported ability of this virus to cripple our society) — then nobody should even be entertaining the idea of wanting to socialise at Christmas. Socialising at Christmas, even with a change in behaviour from usual Christmas fare, invariably means that cases will likely rise again and that at least some people will die.

I just find it fascinating that so many on here criticise the selfishness and moral deficiency of others but are perfectly happy to accept the moral choice that people dying is a price worth paying to socialise a bit at Christmas. Surely the more morally perfected approach is to stay on lockdown indefinitely until there is a vaccine? Shouldn’t the Great Prophets of Morality be leading by example and dissuading the idea of people “selfishly” wanting to socialise ?

I have been thinking about that approach too .... seems a bit strange to be trying hard to get numbers down so that an inevitable but lower (more acceptable?) number of people can then get sick as a direct consequence of more people trying to behave normally in totally abnormal circumstances.

I wonder what the trade off will be .... how many days of reduced restrictions for what number of inevitable cases?

We really are a strange species.

is_that_so · 03-11-2020 08:22PM

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Dont know what i was looking but when they put figures on screen thought it said 292, still looking good for xmas.

292 is in hospital, 322 new cases.

mcburns07 · 03-11-2020 08:25PM

CoronaBlocker wrote: »

Anyone know what's happening in Switzerland? It's like they've let all the French in or something. Is it not a bit early for skiing yet?

Link

Yesterdays' number is for 31 / 1 / 2 combined

03-11-2020 08:27PM

Thierry12 wrote: »

600 died in France today, absolute madness they let that happen again

We are some dummies in the West, governed by absolute morons

When this thing is over people might finally realise the brains of the world are over in Korea, China etc

They did what a lot of people on here were calling for, opening up everything, bars, gyms, cinemas etc?
Were there not people on here saying we should have done the same as them, Germany, Spain, Belgium etc?

Now that rates are climbing again they were suddenly morons for listening to people calling for the stuff to be opened up.

pc7 · 03-11-2020 08:28PM

ruth123456 wrote: »

They closed Friday 23rd, 10 days ago

Crèches didn’t for those that work so you would still have had a large amount of kids together

eagle eye · 03-11-2020 08:30PM

Hardyn wrote:

How do you know they don't?

They were tested twice.

Had them after three months but not after six months. I know seven people who got tested twice, four had antibiotics dies after six months, three didn't. All had after three months.

eagle eye · 03-11-2020 08:31PM

ACitizenErased wrote:

Right on cue

What is that supposed to mean?

What Username Guidelines · 03-11-2020 08:34PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I find peoples’ views on this a little strange I must say.

So, for the past while we have been fed a narrative that our valiant efforts to stop the virus have been hampered by selfish people being out and about socialising etc. Yet all I hear is people talking about how we need to save Christmas, and how getting numbers down means we all get the pet on the head from the State of being allowed home to see family. What’s the difference here ? We criticise the young for wanting to socialise and then we also advocate hunkering down in lockdown again so that we can ..ehhhhh...socialise at Christmas.

If people really cared about the cases rising or putting our health service at risk (given the purported ability of this virus to cripple our society) — then nobody should even be entertaining the idea of wanting to socialise at Christmas. Socialising at Christmas, even with a change in behaviour from usual Christmas fare, invariably means that cases will likely rise again and that at least some people will die.

I just find it fascinating that so many on here criticise the selfishness and moral deficiency of others but are perfectly happy to accept the moral choice that people dying is a price worth paying to socialise a bit at Christmas. Surely the more morally perfected approach is to stay on lockdown indefinitely until there is a vaccine? Shouldn’t the Great Prophets of Morality be leading by example and dissuading the idea of people “selfishly” wanting to socialise ?

Surprised by the attitude too. No matter what your view on the situation, I’m absolutely baffled that many still think of any level of restriction as some kind of oppression. “Ah they can’t cancel Christmas?” Or “ah they couldn’t make people quarantine at Christmas?!” There are nuances in restrictions, some are harsh, some are light, some make little sense when compared to others. But this attitude of people wanting/expecting a normal Christmas is pretty surprising. I feel bad for anyone hanging hopes on pubs being fully open and/or having a 2019-esque Christmas.

Fair enough it should be less restrictive than now, but think about other major crises, did we have people moaning and complaining about an abnormal Christmas during wars, etc? I’m sure someone will be along to berate me for comparing war and covid, but what they have in common is massive impacts in day to day life.

It couldn’t be any clearer from looking to the European mainland what happens when you loosen restrictions. I find it pretty funny here when people get so agitated at posts regarding other countries under pressure. “We don’t need that negativity and scaremongering” etc.

03-11-2020 08:34PM

What’s the deal with ‘save Christmas’? There are 364 other days of the year to get together as a family and have a big dinner. Seems madness to me to be prioritising Christmas over doing the right thing. Just don’t get it. My family is arranging a ‘summer Christmas’ for next year.

Thierry12 · 03-11-2020 08:35PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

They did what a lot of people on here were calling for, opening up everything, bars, gyms, cinemas etc?
Were there not people on here saying we should have done the same as them, Germany, Spain, Belgium etc?

Now that rates are climbing again they were suddenly morons for listening to people calling for the stuff to be opened up.

Most weren't asking to open bars, nightclubs etc

Mask wearing cinemas, gyms sure

No danger there

SCOOP 64 · 03-11-2020 08:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s the deal with ‘save Christmas’? There are 364 other days of the year to get together as a family and have a big dinner. Seems madness to me to be prioritising Christmas over doing the right thing. Just don’t get it. My family is arranging a ‘summer Christmas’ for next year.

Alot of people badly need it.

03-11-2020 08:37PM

Thierry12 wrote: »

600 died in France today, absolute madness they let that happen again

We are some dummies in the West, governed by absolute morons

When this thing is over people might finally realise the brains of the world are over in Korea, China etc

You can tell you have absolutely never step foot in China and know nothing about the place

03-11-2020 08:37PM

eagle eye wrote: »

They were tested twice.

Had them after three months but not after six months. I know seven people who got tested twice, four had antibiotics dies after six months, three didn't. All had after three months.

Those antibody tests are not accurate enough to be used as proof of immunity.

03-11-2020 08:39PM

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Alot of people badly need it.

Yeah, I don’t get that. Why does the family get together have to be on that day?

awec · 03-11-2020 08:40PM

Not convinced that schools have played any part in this drop, at least not based on what I see every day here.

Creches are obviously still open, and kids have been mingling with their mates as normal. Kids were outside playing all day, every day during their week off. I think the idea that if kids aren't at school then they're sitting at home isolating is incredible naive.

stephenjmcd · 03-11-2020 08:41PM

eagle eye wrote: »

They were tested twice.

Had them after three months but not after six months. I know seven people who got tested twice, four had antibiotics dies after six months, three didn't. All had after three months.

Bog standard anti body tests don't pick up T Cell reaction as far as I'm aware and T Cells appear to drive protection.

Can't exactly draw conclusions from them tests

eagle eye · 03-11-2020 08:41PM

Hardyn wrote:

Those antibody tests are not accurate enough to be used as proof of immunity.

Can you explain and back up that assertion?

03-11-2020 08:42PM

vafankillar wrote: »

not to be a negative nancy but anyone else looking at this huge drop in cases with suspicion? like it seems too good to be true.

It’s not falling any faster than it did in the spring

eagle eye · 03-11-2020 08:43PM

stephenjmcd wrote:

Bog standard anti body tests don't pick up T Cell reaction as far as I'm aware and T Cells appear to drive protection.
Can't exactly draw conclusions from them tests

You seem to know a lot about T cells. Care to share your knowledge with the rest of us?

03-11-2020 08:44PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

This isn't just level 5. We'll only just be seeing level 5's impact in the coming days.

Ah it’s already coming through, would take two full infection cycles or 14 days to see the full effect, but should be visible in 7 to 10

Jim_Hodge · 03-11-2020 08:44PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Can you explain and back up that assertion?

I'm not going to dump a load of links and not trying to be narky but Google "are antibody tests proof of immunity" and you'll see they're not.

Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

Comments