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

screamer wrote: »

I don’t think seeing our friends and family at Christmas was ever the reason for level 5, it was bandied about as a sweetener or manipulation ( depending on your point of view) to make the medicine more palatable. If we see Covid rise because of Christmas, we’ll have to pay the piper come the new year

If Level 5 was kept over Xmas then when would it be eased off Level 5?

Because if it's Jan or Feb then what's the point in waiting?

I'd prefer Xmas at Level 2 then back to a higher level for Jan/Feb than Level 5 for Xmas then Level 2/3 for Jan/Feb.

JDD wrote: »

Except it was. When MM addressed the nation, he said that if we stick to the Level 5 now, we will be able to loosen the restrictions at Christmas. I think the timing of this Level 5 has been all about having breathing space during December to open the economy somewhat and to allow the nation a bit of a break. I think the government know that they are not going to invest in a world class track or trace system, because they are relying on a vaccine coming in March/April. I think the government know that it is likely that there will be a third lockdown in Q1 2021, and they know that people will not adhere to it if they are not allowed a bit of leeway at Christmas.

There are no guarantees with any aspect of this virus and anyway you have already stated that you don't care what level will apply by then, even a reduced one.

So your mind is already made up, regardless of what was actually said in the past, or may be said in the future.

NI reporting 15 deaths and 548 cases from 2892 tests.

435 covid patients in hospital with 46 in ICU, 30 on ventilators

Putting it in context....
[Url] [/url]

JDD wrote: »

But how will there be a stick? Seriously. There's no garda that's going to be calling round houses on Christmas Day, checking if there is more than two households. You may want sanctions, but I don't see any feasibility in there actually being any.

Well, if a large section of society only believe that we should observe laws,rules,guidelines that carry enforced penalties, then we have bigger problems as a society.

Sometimes you just have to accept that what you can do and what you should do (for all of society) might be two very different things.

Anyone who doesn't subscribe to the theory of social responsibility, will never be convinced that they should consider it.

Ger Roe wrote: »

Sometimes you just have to accept that what you can do and what you should do (for all of society) might be two very different things.

.

There's a balance to what we should do though.

i.e. we should protect vulnerable people from Covid, while also protecting the economy & people's mental health.

The economy & people's mental health are seriously damaged by lock down.

I see sheep wrote: »

There's a balance to what we should do though.

i.e. we should protect vulnerable people from Covid, while also protecting the economy & people's mental health.

The economy & people's mental health are seriously damaged by lock down.

Everyone has to be protected from Covid. Death is not the only issue, health care resources are more the issue. If a substantial amount of 'healthy' people get the disease a percentage of them will need hospital care, so taking up places and resources that will be needed by others, because of their other conditions. Simply keeping vulnerable people safe from Covid, does not fully protect them if the services they may well need anyway, are not available because the virus has affected a substantial amount of the previously hale and harty.

No one get's a free pass on taking their own risks, when they have the potential to seriously affect others.

The UK hit a death figure of 50,000 yesterday - that's what happens when it runs out of control and people are allowed to take their own risks.

13,057 tests, 423 positive, 3.24%. 7-day now 3.48%

423 postive swabs from 13,057 tests.

3.24% positivity

Edit: Just saw the post from seamus

polesheep wrote: »

... for you. Others will do their own thing over Christmas.

If they and/or their family and friends end up needing medical assistance as a result of doing their own thing, will they continue to do their own thing and treat themselves, or will they then expect 'others' to help them out?

caveat emptor wrote: »

This is a good visualisation about Sweden's response compared to Norway.

That would be us but for the measures in place. You look across Europe records are being broken left right and center.

It's remarkable and fortunate, even with the restrictions, we have managed to avoid the worst of it so far at least.

Let's keep it that way.

eigrod wrote: »

Slightly disappointing that the rate of reduction has pretty much stalled over the last few days.

Wouldn't exactly say stalled, swabs similar to yesterday with a few thousand more tests done.

Community demand definitely lower this week as well based on the HSE charts.

Trend is still downwards.

3xh wrote: »

A timely reminder of the power of statistics;

In August 2020, the U.K. government changed their Covid death limit to 28 days after a positive test.

Up until then, any eventual death that occurred to a Covid positive case was classified as a death. No time limit.

So, what would happen to that 50,000 figure if the applied the 28 days was used from the start?

Clue; it’d be lower.

Do you honestly think this is THE ONLY example of massaged statistics in this protracted Covid show?

So what you're saying is that the UK figures are artifically low. Anyone who dies from COVID 28 days after the initial infection is not in the stats.