Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

end of the road wrote: »

the figures are the figures, discounting certain groups of figures to try and suit an agenda equals inaccurate figures and not the real figures.
protecting certain groups won't allow us to get back to normal, protection only works with suppression and management and control of the virus for which restrictions are needed.

The figures are indeed the figures. And I'd assume that there are people with access to far more accurate sets of figures than are publicly available, and far better at analysing them in the context of the spread of a pandemic than anyone on this thread.

But I find it curious that in the build-up to the introduction of level 5 restrictions, the main talking point each day seemed to be about how the 14-day average hadn't come down. Whereas a week or two after level 5, the focus of the conversation was about how the 7-day average, or even the 5-day average were responding well to the new measures.
Yet the publicly available figure showed that the 7 day average had stabilised for days before, and had started dipping, the day level 5 was introduced.

And it's obvious that as cases peak and start dropping off, the 14-day average would be the last thing to decrease; while a 7- or 5- day average would be the first to show improvement.

So while the figures might be the figures, the way they've been presented is .... interesting

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. That is quite readily explained, and I hope,understood.

Transmission of the corona virus hinges on the number of close person to person contact events. The higher the number of contacts, the greater the rate of transmission. If contacts are kept to numbers typical of home settings, then the number of potential transmissions has an upper bound of the number in attendance minus those already infected, and a likelihood of a contagious person being in that group proportional to the number of attendees. In the case of a large gathering therefore, the probability of a contagious person being in the assembly, and the number of potential new cases is higher. The product of these two factors is an exponential transmission of the virus.

The virus 'knowing' the number of people in attendance is thus irrelevant, and from an epidemiological aspect meaningless.

Limiting person to person contact events is the key to containment and transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

100% understood. Hence why Ireland had to restrict social contact opportunities for people by going to L5.

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thelocal.com/20200623/how-sweden-doubled-intensive-care-capacity-to-treat-coronavirus-patients/amp&ved=2ahUKEwj6q8S31oDtAhVHQRUIHWxrAj0QFjACegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2evJZuPYyAxhvtTyVPrA0b&ampcf=1

Sweden, the current antagonist on the forum were able to do it.

There is separate thread to discuss Sweden and their approach so not sure why you replied with a link from June about their approach.


It didn't really answer any questions in my post about what level of staff is required per ICU bed and how easy it is to throw out a soundbite saying increase capacity.


Without restrictions if 5 people are admitted to ICU that could require 5-6 additional staff per bed. Its not scalable and can't see why people cannot see this.

normanoffside wrote: »

Unknown my Hole.
It's well known at this stage that it's no harm to the vast, vast majority.

Doc: Do you feel perfectly ok?

Patient: yes

Doc: You may have Covid, this is very serious

john4321 wrote: »

How many extra ICU beds? How many doctors and nurses would be required to staff these beds and are they available?

Its very easy throw out a line like this but you always hit limits.

We were in a position to staff those beds back in March and April when the government called back all the foreign doctors and nurses who came home to answer Ireland's call.
We had the chance to improve our health service permanently. Sadly we passed up that chance and ended up spending multiple times more money than it would have cost to hire those extra worker and open those extra beds.

No one would have had any issue with spending billions improving the health service, instead we have wasted many more billions faffing about.

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

My point is that Sweden were able to double their capacity. Whether the article is from June or 10,000 bc the point remains that Sweden were able to do it so why couldn't we? All that we ever seem to be told in Ireland is what we can't do. We're almost preconditioned to mediocrity.

That doesn't fix the issue though. If you have 100 ICU beds and double it to 200 beds and have 10 people a day being admitted you still hit a limit. What do you do then?

Stormyteacup wrote: »

I found this uncomfortable reading;

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40081658.html

Wow. Just wow.

That is really worrying. We are doing huge long term damage to so many health people by locking down.

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

How the hell does me stating Sweden doubled their ICU capacity in June translate into me saying their ICU capacity is infinite?

You would wonder do people have a clue at times.
If you at the level where you have to increase ICU capacity then the new confirmed case would be through the roof and you would be looking at the same outcome as Italy during the first wave.