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

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Of course they catch it, yes they are almost always asymptomatic but where is the evidence that they are very effective spreaders?

Princeton study, one of largest of its kind, has carried out research, with large amounts of data showing evidence of this.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/30/largest-covid-19-contact-tracing-study-date-finds-children-key-spread-evidence

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Of course they catch it, yes they are almost always asymptomatic but where is the evidence that they are very effective spreaders?

Where is the evidence they aren’t?

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Princeton study, one of largest of its kind, has carried out research, with large amounts of data showing evidence of this.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/30/largest-covid-19-contact-tracing-study-date-finds-children-key-spread-evidence

The researchers found that the chances of a person with coronavirus, regardless of their age, passing it on to a close contact ranged from 2.6% in the community to 9% in the household.

9% chance of passing it on to a close contact in their household doesn't sound like much.

“Kids are very efficient transmitters in this setting, which is something that hasn’t been firmly established in previous studies,” Laxminarayan said. “We found that reported cases and deaths have been more concentrated in younger cohorts than we expected based on observations in higher-income countries.”

The study was done in India and that quote obviously relates to them specifically, comparing them to higher-income countries. It is saying there was more spread among young people in India than is USA, from the main article;

Cases in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh showed a younger age distribution than cases reported in the United States as of 21 August 2020 (Fig. 4) (35). Comparison of cumulative COVID-19 incidence across ages showed that the observed differences surpassed expectations based on population age distributions alone, as signaled by the absence of parallel trends in age-specific incidence (table S10).

It is not saying that child are super spreaders or anything like that. The main finding was that the virus’ continued spread is driven by only a small percentage of those who become infected, presumably this is true for both children and adults.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

9% chance of passing it on to a close contact in their household doesn't sound like much.



The study was done in India and that quote obviously relates to them specifically, comparing them to higher-income countries. It is saying there was more spread among young people in India than is USA, from the main article;



It is not saying that child are super spreaders or anything like that. The main finding was that the virus’ continued spread is driven by only a small percentage of those who become infected, presumably this is true for both children and adults.

https://bgr.com/2020/08/20/coronavirus-spread-schools-children-more-infectious-than-adults/

The Government is considering fines of less than €300 for people gathering outside to drink alcohol, under proposals going to Cabinet.

The Deputy CMO said: "I don't have specific evidence that people getting together to drink on the streets has led to a cluster

Nana indeed!

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1116/1178483-takeaway-pints-debate/

daydorunrun wrote: »

Imagine if people’s general behaviour including at funerals and outdoors drinking were not to blame for the uptick in cases over the last week- imagine it was caused by schools and care settings and yet unelected officials were telling us we we have 2 weeks to ‘save’ Christmas and the government were bringing in more draconian laws because it’s all young peoples fault.

What a time to be alive!!

Can it really be described as an uptick in cases? Since 31st Oct, numbers have been pretty consistent. There were two days below 300 which are outliers, not a consistent low level. Either side of those two days, things have been steady.

9% chance of cashing it of you're a close contact in a household?

Not the very contagious disease we were led to believe.

That's why schools aren't the main issue.

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Is this not a reason to open pubs but limit numbers per gathering in them under the control of the pub manager?

Pub managers did a bad job at managing things during the summer in many places.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The data has flat-lined for every age group that has a reason to go out in public - whatever the reason. But lets blame schools so we can go for pints with our mates

100% agree.
Never suggested schools should be closed.
It’s not a choice of school open or people allowed drink in public but in that instance close schools.

My point is more that blaming one particular group for a stalled reduction in cases is not helpful, especially when all the stats and metrics are not being fully considered.

mcburns07 wrote: »

Or people are happy to see their kids back in school getting an education and teachers are happier to be teaching in a class rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel with remote learning?

There's 3 teachers in my family and I don't hear any complaints about having to stand in front of a classroom of kids, they're just getting on with it like the rest of us are with all the restrictions we've faced this year.

I'm happy mine are back, and so are they. Re-inventing the wheel is a bit OTT, nothing wrong with looking at alternatives or improvements.

I think its fairly simple, it took almost 3 months to get the numbers down first time with full buy in from the public, better weather and no schools. There isn't a hope in hell that we get them down to anywhere below 100 cases per day in 6 weeks. To have set such target was disingenuous at best but most likely to be used to extend the lockdown up to Christmas.

Arghus wrote: »

Yes, I understand that people need an outlet. But I don't think that justifies congregating in large numbers in order to have a few pints in the face of continuing efforts to suppress an infectious disease. There are other outlets.

To use another example. I can understand why some young people speed and drive wrecklessly - they're young, impetuous and risk taking etc - but I don't think they are justified to do so. There is a distinction between understanding and justification.

I know people feel like they need an outlet, I often feel exactly the same way. But, I couldn't, hand on heart, justify meeting people for a few beers, either indoors or outdoors, because I know that it would violate, for me, the spirit of our supposed collective efforts in trying to get the numbers down - and I would feel like a hypocritical fraud for doing so. Perhaps I possess superhuman levels of self control - but I don't think so.

I feel they couldn't have been clearer in the goals and the time frame: we're aiming for a 100 cases or less by December 1st - it at least gives us a platform to consider opening up for a period. If the cases are still in the hundreds and hundreds we'll all lose out even more. It's also pretty clear that it's human behaviour and people thinking "fck it, it'll be grand" that is going to play a significant part in determining where we stand by the end of the month. We can't blame the government or NPHET if we're still at 500/600 cases in a few weeks - we all know what we individually should and shouldn't do and if that involves some more sacrifice to get to that goal then, in my opinion, people should be able to make it.

Again, your points are well expressed and sincere — but I must say I can’t agree. I mean, we have to read your first paragraph in the context of what you say in your last paragraph. What we are trying to achieve is not actually “the suppression of an infectious disease” outright, it’s merely the suppression of the disease to the point where we can re-open things at Christmas, right? When things re-open, the inevitable consequence is a rise in cases — therefore it’s not about suppression of the disease....it’s merely about allowing socialising in December, which will allow the disease to spread again. So it’s not about “suppressing” the virus, it’s simply about timing its spread in a way to suit peoples desire to socialise and shop at Christmas.

If young people are to be demonised for the most rudimentary form of socialising available to them, then it angers me to see that society in general isn’t staring itself in the mirror and recognising that it is criticising young people for doing what almost everyone intends to do in December. And worse, I don’t imagine they will be doing it outside, they will be meeting up with friends and family indoors. If we are going to talk about hypocrisy, the base issue is the fact that if you believe in hard lockdowns — to the point where you believe that we delve to such levels of [in my opinion] absurdity that we clamp down on something as rudimentary as drinking pints outdoors — then I don’t see how one consistently can argue for ever leaving strict lockdown until there is a vaccine.

I’m sorry to tell you Arghus, but if hypocrisy is what you want to avoid, you may well be putting yourself in a fairly inescapable moral conundrum. Because if young people socialising now is an affront to the national effort to fight the disease, I don’t see how one would then consistently argue everyone across the land socialising in December is fine. Even if numbers are down to whatever level they need to be come the end of this month, the inevitable end point is another rise in cases and a likely lockdown early in 2021. Could I not just as easily say to you - sure who actually needs Christmas?

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Again, your points are well expressed and sincere — but I must say I can’t agree. I mean, we have to read your first paragraph in the context of what you say in your last paragraph. What we are trying to achieve is not actually “the suppression of an infectious disease” outright, it’s merely the suppression of the disease to the point where we can re-open things at Christmas, right? When things re-open, the inevitable consequence is a rise in cases — therefore it’s not about suppression of the disease....it’s merely about allowing socialising in December, which will allow the disease to spread again. So it’s not about “suppressing” the virus, it’s simply about timing its spread in a way to suit peoples desire to socialise and shop at Christmas.

If young people are to be demonised for the most rudimentary form of socialising available to them, then it angers me to see that society in general isn’t staring itself in the mirror and recognising that it is criticising young people for doing what almost everyone intends to do in December. And worse, I don’t imagine they will be doing it outside, they will be meeting up with friends and family indoors. If we are going to talk about hypocrisy, the base issue is the fact that if you believe in hard lockdowns — to the point where you believe that we delve to such levels of [in my opinion] absurdity that we clamp down on something as rudimentary as drinking pints outdoors — then I don’t see how one consistently can argue for ever leaving strict lockdown until there is a vaccine.

I’m sorry to tell you Arghus, but if hypocrisy is what you want to avoid, you may well be putting yourself in a fairly inescapable moral conundrum. Because if young people socialising now is an affront to the national effort to fight the disease, I don’t see how one would then consistently argue everyone across the land socialising in December is fine. Even if numbers are down to whatever level they need to be come the end of this month, the inevitable end point is another rise in cases and a likely lockdown early in 2021. Could I not just as easily say to you - sure who actually needs Christmas?

Well said

Akabusi wrote: »

I think its fairly simple, it took almost 3 months to get the numbers down first time with full buy in from the public, better weather and no schools. There isn't a hope in hell that we get them down to anywhere below 100 cases per day in 6 weeks. To have set such target was disingenuous at best but most likely to be used to extend the lockdown up to Christmas.

They had to give a target that people will try to achieve, if they came out and said Christmas is cancelled then people are going say what's the F**king point and not bother.