Covid 19 Part XXIX-85,394 ROI(2,200 deaths) 62,723 NI (1,240 deaths) (26/12) Read OP

charlie14 · 10-12-2020 12:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Did bodies pile up on the street though as many predicted?

Nope. They have an older population hence more deaths.

Not true.

The poster you are replying to was comparing Sweden to its neighbours.
Sweden has 20% of its population aged 65 and over. Finland has 22.14%, Denmark 19.97%%, and Norway 17.27.
With a combined population over 1.5 greater than Sweden deaths for all three are 1,698. Sweden has 7,296 deaths.

Per head of population, Sweden`s deaths are 7 times greater than the other 3 combined.

KrustyUCC · 10-12-2020 12:05PM

Government being urged to tone down advice against Christmas travel

"The Government is being urged to tone down its advice against non-essential air travel this Christmas and allow Irish people to come home by providing affordable Covid testing at airports.

As the Irish Examiner reports, the Oireachtas Transport Committee of TDs and senators said the Government should take a new approach to the EU's Covid traffic lights system and subsidise PCR testing at Irish airports to get the cost down to €50 or less.

The committee wants the Government to work with airports to bulk up PCR testing for pre-departure travellers to regions designated 'orange' under the traffic lights guidance and also bolster the current regime for testing people who have arrived five days after flying in from the 'red' regions.

But it wants the Government to go further by insisting that passengers from both 'orange' and 'red' regions are required to get a negative test for Covid taken three days before departure, meaning they need not face travel restrictions when they get here"

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-being-urged-to-tone-down-advice-against-christmas-travel-1049021.html

Johnboy1951 · 10-12-2020 12:07PM

seamus wrote: »

Saying that "Ivermectin is used to treat river blindness" is like saying, "Chocolate is poisonous to dogs, therefore I can poison trees with it too".

This is not a true comparison and is just nonsense!

Ivermectin is used to treat River Blindness in humans.

Using it to treat Covid-19 IN HUMANS would have similar safety concerns as using it to treat River Blindness.

I have no idea if it is efficacious or not, but the emboldened text above is just nonsense.

River blindness is caused by a worm. Covid is caused by a virus.

*If* it worked, it would be purely coincidental and not because it's an anti-parasitic.

The only thing I found in relation to it was that a researcher put the active ingredient in Ivermectin into a test tube with Covid and it was effective at destroying the virus.

That's nice, but it's as useful as knowing that putting bleach in a test tube with covid will also kill the virus.

Translating that effect into a drug you can give to humans without injuring them is a whole other ball game.

The two are inextricably linked. More vaccinated people == less pressure on the health service.
It's actually a better metric, since what we have right now is retrospective. We can really only see how the health service is coping and make an educated guess as to what's coming down the line.

Whereas if we know who has been vaccinated, that educated guess gets a lot better and we can proactively plan what to expect. As we have seen, at the moment one nursing home or hospital outbreak and we see a spike in serious cases. That's impossible to plan for. But if there's 90% vaccine uptake in nursing homes and hospitals, the course of the infection becomes much more predictable.

seamus · 10-12-2020 12:10PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

This is not a true comparison and is just nonsense!

It's a proper comparison. The fact that ivermectin is effective against a worm, says zero about its effectiveness against a virus. Just like chocolate, dogs and trees.

The worm that causes river blindness is biologically more similar to you and I than it is to a virus.

KrustyUCC · 10-12-2020 12:39PM

First 'Covid-tested' flight lands in Rome from New York

"The first "Covid-tested" flight has arrived in Rome from New York, an initiative designed to open up air routes between Europe and the US blocked by the pandemic.

Passengers had to show they had returned a negative virus test within 48 hours of getting on the Alitalia flight from JFK airport

They were also required to take another test on arrival at Rome's Fiumicino.

All 100 passengers on board came up negative, according to the AGI news agency, allowing them to avoid a 14-day quarantine required of other arrivals from the US.

Everyone on board still had to wear masks and replace them every four hours, according to airport authorities."

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1209/1183259-coronavirus-global/

That's good news

Flight seems to have been handled very well

AutoTuning · 10-12-2020 12:44PM

My only query on that is what's the 48 hour window for?

If you get tested, you pass and then you get the virus, which is very possible in a high infections area, then you could still board a flight infected.

People will be arriving at airports via busy transit systems too, which are often very high risk.

Realistically you'd need to be able to check people at the airport and have them them not leaving between the test and the flight.

It's better than nothing, but it's still not exactly entirely water tight either.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 10-12-2020 12:47PM

AutoTuning wrote: »

My only query on that is what's the 48 hour window for?

If you get tested, you pass and then you get the virus, which is very possible in a high infections area, then you could still board a flight infected.

People will be arriving at airports via busy transit systems too, which are often very high risk.

Realistically you'd need to be able to check people at the airport and have them them not leaving between the test and the flight.

It's better than nothing, but it's still not exactly entirely water tight either.

Did they have to get a pcr test 48 hours before flying?

That takes time to process. A couple of hours lab time shipping from test centre to lab and probably is in a que in the lab.

bush · 10-12-2020 12:48PM

AutoTuning wrote: »

My only query on that is what's the 48 hour window for?

If you get tested, you pass and then you get the virus, which is very possible in a high infections area, then you could still board a flight infected.

People will be arriving at airports via busy transit systems too, which are often very high risk.

Realistically you'd need to be able to check people at the airport and have them them not leaving between the test and the flight.

It's better than nothing, but it's still not exactly entirely water tight either.

Its enough

10-12-2020 12:48PM

AutoTuning wrote: »

My only query on that is what's the 48 hour window for?

If you get tested, you pass and then you get the virus, which is very possible in a high infections area, then you could still board a flight infected.

People will be arriving at airports via busy transit systems too, which are often very high risk.

Realistically you'd need to be able to check people at the airport and have them them not leaving between the test and the flight.

It's better than nothing, but it's still not exactly entirely water tight either.

You are very unlikely to be infectious within 48 hours of catching the virus.

Knine · 10-12-2020 12:49PM

I don't know if it has been mentioned or not but they appear to have totally forgotten Carers in their new vaccine policy plus the many very vulnerable people under 18. I'm aware it has not been tested on Children. The Carers Associations are now starting to lobby. As usual we are forgotten!

seamus · 10-12-2020 12:56PM

Realistically carers don't need to be especially high on the priority list.

The person they're caring for will get vaccinated as a matter of priority, and that's that. The carer is then at no greater risk than anyone else.

Healthcare staff are prioritised because they come into contact with multiple patients and colleagues on a daily basis. Whereas a carer doesn't.

Unless I'm missing something?

SusanC10 · 10-12-2020 01:04PM

Is there any mention anywhere of Adults with Special Needs ?

CIARAN_BOYLE · 10-12-2020 01:18PM

seamus wrote: »

Realistically carers don't need to be especially high on the priority list.

The person they're caring for will get vaccinated as a matter of priority, and that's that. The carer is then at no greater risk than anyone else.

Healthcare staff are prioritised because they come into contact with multiple patients and colleagues on a daily basis. Whereas a carer doesn't.

Unless I'm missing something?

What if you are a carer for a medically vulnerable person under 18 who cant be vaccinated as research doesnt cover them?

Might be a different scenario then imo.

seamus · 10-12-2020 01:23PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

What if you are a carer for a medically vulnerable person under 18 who cant be vaccinated as research doesnt cover them?

Might be a different scenario then imo.

True that. I would be surprised if a mechanism doesn't appear to allow people to request a dispensation to get skipped up the queue. Maybe the request gets relayed through CHI (or the patient's primary doctor, e.g. for an oncology patient) to ensure it's not abused.

Probably won't appear till Feb/March though. There will be a lot people having to just sit tight.

harr · 10-12-2020 01:27PM

seamus wrote: »

Realistically carers don't need to be especially high on the priority list.

The person they're caring for will get vaccinated as a matter of priority, and that's that. The carer is then at no greater risk than anyone else.

Healthcare staff are prioritised because they come into contact with multiple patients and colleagues on a daily basis. Whereas a carer doesn't.

Unless I'm missing something?

I am a full time carer and while my child can stay at home and limit his contacts I still have to go do the shopping and other day to day stuff in turn risking me catching something and bringing it home.
No mention of carers on the list or no mention of vulnerable teenagers.
While we definitely were not expecting to be top of the list I was definitely expecting to be in 3rd or 4th on the list .

hmmm · 10-12-2020 01:33PM

seamus wrote: »

True that. I would be surprised if a mechanism doesn't appear to allow people to request a dispensation to get skipped up the queue. Maybe the request gets relayed through CHI (or the patient's primary doctor, e.g. for an oncology patient) to ensure it's not abused.

I'm sure there will be. They can't put in every edge-case into the document, it would be a hundred pages long and no-one would know where they were. As it is it's nearly too long particularly for the media/public to digest.

fly_agaric · 10-12-2020 01:37PM

prunudo wrote: »

Funny enough, just listening to the radio now it feels restrictions will be around for a long time yet. What struck me was the narrative seems to have shifted, and lifting of restrictions will now be based on who and how many people have been vaccinated rather than the current model of how the health service is coping.

I don't think it is a "narrative" really. They are connected.

We've gone through one cycle of enacting & lifting restrictions with another to come, probably after Christmas early next year.

Without a change of approach here (which is not going to happen now, with vaccine(s) expected soon) what follows a while after lifting most of the restrictions seems predictable.

Can't be any "back to normal" for us until at least healthcare workers and those most likely to get very ill from it (65+ etc) have been vaccinated.
That is quite alot of people to get through.

AutoTuning · 10-12-2020 01:50PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are very unlikely to be infectious within 48 hours of catching the virus.

What difference does that make? You walk into Ireland or Italy etc and become infectious and then travel around.

It just all seems a bit of a wishy washy European / American mess compared to what's been achieved in Asia and Australia / NZ

Treepole · 10-12-2020 01:52PM

harr wrote: »

I am a full time carer and while my child can stay at home and limit his contacts I still have to go do the shopping and other day to day stuff in turn risking me catching something and bringing it home.
No mention of carers on the list or no mention of vulnerable teenagers.
While we definitely were not expecting to be top of the list I was definitely expecting to be in 3rd or 4th on the list .

The vaccine won't stop you catching covid. It limits the effects of covid if you do catch it, so they are giving it to the people to whom catching covid would do the most damage.

AutoTuning · 10-12-2020 02:00PM

Treepole wrote: »

The vaccine won't stop you catching covid. It limits the effects of covid if you do catch it, so they are giving it to the people to whom catching covid would do the most damage.

That's actually unclear. The trials weren't long enough to conclude that they provide "sterilising immunity" meaning the virus' ability to reproduce is stopped. For that reason, they've taken a cautious approach and aren't assuming that the vaccine completely stops transmission. All they can confirm is it drastically reduces the possibility of developing COVID-19 disease.

We will have more knowledge as the vaccines rollout, so perhaps in 6 months time we can be a lot more certain.

There's also no certainties about long term immunity until we've seen how it goes. So they won't make claims about that either until they have clear evidence, even if it's very likely that it might be providing solid long term results.

There are also multiple vaccines taking different approaches. So that may vary too.

If it is providing good sterilising immunity; then we will be able to comfortably know that once vaccinated it's very likely you can't transmit the virus and that will be a real game changer.

The priority was to get the vaccine out, and ensure safety and that it prevents the disease. The other aspects will become clearer as the months roll on.

The mRNA vaccines trigger an immune response to the spike proteins. It's very focused. That results in proteins from your immune system binding to the spike proteins that are on the outside of the virus, rendering it unable to infect cells, so it's likely that it might be very very effective at preventing the virus getting very far at all.

Those spike proteins are like a key that is used by the virus to plug into specific receptors on your cells. Once it's disabled, the virus is fairly useless.

Knine · 10-12-2020 02:11PM

Treepole wrote: »

The vaccine won't stop you catching covid. It limits the effects of covid if you do catch it, so they are giving it to the people to whom catching covid would do the most damage.

I know I am not on my own here in that I have little support for the person I care for if I become unwell with Covid! Many Carers care for those who would be extremely vulnerable & not all would be suitable to get the vaccine.

Believe me those that do lobby for us are not happy at all with no mention of us. Similar to how when schools & day care services, medical appointments etc were shut/cancelled for months, we were simply forgotten. It is not good enough

Knine · 10-12-2020 02:14PM

seamus wrote: »

Realistically carers don't need to be especially high on the priority list.

The person they're caring for will get vaccinated as a matter of priority, and that's that. The carer is then at no greater risk than anyone else.

Healthcare staff are prioritised because they come into contact with multiple patients and colleagues on a daily basis. Whereas a carer doesn't.

Unless I'm missing something?

One of the two I care for is under 18 so won't be getting vaccinated & will likely not be suitable for vaccination even if it is decided it is safe for children. So it is not that simple. We simply have been forgotten hence the Carers Associations are up in arms!

10-12-2020 02:16PM

AutoTuning wrote: »

What difference does that make? You walk into Ireland or Italy etc and become infectious and then travel around.

It just all seems a bit of a wishy washy European / American mess compared to what's been achieved in Asia and Australia / NZ

Tested prior to travel and on arrival. Its not a free for all once you land. You still need the second negative before the 14 days is waived

prunudo · 10-12-2020 02:19PM

fly_agaric wrote: »

I don't think it is a "narrative" really. They are connected.

We've gone through one cycle of enacting & lifting restrictions with another to come, probably after Christmas early next year.

Without a change of approach here (which is not going to happen now, with vaccine(s) expected soon) what follows a while after lifting most of the restrictions seems predictable.

Can't be any "back to normal" for us until at least healthcare workers and those most likely to get very ill from it (65+ etc) have been vaccinated.
That is quite alot of people to get through.

Restrictions were lifted during the summer once the numbers had reduced enough. Listening to Donnelly this morning, the impression I got was that any further restrictions would be based on when certain sections of society became vaccinated rather than when the cases were dropping or when the health service wasn't swamped.
Like you say, to a certain extent they are connected but it appears they are using a new measuring stick for an future reopenings of the country.
We got to low levels during the summer without a vaccine and given the lack of clearity about whether the vaccine actually stops you getting the virus completely, I still think opening up should be based on how the health service is coping.

Elmo · 10-12-2020 02:24PM

Questions

1. if enough people are vaccinated do we go into level 1?
2. what happened to the curve?
3. have hospitals found better ways to treat cases that need admissions?

Sorry those questions may already have been answered.

fly_agaric · 10-12-2020 02:45PM

prunudo wrote: »

Restrictions were lifted during the summer once the numbers had reduced enough. Listening to Donnelly this morning, the impression I got was that any further restrictions would be based on when certain sections of society became vaccinated rather than when the cases were dropping or when the health service wasn't swamped.
Like you say, to a certain extent they are connected but it appears they are using a new measuring stick for an future reopenings of the country.
We got to low levels during the summer without a vaccine and given the lack of clearity about whether the vaccine actually stops you getting the virus completely, I still think opening up should be based on how the health service is coping.

I don't see the problem here really, or that it suggests an undue increase of caution if they consider vaccination rates/progress of their programme.

First, they have never based the increase in restrictions on how health service is coping; they have used projections of what is expected to happen to the health service down the road based on current detected case numbers and the growth rate. Waiting until strain appears in the health service (in terms of numbers showing up in hospital gasping for breath getting tough to cope with) to impose restrictions would have been taking a massive risk.

Second, the low levels of the summer seem unachievable at the moment without a change of approach, probably including even more restrictions being brought in as opposed to loosening them. We were until very recently on the Govt.'s "level 5" and despite this there are still 200-300 cases recorded a day I believe. Covid-19 not going down to the levels of the summer when the virus was almost eliminated from the country. Santa is wonderful, but I don't think he will bring Ireland that gift for Christmas.

If the vaccine(s) work (to extent that people who are vaccinated do not get sick regardless of specifics of whether they do/do not contract or spread the virus) then higher case numbers can probably be tolerated once certain sectors of the population have been vaccinated.

seamus · 10-12-2020 02:52PM

Elmo wrote: »

1. if enough people are vaccinated do we go into level 1?

Yes, eventually. The restrictions will be ramped down over time based on the number of vaccinations and the state of the hospital system. Even if we have 30% vaccinations, if we have 2,000 cases/day and 50 people in ICU, we won't be moving to level 1.

2. what happened to the curve?

It curved. I don't understand this question.

3. have hospitals found better ways to treat cases that need admissions?

Yes. The treatment has gotten better, lots of lessons have been learned. This is why the death rate has been less in the second wave despite a massive surge in cases.
However it is still a case that when someone ends up in ICU, it is very bad news.

Elmo · 10-12-2020 03:10PM

seamus wrote: »

Yes, eventually. The restrictions will be ramped down over time based on the number of vaccinations and the state of the hospital system. Even if we have 30% vaccinations, if we have 2,000 cases/day and 50 people in ICU, we won't be moving to level 1.
It curved. I don't understand this question.
Yes. The treatment has gotten better, lots of lessons have been learned. This is why the death rate has been less in the second wave despite a massive surge in cases.
However it is still a case that when someone ends up in ICU, it is very bad news.

Q2. The curve we had to flatten the curve, you've pretty much answered the q.

What if we have 0 icu but 2000 cases?

seamus · 10-12-2020 03:17PM

Elmo wrote: »

What if we have 0 icu but 2000 cases?

If we say for the sake of argument that we have 2000 cases a day, very few new hospital admissions and no icu admissions for 2-3 weeks then we would be giving serious consideration to putting an end to restrictions completely.

For a level 1 situation we'd want to be looking at 1-2 ICU admission per week at most.

All IMHO, of course.

Realistically I don't think we would have 2,000 confirmed cases and nobody in ICU. As time moves on, less people will be presenting for tests and asymptomatic spread will go unchecked.

fred funk }{ · 10-12-2020 03:36PM

Once nobody is dying from it or getting seriously ill, there can be no justification for having any restrictions.

Covid 19 Part XXIX-85,394 ROI(2,200 deaths) 62,723 NI (1,240 deaths) (26/12) Read OP

Comments