Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

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

1…7980828485…318

Comments

  • #2432
    igCorcaigh
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 12,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    This is weird?

    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1337129178488057862?s=19


  • #2433
    Jim_Hodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,439 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They are also generally getting on with life without infection numbers and deaths being pushed in their face every day

    Do you not think that's part of the reason their cases and deaths are so appalling?


  • #2434
    BurgundyRose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭BurgundyRose


    brisan wrote: »
    The HSE and NPHET have a lot to answer for in not protecting the nursing homes
    IMO they are directly responsible for dozens if not hundreds of deaths

    No, they don't. They are doing their very best.

    It was always in the hand of the people and the population. The more virus in the communities, the more of chances it has of reaching into more vulnerable people like nursing homes.

    It was always it the hands of the population to follow the guidelines to hammer down on infection rates. A lot of people did what was required of them to do and continue to do so. Other people don't care about protecting themselves and their circles and communities from the virus. It was always in the hands of the population to get the infection rates down as low as possible and that was the best way to protect vulnerable people and homes.


  • #2435
    GazzaL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭GazzaL


    When will we see the statistics on people who haven't been diagnosed or treated for non-COVID illnesses? This, combined with the social and economic terrorism of anti-WHO, anti-ECDC, anti-science lockdowns, is a national scandal. In a decade or two, we'll be talking about NPHET in the same breath as the likes of Magdalene Laundries and paedo priests. The pro-lockdown crowd who support these fascists are a disgrace.


  • #2436
    brisan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    BurgundyRose wrote: »
    No, they don't. They are doing their very best.

    It was always in the hand of the people and the population. The more virus in the communities, the more of chances it has of reaching into more vulnerable people like nursing homes.

    It was always it the hands of the population to follow the guidelines to hammer down on infection rates. A lot of people did what was required of them to do and continue to do so. Other people don't care about protecting themselves and their circles and communities from the virus. It was always in the hands of the population to get the infection rates down as low as possible and that was the best way to protect vulnerable people and homes.

    You do realize that the HSE released people untested from hospital into nursing homes
    You do realize that more people contract covid in hospital than people that go into hospital with covid
    You do realize that the HSE stopped daily testing in nursing homes
    You do realize that there were more clusters in nursing homes than in any other setting
    The HSE and NPHET are directly to blame for dozens if not hundreds of deaths
    They are not doing a good job ,they have failed miserably on many levels


  • Advertisement
  • #2437
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,138 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    wadacrack wrote: »
    RO near 1

    https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1337108269983207428

    The infection has high mortality, what are these idiots talking about.


  • #2438
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,929 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    GazzaL wrote: »
    When will we see the statistics on people who haven't been diagnosed or treated for non-COVID illnesses? This, combined with the social and economic terrorism of anti-WHO, anti-ECDC, anti-science lockdowns, is a national scandal. In a decade or two, we'll be talking about NPHET in the same breath as the likes of Magdalene Laundries and paedo priests. The pro-lockdown crowd who support these fascists are a disgrace.

    Well thats just overloaded my buzzword bingo card


  • #2439
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,138 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    brisan wrote: »
    Just because the deaths are not being pushed (more out of embarrassment and playing it down ) in their faces every day does not mean they are not happening

    Where do you stop though, should it only be covid deaths that should be pushed in their faces. We have a weird obsession with mortality in this country.


  • #2440
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,519 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    GazzaL wrote: »
    When will we see the statistics on people who haven't been diagnosed or treated for non-COVID illnesses? This, combined with the social and economic terrorism of anti-WHO, anti-ECDC, anti-science lockdowns, is a national scandal. In a decade or two, we'll be talking about NPHET in the same breath as the likes of Magdalene Laundries and paedo priests. The pro-lockdown crowd who support these fascists are a disgrace.

    This is a totally false argument.

    If you don't make efforts to suppress the virus there will be even less chance of a functional health system to treat non-Covid illnesses.

    The whole purpose of restrictions was to prevent the health system from becoming overwhelmed. A Covid overwhelmed health system will not result in more care and treatment for non-Covid care and treatment.


  • #2441
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,519 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    niallo27 wrote: »
    The infection has high mortality, what are these idiots talking about.

    It has high mortality in vulnerable and older people, that's what they are saying.

    Over 70s have a 1 in 20 chance of dying. That is high mortality.


  • Advertisement
  • #2442
    BurgundyRose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭BurgundyRose


    igCorcaigh wrote: »
    This is weird?

    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1337129178488057862?s=19

    That is weird. Maybe it has a connection to this:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/04/22/this-hivaids-specialist-explains-its-similarities---and-differences---to-covid-19/


  • #2443
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,138 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Arghus wrote: »
    This is a totally false argument.

    If you don't make efforts to suppress the virus there will be even less chance of a functional health system to treat non-Covid illnesses.

    The whole purpose of restrictions was to prevent the health system from becoming overwhelmed. A Covid overwhelmed health system will not result in more care and treatment for non-Covid care and treatment.

    Yes but are the restrictions too severe, could we have less restrictions and prevent the health services from being overwhelmed. Hospitals have never been quieter yet we continue to have severe restrictions. In the height of it 6 to 8 weeks ago, our hospitals were much quieter than every winter before it. I'm all for doing things in a safe manner but we are way too cautious.


  • #2444
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,138 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Arghus wrote: »
    It has high mortality in vulnerable and older people, that's what they are saying.

    Over 70s have a 1 in 20 chance of dying. That is high mortality.

    Except its not what they said, they said it had a high mortality rate, especially in older people, not only in older people which it should have been.


  • #2445
    ShyMets
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭ShyMets


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I think its important to keep people abreast of the numbers and deaths to try and prevent complacency.

    Any word from your Brother on the wonder drug that was going to end the pandemic in weeks.


  • #2446
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,519 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Yes but are the restrictions too severe, could we have less restrictions and prevent the health services from being overwhelmed. Hospitals have never been quieter yet we continue to have severe restrictions. In the height of it 6 to 8 weeks ago, our hospitals were much quieter than every winter before it. I'm all for doing things in a safe manner but we are way too cautious.

    If we had continued on the trajectory we were on 6-8 weeks ago it would have only been a matter of time before the scenario of an overwhelmed health system became reality - something that several other countries had to deal with and are still dealing with. It could have been a few more weeks, or a month or two, but we would have got there. Hospital admissions were rising since August and they were rising more and more each day. It was a mathematical certainty that we would have eventually ran out of capacity if nothing was done.


  • #2447
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,138 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Arghus wrote: »
    If we had continued on the trajectory we were on 6-8 weeks ago it would have only been a matter of time before the scenario of an overwhelmed health system became reality - something that several other countries had to deal with and are still dealing with. It could have been a few more weeks, or a month or two, but we would have got there. Hospital admissions were rising since August and they were rising more and more each day. It was a mathematical certainty that we would have eventually ran out of capacity if nothing was done.

    Yes but thats my point we went straight to lock the whole country down with the most severe restrictions without trying anything else.


  • #2448
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,519 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Except its not what they said, they said it had a high mortality rate, especially in older people, not only in older people which it should have been.

    Older and vulnerable people make up about a third of the Irish population.

    It has a high mortality rate for that fairly high proportion of the population.

    It's been attributed in a cause of death for over 2000 people here.

    That's more than enough justification to say that it has high mortality, without any caveats.


  • #2449
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Arghus wrote: »
    If we had continued on the trajectory we were on 6-8 weeks ago it would have only been a matter of time before the scenario of an overwhelmed health system became reality - something that several other countries had to deal with and are still dealing with. It could have been a few more weeks, or a month or two, but we would have got there. Hospital admissions were rising since August and they were rising more and more each day. It was a mathematical certainty that we would have eventually ran out of capacity if nothing was done.

    Are we sure that hospital admissions were rising though? Or was it just the hospital figures rising?

    Lots of hospitalisations are actually just people in for other reasons that have a positive PCR test.


  • #2450
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 543 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    igCorcaigh wrote: »
    This is weird?

    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1337129178488057862?s=19

    They used a protein derived from HIV in the vaccine. It cannot replicate and it's not dangerous. However a small number of participants produced antibodies to it. They don't have HIV but because of this they still tested positive. You obviously can't market something like that to the public so it's back to the drawing board.


  • #2451
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,519 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are we sure that hospital admissions were rising though? Or was it just the hospital figures rising?

    Lots of hospitalisations are actually just people in for other reasons that have a positive PCR test.

    Hospital admissions were rising.

    Prove me wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #2452
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    BurgundyRose wrote: »
    No, they don't. They are doing their very best.

    It was always in the hand of the people and the population. The more virus in the communities, the more of chances it has of reaching into more vulnerable people like nursing homes.

    It was always it the hands of the population to follow the guidelines to hammer down on infection rates. A lot of people did what was required of them to do and continue to do so. Other people don't care about protecting themselves and their circles and communities from the virus. It was always in the hands of the population to get the infection rates down as low as possible and that was the best way to protect vulnerable people and homes.

    It was always in the hands of people to protect themselves if they felt vulnerable. (Other than residents of nursing homes, who were thrown to the wolves).


  • #2453
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,519 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Yes but thats my point we went straight to lock the whole country down with the most severe restrictions without trying anything else.

    We had about 1200 cases a day at that stage. That was too high. You don't have the luxury at that point of trying level three and hoping for the best - because if you're wrong, you've got no wriggle room for error at that point and the likelihood of the situation becoming far more out of control is practically certain.


  • #2454
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Well thats just overloaded my buzzword bingo card

    Do you think that you might ever consider adding something to the debate?


  • #2455
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    Arghus wrote: »
    It has high mortality in vulnerable and older people, that's what they are saying.

    Over 70s have a 1 in 20 chance of dying. That is high mortality.

    But they didn't say that. They said 'especially' in older and vulnerable people, which implied a high mortality in the rest of the population, which is patently untrue.


  • #2456
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    Arghus wrote: »
    Older and vulnerable people make up about a third of the Irish population.

    It has a high mortality rate for that fairly high proportion of the population.

    It's been attributed in a cause of death for over 2000 people here.

    That's more than enough justification to say that it has high mortality, without any caveats.

    They introduced the (false) caveat.


  • #2457
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Arghus wrote: »
    We had about 1200 cases a day at that stage. That was too high. You don't have the luxury at that point of trying level three and hoping for the best - because if you're wrong, you've got no wriggle room for error at that point and the likelihood of the situation becoming far more out of control is practically certain.

    Eh cases started reducing before level five though?


  • #2458
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,519 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    polesheep wrote: »
    But they didn't say that. They said 'especially' in older and vulnerable people, which implied a high mortality in the rest of the population, which is patently untrue.

    I've already got into it in the post above.

    I don't agree with you.

    You don't agree with me. Fine.

    Nolan did also say in the briefing that someone aged between 40-49 has a 1 in a 1000 chance of dying from Covid. So they aren't claiming that the risks are significant to people outside those vulnerable categories.


  • #2459
    BeefeaterHat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 547 ✭✭✭BeefeaterHat


    brisan wrote: »
    You do realize that the HSE released people untested from hospital into nursing homes
    You do realize that more people contract covid in hospital than people that go into hospital with covid
    You do realize that the HSE stopped daily testing in nursing homes
    You do realize that there were more clusters in nursing homes than in any other setting
    The HSE and NPHET are directly to blame for dozens if not hundreds of deaths
    They are not doing a good job ,they have failed miserably on many levels

    I don't understand the compulsive need some people have to blindly defend the government and HSE and just blame the public in the face of all evidence.


  • #2460
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    Arghus wrote: »
    I've already got into it in the post above.

    I don't agree with you.

    You don't agree with me. Fine.

    Nolan did also say in the briefing that someone aged between 40-49 has a 1 in a 1000 chance of dying from Covid. So they aren't claiming that the risks are significant to people outside those vulnerable categories.

    What is there to agree on? They said 'especially'.


  • Advertisement
  • #2461
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    BeefeaterHat wrote: »
    I don't understand the compulsive need some people have to blindly defend the government and HSE and just blame the public in the face of all evidence.

    At the end of the day they are defending restrictions, because they are either vulnerable or have someone vulnerable.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement