Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid 19 Part XXXI-187,554 ROI (2,970 deaths) 100,319 NI (1,730 deaths)(24/01)Read OP

1…129130132134135…333

Comments

  • #3932
    Bushmaster64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52 ✭✭Bushmaster64


    xhomelezz wrote: »
    Same outcome? Are you serious, or just winding up others.

    You don't seem to be getting it.

    Locking down the vulnerable is what we need to do. Locking down 20 year olds achieves nothing. If they catch it, they're statistically less likely to die than from influenza. If the vulnerable are locked down, the 20 year olds don't pass it onto them.


  • #3933
    Scuid Mhór
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Scuid Mhór


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Finally this is being looked at. I've been banging this drum since the summer and it makes sense of how this dose is spreading and how it has such a variability in symptoms within positive cases and also explains how you can have households where one or two infected people don't transmit it to people that they live with. I personally know households where the happened. One of the kids and the mother got it and were symptomatic(thankfully mildly) but the dad and the other kid didn't. Husband and wife sleeping in the same bed and one didn't get it? Eh...

    If everyone has about the same amount of vulnerability to a virus then the spread would be more complete. EG if one person catches a cold or flu in a household it's a near given everyone in that household will catch it(even the 20% of those infected with flu who remain asymptomatic will return a positive).

    It even explains the odd relationship with smokers. IE smokers seem to be less likely to get it(which was unexpected), but if they do they suffer worse with it if they do contract it(which was to be expected). Smokers catch more respiratory viruses than non smokers. Weaker lungs and are constantly touching their hands to their mouths. So they were more likely than the background population to catch this potential "immunising" virus giving them more protection, but if they didn't catch it their habit makes them more likely to get sicker(if nicotine was the protective factor you'd not see this to nearly the same degree)

    In essence covid transmission looks more like the spread of a virus in a partially immunised population.

    If it turns out to be true it also means that a vaccine should last a long time as far as protection goes.

    Wibbs this is pretty fascinating stuff, I'm surprised I haven't encountered it before. As someone who has a weak chest (and thus a propensity to catch colds) and found himself in a close contact situation recently but ended up testing negative, I am very curious to read more about this. Do you have any links to essays or articles in relation to same?


  • #3934
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    You don't seem to be getting it.

    Locking down the vulnerable is what we need to do. Locking down 20 year olds achieves nothing. If they catch it, they're statistically less likely to die than from influenza. If the vulnerable are locked down, the 20 year olds don't pass it onto them.

    It's you that isn't getting it. It was tried, it didn't work.


  • #3935
    xhomelezz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,106 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    You don't seem to be getting it.

    Locking down the vulnerable is what we need to do. Locking down 20 year olds achieves nothing. If they catch it, they're statistically less likely to die than from influenza. If the vulnerable are locked down, the 20 year olds don't pass it onto them.

    It was said many many times already. It doesn't work that way.


  • #3936
    Bushmaster64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52 ✭✭Bushmaster64


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    A small percent of those that caughtb it sure. When you allow unrestricted transmission that small percent turns out to be a lot of people, many who had no underlying conditions or didn't realise they had.

    It was tried in the UK, it was a horrible failure. What more do you need to know.

    As posted in my thread, 23,000 Scots died in a 4 month period from Influenza. No one panicked, no one wore masks, it was barely news.

    To date, 4,900 Scots have died in 10 months from Covid.

    So we'd had death rates 5 times as high in a third of the period and didn't destroy our economy, people's livelihoods or children's education and development.


  • Advertisement
  • #3937
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,014 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    So fewer than die from influenza?

    88k Brits between the ages of 18 and 64 have been admitted to hospital because of Covid since last March (I'd be interested by the Irish figures). Thats a pretty significant number of young people.

    People can define age in their own way, but I dont think of someone in their early 60s as being particularly old in this day and age.


  • #3938
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    A very small amount of healthy people under 55 have died from Covid. Fewer than die from Influenza.

    Ergo, the lockdown of healthy people under 55 is complete lunacy and is fuelling questions as to why.

    This is part of the reason why governments are losing the people.

    Ah yes, the much talked out protests/disregard for lockdown will happen any day now..people are waking up etc..11 months and counting..just wait 2 more weeks they'll be out on the street fighting the government's nonsense rules


  • #3939
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    As posted in my thread, 23,000 Scots died in a 4 month period from Influenza. No one panicked, no one wore masks, it was barely news.

    To date, 4,900 Scots have died in 10 months from Covid.

    So we'd had death rates 5 times as high in a third of the period and didn't destroy our economy, people's livelihoods or children's education and development.

    This has been covered multiple times in this thread. Go educate yourself.


  • #3940
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,878 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    A very small amount of healthy people under 55 have died from Covid. Fewer than die from Influenza.

    That is incorrect.
    Average UK flu deaths is 600.
    At least 70 percent of those deaths are over 65.

    I havent seen exact figures for under 60s by condition for flu but it is going to be far less than the covid figure of 388.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #3941
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    As posted in my thread, 23,000 Scots died in a 4 month period from Influenza. No one panicked, no one wore masks, it was barely news.

    To date, 4,900 Scots have died in 10 months from Covid.

    So we'd had death rates 5 times as high in a third of the period and didn't destroy our economy, people's livelihoods or children's education and development.

    They didn't. That's why it wasn't news, as it didn't happen. 23,000 deaths is 0.45% of Scotland's population.Almost 1 in every 200 Scottish people. That would be similar deaths per capita is Spanish flu over a 3 month period. If that occurred the death rate in Scotland would have been double the birth rate during the period.

    Can you even hear yourself? Or are you just a complete WUM.


  • Advertisement
  • #3942
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,014 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    As posted in my thread, 23,000 Scots died in a 4 month period from Influenza. No one panicked, no one wore masks, it was barely news.

    To date, 4,900 Scots have died in 10 months from Covid.

    So we'd had death rates 5 times as high in a third of the period and didn't destroy our economy, people's livelihoods or children's education and development.

    What year did 23,000 Scots die of flu?

    Just googled it...you're not far off actually...22,000 Scots did die one year from the flu...that year was 1918/19...I assume you know what happened that year


  • #3943
    Datacore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 178 ✭✭Datacore


    Wibbs: I wonder if it could be down to having been exposed to a similar, but not serious cousin of this coronavirus?

    There are a lot of them around and many cause little or no symptoms. This SARS-Cov-2 coronavirus is potentially deadly, but so many other coronaviri just cause sniffles.

    It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that there’s a cohort with immunity and it may also perhaps explain why Asian countries, while getting it, haven’t been wiped out by it.


  • #3944
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    They didn't. That's why it wasn't news, as it didn't happen. 23,000 deaths is 0.45% of Scotland's population.Almost 1 in every 200 Scottish people. That would be similar deaths per capita is Spanish flu.

    Can you even hear yourself? Or are you just a complete WUM.

    Same crap every few days. But flu! Posts exaggerated numbers, draws false conclusions.


  • #3945
    majcos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 596 ✭✭✭majcos


    Loss of another healthcare worker. RIP.

    https://m.independent.ie/news/much-loved-nurse-recently-diagnosed-with-covid-19-dies-suddenly-at-home-39956941.html


  • #3946
    duffman13
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,248 ✭✭✭duffman13


    On a good news note, hospitals in the South and Midlands were contacting local pharmacies to offer pharmacists vaccinations over the last 48 hours. Hopefully paves the way for them to vaccinate the wider community in the next couple of months.


  • #3947
    Bushmaster64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52 ✭✭Bushmaster64


    bilston wrote: »
    What year did 23,000 Scots die of flu?

    Dec 2017 to March 2018
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45876204

    I got the flu that year. First time I had so much as a cold or anything in 15 years. Got hit hard. It was brutal.


  • #3948
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,038 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    All vulnerable people go into lockdown.
    All people who live with vulnerable people go into lockdown.
    I presume you've thought this through carefully, so can you provide the approximate figure of how many people you think this is, as a matter of interest?


  • #3949
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    majcos wrote: »
    Loss of another healthcare worker. RIP.

    https://m.independent.ie/news/much-loved-nurse-recently-diagnosed-with-covid-19-dies-suddenly-at-home-39956941.html

    Very sad to read


  • #3950
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,014 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    Dec 2017 to March 2018
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45876204

    I got the flu that year. First time I had so much as a cold or anything in 15 years. Got hit hard. It was brutal.

    Nope...there were 23,000 deaths in total in Scotland...not 23,000 deaths from flu


  • #3951
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    Dec 2017 to March 2018
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45876204

    I got the flu that year. First time I had so much as a cold or anything in 15 years. Got hit hard. It was brutal.

    LOL total deaths were 23,000
    All cause
    Stop


  • Advertisement
  • #3952
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    Dec 2017 to March 2018
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45876204

    I got the flu that year. First time I had so much as a cold or anything in 15 years. Got hit hard. It was brutal.

    That article does not state 23k Scots died of influenza


  • #3953
    mcburns07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,410 ✭✭✭mcburns07


    majcos wrote: »
    Loss of another healthcare worker. RIP.

    https://m.independent.ie/news/much-loved-nurse-recently-diagnosed-with-covid-19-dies-suddenly-at-home-39956941.html

    It says recently diagnosed but what did she actually die from? It's not clear at all in the article.


  • #3954
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,878 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    Dec 2017 to March 2018
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45876204

    I got the flu that year. First time I had so much as a cold or anything in 15 years. Got hit hard. It was brutal.

    Read the article you linked.
    It says no such thing.
    That was the total deaths.

    Nobody is going to be convinced because these arguments have been heard last spring and were totally discredited already

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #3955
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    mcburns07 wrote: »
    It says recently diagnosed but what did she actually die from? It's not clear at all in the article.


    It says she died suddenly at home shortly after testing positive for Covid. I would hazard a guess the two are linked.


  • #3956
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,878 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    Underlying reason for deaths was influenza and pneumonia. As stated in the article.

    It does not state that in the article.

    The underlying causes of most of the "additional" deaths included respiratory diseases, heart disease, stroke and dementia.
    Very few deaths were caused by hypothermia and only a small proportion directly by influenza.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #3957
    Talisman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,712 ✭✭✭Talisman


    Steve012 wrote: »
    Lads n lassies, anyone know how many ICU beds we have in the country? 280 or higher at the moment?
    There was a news story in September that said the ICU capacity had been increased to 354. I would imagine that after that point they'll be repurposing operating theatres and wards.


  • #3958
    ek motor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    Bushmaster64 wrote: »
    Underlying reason for deaths was influenza and pneumonia. As stated in the article.


    You said 23k Scots died of influenza, that article does not support your assertion


  • #3959
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    ek motor wrote: »
    You said 23k Scots died of influenza, that article does not support your assertion

    Even if it did say that he is pointing to flu and somehow thinking that a more transmissible, more lethal virus we didn't have a vaccine for would be grand if we just let everyone at it. The words of an absolute fool.


  • #3960
    kilkenny31
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 701 ✭✭✭kilkenny31


    Talisman wrote: »
    There was a news story in September that said the ICU capacity had been increased to 354. I would imagine that after that point they'll be repurposing operating theatres and wards.

    I imagine 354 will be enough. Given that new infections are levelling off. I imagine ICU figures will peak at around 250-300.


  • Advertisement
  • #3961
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Scuid Mhór wrote: »
    Wibbs this is pretty fascinating stuff, I'm surprised I haven't encountered it before. As someone who has a weak chest (and thus a propensity to catch colds) and found himself in a close contact situation recently but ended up testing negative, I am very curious to read more about this. Do you have any links to essays or articles in relation to same?

    The theory is not that it gives immunity but that your immune system will be attuned to that type of virus so will be more likely to fight it off with only a mild/ asymptomatic infection. If the effect exists it would not prevent someone exposed from testing positive and would not be a guarantee. Plus coronavirus variants only account for 10-20% of common colds


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement