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…294295297299300…333

Comments

  • #8882
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    lawred2 wrote: »
    same pillock who wanted a "meaningful Christmas"

    Ha true

    So he's basically said level 5 until 100-200 cases

    He's expecting people to keep contacts down at the very low level theyre at now and not to see friends, family, partners for months on end to get to that level

    Keeping all social outlets closed for months

    No sports for ordinary people at level 5, no gyms etc

    Good luck selling that one


  • #8883
    fly_agaric
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    And that is more or less all I wanted to say. And yes I accused government and media of stirring. That may be the one slightly controversial bit of my OP. Well the government bit. No doubt the media are stirring.

    Yes, the media at times (when some new bad news comes out, like last day or so). The government I don't agree with.

    Also the facts you used don't support a claim that this situation is not as serious as the government (among others across Europe) and their public health advisors tell us it is.

    You deployed these facts in same way as those who've in the past opposed any sort of increases in restrictions and pushed to have the government move as fast as possible (and take risks) to relax them. i.e. The number of deaths is low or exaggerated, so this is not serious, so why have these awful restrictions?

    That is the reason for a negative reaction, not a denial of the facts you posted themselves or addiction to doommongering etc.

    edit: On all news media they often exaggerate at first bite of a story, it is their nature. The tone was a bit too joyful I thought when the vaccines began to be approved and distributed. Yeah it was great, almost a miracle but it was always going to take a long time to get so many people vaccinated (a huge logistical undertaking) and there were going to be bumps along the road.


  • #8884
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    jackboy wrote: »
    No choice. Realistically we will need to get well below 100 cases to have any length of time before next lockdown.

    What next lockdown?

    With people vaccinated there shouldn't be a next one

    When you have all nursing homes, hcws, over 70s vaccinated by the end of March that's a game changer

    Some people would love to stay lockdown forever it seems


  • #8885
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    lawred2 wrote: »
    so the vaccination by September plan looks to have stumbled at the first hurdle?
    Not in any meaningful way. The result is that some people who would have been earmarked for vaccination in March/April, may not get vaccinated until April/May.
    This won't delay the entire schedule since supply is the limiting factor in the first phase.
    The volume of vaccinations that will take place will mean that moving tens of thousands of vaccinations into Q2 will just be absorbed into the Q2 schedule.

    We have 5,000 vaccinators trained up, and there are suggestions of training up other suitably qualified professionals, like Vets.

    Doing 20 hours a week, 4 vaccinations per hour, at 75% capacity, means we can achieve 300,000 vaccinations per week. Which means we could two-dose the entire adult population in 25 weeks (6 months) if supply were no issue.

    And that's using conservative numbers.


  • #8886
    alexonhisown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭alexonhisown


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    Can see her out my living room window on the path chatting ****e with group of of local aul ones!

    Said yesterday evening her result would be back in 48 hours :pac:

    Lol dis bitch.. Calling everyone up !

    Is she even wearing a mask?

    My sister was coming out of her local shop recently and was about to throw her mask in the bin outside. A woman standing outside asked her if she could have her mask because they wouldn't let her in without one. My sister was dumbfounded. She said to her "no, sure i could have covid". Woman said " f sake, whats the chances you have covid". Security man at door told her masks on sale inside for €1, to which she replied "f that"and walked away.

    No cure for stupidity, i guess.


  • Advertisement
  • #8887
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,139 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    jackboy wrote: »
    No choice. Realistically we will need to get well below 100 cases to have any length of time before next lockdown.

    So we should stay locked down so we don't have to lock down again. That's wonderful logic right there.


  • #8888
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    niallo27 wrote: »
    So we should stay locked down so we don't have to lock down again. That's wonderful logic right there.

    Don't forget stay lockdown so cases don't rise so we don't need to lockdown again


  • #8889
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    KrustyUCC wrote: »
    What next lockdown?

    With people vaccinated there shouldn't be a next one

    When you have all nursing homes, hcws, over 70s vaccinated by the end of March that's a game changer

    Some people would love to stay lockdown forever it seems

    Over 70s don't make ICU. Many of them don't make it into hospital. Until you have the over 40s risk groups done vaccination would only buy you a few weeks of relaxed restrictions.

    Yes, you would expect lower proportions of people getting ill but once you'd have a few thousand infections occurring daily with no suppressed restrictions you'd be back with an impaired health system the in no time.

    Vaccinations will help just not by as much as people think until we've most of the population vaccinated.


  • #8890
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,449 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    seamus wrote: »
    Not in any meaningful way. The result is that some people who would have been earmarked for vaccination in March/April, may not get vaccinated until April/May.
    This won't delay the entire schedule since supply is the limiting factor in the first phase.
    The volume of vaccinations that will take place will mean that moving tens of thousands of vaccinations into Q2 will just be absorbed into the Q2 schedule.

    We have 5,000 vaccinators trained up, and there are suggestions of training up other suitably qualified professionals, like Vets.

    Doing 20 hours a week, 4 vaccinations per hour, at 75% capacity, means we can achieve 300,000 vaccinations per week. Which means we could two-dose the entire adult population in 25 weeks (6 months) if supply were no issue.

    And that's using conservative numbers.

    That's also assuming no more production issues or slowdowns due to bureaucracy. That's a big assumption at this point given we know there are production issues.


  • #8891
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    You must have read that into my post. I only posted facts.

    If that is now equal to belittling covid then we really are down a rabbit hole.

    What did you intend to explain to us that we didn't already know with these facts? Yes Ireland does not have very high deaths , but most people are aware that this is because of effective suppression of the virus as evidence by the fact most of our neighbouring countries including our closest neighbours a few km's up North have seen historic excess death increase while we have seen normal mortality rates

    NI has seen 2124 excess deaths in the pandemic
    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus/grim-toll-just-under-200-excess-deaths-recorded-in-first-two-weeks-of-2021-40001012.html
    The equivalent of about 5700 excess deaths here , when in reality we saw about 800-1000 excess deaths this year.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/september-mortality-statistics-broadly-in-line-with-previous-years-cso-says-1.4397600?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fseptember-mortality-statistics-broadly-in-line-with-previous-years-cso-says-1.4397600
    If that isn't a stark enough picture for you, then what is? What could possibly convince you that the concern by the government is totally valid at this stage?

    And if you want to see what COVID looks like when it is really really badly mishandled then look no further than the US where 1 in 4 people claim to have lost a friend or family member to COVID
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/11/americans-have-family-friends-died-coronavirus


  • Advertisement
  • #8892
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,755 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    alexonhisown wrote: »
    Is she even wearing a mask?

    My sister was coming out of her local shop recently and was about to throw her mask in the bin outside. A woman standing outside asked her if she could have her mask because they wouldn't let her in without one. My sister was dumbfounded. She said to her "no, sure i could have covid". Woman said " f sake, whats the chances you have covid". Security man at door told her masks on sale inside for €1, to which she replied "f that"and walked away.

    No cure for stupidity, i guess.

    covid aside - that's just gross anyway

    imagine where else that particular person falls down on hygiene matters


  • #8893
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,176 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    niallo27 wrote: »
    So we should stay locked down so we don't have to lock down again. That's wonderful logic right there.

    The exact same response was trotted out about loosening up when cases were in 200s/300s and look where that got us. I can understand a government which then saw record case numbers, thousands hospitalised and ICU approaching surge capacity would be cautious second time round. It goes without saying that nobody here wants restrictions but think people need to be realistic about the context.

    If you ease restrictions for 3 weeks and have to restrict for at least 3 months, what's the point? And if it's solely based on vaccinating people in their 70s which was meant to happen in March that's likely delayed with supply issues now anyway. Whatever about the reality that majority of people being hospitalised are under 65s now anyway.


  • #8894
    Blazer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,478 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    The problem is none of these clowns get the fact that the HSE is severely overstretched righht now.
    If it had continued to rise we would be at the stage of having doctors triaging patients based on age and chances of recovering to get critical ICU beds.
    And these people see the numbers, think that’s not so bad, sure just as many die from flu etc and are incapable of linking the fact that if as many people got COVID as the flu in Ireland we’d be at 20-30k dead.
    Look at the UK for the mess they made at the start and see their death rates.
    Our hospitals are in chaos and severely underfunded by numerous governments, and the worst thing is you’re guaranteed when this is over the next end successive governments will do nothing about reworking the HSE etc .


  • #8895
    Gael23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,151 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    KrustyUCC wrote: »
    What next lockdown?

    With people vaccinated there shouldn't be a next one

    When you have all nursing homes, hcws, over 70s vaccinated by the end of March that's a game changer

    Some people would love to stay lockdown forever it seems
    Over 70s won’t be done by March now


  • #8896
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,139 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Over 70s don't make ICU. Many of them don't make it into hospital. Until you have the over 40s risk groups done vaccination would only buy you a few weeks of relaxed restrictions.

    Yes, you would expect lower proportions of people getting ill but once you'd have a few thousand infections occurring daily with no suppressed restrictions you'd be back with an impaired health system the in no time.

    Vaccinations will help just not by as much as people think until we've most of the population vaccinated.

    According to this report the median age had been over 70 on a few weeks and high 60s on average so there are a lot of over 70s ending up in ICU


    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcasesseries18/


  • #8897
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,139 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Eod100 wrote: »
    The exact same response was trotted out about loosening up when cases were in 200s/300s and look where that got us. I can understand a government which then saw record case numbers, thousands hospitalised and ICU approaching surge capacity would be cautious second time round. It goes without saying that nobody here wants restrictions but think people need to be realistic about the context.

    If you ease restrictions for 3 weeks and have to restrict for at least 3 months, what's the point? And if it's solely based on vaccinating people in their 70s which was meant to happen in March that's likely delayed with supply issues now anyway. Whatever about the reality that majority of people being hospitalised are under 65s now anyway.

    That is simply not true, look at the link in my last post.


  • #8898
    Martina1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Haven't seen much posted about this. New info on testing procedures from the WHO.

    This looks like massive news, changes how we define positive tests/cases?
    This isn't news at all.

    It says WEAK positive samples should be repeated or recollected. That happens in Ireland anyway.

    It says results should be considered in combination with all the other factors. Again, this happens anyway too.
    And not just for Covid testing, for all diagnostic tests.

    That circular is for the use of laboratory staff, so it's no surprise to see it taken up wrong and misrepresented.

    HansKroenke wrote: »
    The implication looks that covid cases will only be counted with actual symptoms. Hopefully we get to a point with vaccine rollout where they will want to not be concerned about the spread of covid so cases won't be as important unless they actually need treatment. Arguably this is how it should be now but that is a different topic.

    I'm just surprised the PCR test is the only accepted form of covid testing after all this time, with no effort to make a push for antibody or other type of testing in the meantime. Multiple vaccines have been developed so it is peculiar to say the least.
    Where in that WHO circular did it mention symptoms? It said results should be repeated if there is a doubt over whether the results corresponds with the patient.

    PCR is the gold standard method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. That means it is the most accurate way of detecting the virus and the method to which all other assays are compared to.
    Other methods have shown to not be good enough for widespread use.

    pconn062 wrote: »
    Yes but what about cases that are "positive" despite zero symptoms being observed? This loooks like it changes that. I know of several people who received positive tests results fter being tested as a close contact despite being asymptomatic. Surely this is important if we are basing much of our Covid policy on case numbers.
    Eivor wrote: »
    Ive been saying for ages that a positive PCR swab =/= a Covid 19 case. Glad to see this change

    It doesn't change that at all.

    I was talking to a former colleague of mine to now works in risk assessment, contact tracing, quality control for the hospital.

    We have a lot of staff out either with Covid or isolating as close contacts.

    She said a lot of close contacts are now coming back as positive where they weren't before. It could be the UK strain that is reported to be more transmissible leading to more asymptomatic cases.
    It is a big concern as we aren't back testing close contacts in the community yet.


  • #8899
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    Eod100 wrote: »
    The exact same response was trotted out about loosening up when cases were in 200s/300s and look where that got us. I can understand a government which then saw record case numbers, thousands hospitalised and ICU approaching surge capacity would be cautious second time round. It goes without saying that nobody here wants restrictions but think people need to be realistic about the context.

    If you ease restrictions for 3 weeks and have to restrict for at least 3 months, what's the point? And if it's solely based on vaccinating people in their 70s which was meant to happen in March that's likely delayed with supply issues now anyway. Whatever about the reality that majority of people being hospitalised are under 65s now anyway.

    There's a difference between full opening and no easing of restrictions at all

    Martin has backed himself into a corner now with 100-200 promise now

    That is extremely hard to do

    Lockdowns are not meant to be long term

    I can't see the current level of effort and compliance lasting as long as he hopes


  • #8900
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,176 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    niallo27 wrote: »
    That is simply not true, look at the link in my last post.

    I meant in recent weeks. Your link is up to 11th December.


  • #8901
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,176 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    KrustyUCC wrote: »
    There's a difference between full opening and no easing of restrictions at all

    Martin has backed himself into a corner now with 100-200 promise now

    That is extremely hard to do

    Lockdowns are not meant to be long term

    I can't see the current level of effort and compliance lasting as long as he hopes

    My impression was he meant some form of restrictions as opposed to all the restrictions we have. There's things like limits on number of people gathering which won't be lifted to have concerts or big matches anytime soon for one example.


  • Advertisement
  • #8902
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,139 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Eod100 wrote: »
    The exact same response was trotted out about loosening up when cases were in 200s/300s and look where that got us. I can understand a government which then saw record case numbers, thousands hospitalised and ICU approaching surge capacity would be cautious second time round. It goes without saying that nobody here wants restrictions but think people need to be realistic about the context.

    If you ease restrictions for 3 weeks and have to restrict for at least 3 months, what's the point? And if it's solely based on vaccinating people in their 70s which was meant to happen in March that's likely delayed with supply issues now anyway. Whatever about the reality that majority of people being hospitalised are under 65s now anyway.

    We are not talking about easing restrictions like at Christmas we are talking about some easing and not full level 5 until June. We have already had the longest and strictest restrictions in the entire world, which contributed to the surge at Christmas imo, there is a breaking point and this could be it.


  • #8903
    jackboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,030 ✭✭✭jackboy


    niallo27 wrote: »
    So we should stay locked down so we don't have to lock down again. That's wonderful logic right there.

    No we need to keep the lockdown to prevent deaths. If we get numbers down to way less than 100 then we can have an opening for a reasonable period of time. It’s probably at least 6 months yet until the vaccines will have an impact on the required restrictions.

    Talking about things opening in March April is just fantasy.


  • #8904
    wadacrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,172 ✭✭✭wadacrack


    People should sign this.

    https://twitter.com/aoifemcl/status/1352959999685910528


  • #8905
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    niallo27 wrote: »
    According to this report the median age had been over 70 on a few weeks and high 60s on average so there are a lot of over 70s ending up in ICU


    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcasesseries18/

    My wording could definitely have been better. Over 70s do end up in ICU but in proportion to the overall burden of the disease on their demographic they don't actually take up much resources in proportion to younger / better outcomes demographics. Many over 70s who die are treated in the community setting.

    This doesn't really affect my point. If you assumed the burden of the disease on our health systems under 65s was one quarter that of the over 70s vaccination of the the latter group only buys you a few weeks relaxation. The smaller proportions would inevitably still clog the system. The higher the sustained reproduction number the quicker this would occur.

    We need to vaccinate a lot more than the over 70s to have a real tangible impact on a sustainable relaxation of restrictions.


  • #8906
    wadacrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,172 ✭✭✭wadacrack


    jackboy wrote: »
    No we need to keep the lockdown to prevent deaths. If we get numbers down to way less than 100 then we can have an opening for a reasonable period of time. It’s probably at least 6 months yet until the vaccines will have an impact on the required restrictions.

    Talking about things opening in March April is just fantasy.

    Hospital rates would need to drastically decrease too, 1,900 or so still atm. Was a time were cases 10 times lower than this was considered high


  • #8907
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,176 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    niallo27 wrote: »
    We are not talking about easing restrictions like at Christmas we are talking about some easing and not full level 5 until June. We have already had the longest and strictest restrictions in the entire world, which contributed to the surge at Christmas imo, there is a breaking point and this could be it.

    Martin never mentioned level 5 until June though. The impression he gave was some form of restrictions until cases are in 100s-200s which there likely will be. I think cases will be the main factor as opposed to specific timeframe at this stage because nobody knows how long it will take to get there.

    About the strictest and longest, I think that's debatable, the level of enforcement here has been patchy, obviously no mandatory quarantine like other countries or curfews. They haven't been easy or pleasant but think there have been stricter restrictions. There was decent period in summer too with restrictions eased.


  • #8908
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,139 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Eod100 wrote: »
    I meant in recent weeks. Your link is up to 11th December.

    Show me the figures.


  • #8909
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    Eod100 wrote: »
    My impression was he meant some form of restrictions as opposed to all the restrictions we have. There's things like limits on number of people gathering which won't be lifted to have concerts or big matches anytime soon for one example.

    Very poor language from Martin if that's the case

    https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1352939521030184960

    Thats any easing of restrictions


  • #8910
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,139 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    jackboy wrote: »
    No we need to keep the lockdown to prevent deaths. If we get numbers down to way less than 100 then we can have an opening for a reasonable period of time. It’s probably at least 6 months yet until the vaccines will have an impact on the required restrictions.

    Talking about things opening in March April is just fantasy.

    So you think full lockdown until June, no schools, gyms, hairdressers.


  • Advertisement
  • #8911
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,308 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    What did you intend to explain to us that we didn't already know with these facts? Yes Ireland does not have very high deaths , but most people are aware that this is because of effective suppression of the virus as evidence by the fact most of our neighbouring countries including our closest neighbours a few km's up North have seen historic excess death increase while we have seen normal mortality rates

    NI has seen 2124 excess deaths in the pandemic
    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus/grim-toll-just-under-200-excess-deaths-recorded-in-first-two-weeks-of-2021-40001012.html
    The equivalent of about 5700 excess deaths here , when in reality we saw about 800-1000 excess deaths this year.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/september-mortality-statistics-broadly-in-line-with-previous-years-cso-says-1.4397600?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fseptember-mortality-statistics-broadly-in-line-with-previous-years-cso-says-1.4397600
    If that isn't a stark enough picture for you, then what is? What could possibly convince you that the concern by the government is totally valid at this stage?

    And if you want to see what COVID looks like when it is really really badly mishandled then look no further than the US where 1 in 4 people claim to have lost a friend or family member to COVID
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/11/americans-have-family-friends-died-coronavirus

    Trick question for you.

    How would you feel if it turned out that the U.S. didnt have any or any noticeable excess deaths in 2020?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement