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…319320322324325…333

Comments

  • #9632
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,430 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Cerveza wrote: »
    Numbers are nearly there to get schools back. Norma needs to buck up this week and make it happening.

    Case numbers maybe, but hospitals are still under strain.
    We could be soon down to very low numbers, but hospital figures will still be over 1000.
    From the first wave peak in hospital numbers, it took 4 weeks to drop to 50% and 6 weeks to drop to 25%.
    So 6 weeks from now we could still have 500 in hospital. That's a high base to start opening up.
    I know schools are a priority though.


  • #9633
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,854 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    That is the really really scary bit. The amount of stuff that ends up in the papers and elsewhere as fact simply by virtue of having been repeated often enough. There is zero hard evidence that this so-called UK variant is more transmissible or more lethal. Zero

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/world/europe/uk-coronavirus-variant.html

    It’s an interesting read, if you actually want to take your head out of the sand.


  • #9634
    berocca2016
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭berocca2016


    RacoonQueen wrote: »
    Dunno where you're walking but when I'm running I'm not puffing and panting unless I'm doing a session and you're not going to be doing that where there is a lot of foot traffic and pavement hoggers etc https://www.independent.ie/life/five-types-of-people-you-meet-within-your-5km-exercise-route-39980825.html
    The worst are the people who walk on the right side of the path when the person in 5m ahead of them going in same direction is on the left. Walk on the same side you divs...where do you expect people coming in other direction to go? :rolleyes:
    People on foot have always been ignoran. People who don't even acknowledge someone who has clearly moved onto mud/grass/the road. :mad:

    Anyway, I don't believe there is any evidence to say 'joggers' are any more likely to pass on covid to you while outdoors than a walker you pass might.

    The worst I've found is the couples, girl circa late twenties, early thirties (let's call her aisling), walking two abreast right in the middle of the path with their much maligned boyfriend. God forbid they'd even move an iota out of the way to let me jog past them at a safe social distance, even when you jog into the middle of the road aisling gives you a judgemental stare criticising you for daring to exercise at her structured meander time. Boyfriend meanwhile is staring at the ground.....

    Common courtesy has gone completely out the window !


  • #9635
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,324 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Aegir wrote: »
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/world/europe/uk-coronavirus-variant.html

    It’s an interesting read, if you actually want to take your head out of the sand.

    You need to quote the essential bits and post them here. Not signing up just to read an article.

    Edit: I actually tried, I AM interested, but they want google account, email and now they want my phone number to send me the link to the article. Sorry, but no.

    Would also be nice if people could send links and info without these childish side digs like 'taking head out of sand'.


  • #9636
    Icyseanfitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,537 ✭✭✭Icyseanfitz


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    Case numbers maybe, but hospitals are still under strain.
    We could be soon down to very low numbers, but hospital figures will still be over 1000.
    From the first wave peak in hospital numbers, it took 4 weeks to drop to 50% and 6 weeks to drop to 25%.
    So 6 weeks from now we could still have 500 in hospital. That's a high base to start opening up.
    I know schools are a priority though.

    Not to even mention the new variants or no close contact testing.


  • Advertisement
  • #9637
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    Aegir wrote: »
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/world/europe/uk-coronavirus-variant.html

    It’s an interesting read, if you actually want to take your head out of the sand.


    how come if this variant is so much more transmissible and is widespread in Ireland that numbers here are falling so quickly?


  • #9638
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,196 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    cameramonkey wrote: »
    how come if this variant is some much more transmissible and is widespread in Ireland that numbers her are falling so quickly?

    It's a mystery. But it's gone from being 9% of cases to 62% of cases in a matter of 3 weeks. That would indicate it has a significant transmission advantage over the previously established variants.


  • #9639
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,430 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Icyseanfitz wrote: »
    Not to even mention the new variants or no close contact testing.

    New variants is still up in the air. We had at last count ~50% of the Kent variant which should drive up the R0, yet we appear to have a lower R0 than last March with a looser lockdown.

    I've heard of some close contact non symptomatic testing, but yes it's on hold.
    It's been on hold for weeks so comparing numbers week to week is still valid.
    ~1300 cases today with ~2 contacts is 2600 extra tests, with a ~15% positivity rate would yield an additional 390 cases.
    A week ago that could have been an additional 1000. You see the trend?


  • #9640
    marno21
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,663 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Stark wrote: »
    It's a mystery. But it's gone from being 9% of cases to 62% of cases in a matter of 3 weeks. That would indicate it has a significant transmission advantage over the previously established variants.
    Or it could mean that many of the outbreaks caused in and around Christmas were caused by people returning from the UK, or people returning from other countries via the UK.


  • #9641
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,452 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    Stark wrote: »
    It's a mystery. But it's gone from being 9% of cases to 62% of cases in a matter of 3 weeks. That would indicate it has a significant transmission advantage over the previously established variants.

    Not really, there's been change of dominant strain a few times during the pandemic. All start from a low base and grow quite quickly, there were similar fears over the "Spanish strain", during the summer that it too were more transmissible due to the increasingly large number of cases of it being detected, turns out it wasn't, but it too took off at the time.

    https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1352612075332362240?s=19


  • Advertisement
  • #9642
    Cerveza
    Closed Accounts Posts: 424 ✭✭Cerveza


    The variant that caused the problem was the meaningful Christmas variant.


  • #9643
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,430 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Stark wrote: »
    It's a mystery. But it's gone from being 9% of cases to 62% of cases in a matter of 3 weeks. That would indicate it has a significant transmission advantage over the previously established variants.

    Or could it be that with Christmas more people arrived in Ireland from the UK who were positive than the number of positive people in Ireland?
    If 100 in Ireland are infected and 200 positive people from the UK arrive. Right then the UK variant is 66.66% without any additional transmission.


  • #9644
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,430 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Not really, there's been change of dominant strain a few times during the pandemic. All start from a low base and grow quite quickly, there were similar fears over the "Spanish strain", during the summer that it too were more transmissible due to the increasingly large number of cases of it being detected, turns out it wasn't, but it too took off at the time.

    https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1352612075332362240?s=19
    So excluding this latest strain. That graph clearly shows 19A was more infectios in Ireland than 19B. Then 20B more over summer and then 20E over the Autumn.... you can see a trend eh?
    Dominant strain ≠ more infectious strain


  • #9645
    MerlinSouthDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    ~1300 cases today with ~2 contacts is 2600 extra tests, with a ~15% positivity rate would yield an additional 390 cases.
    A week ago that could have been an additional 1000. You see the trend?

    Symptomatic close contacts will get tested anyway, so it’s an even smaller effect than your estimate.


  • #9646
    Kunta Kinte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 718 ✭✭✭Kunta Kinte


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    You need to quote the essential bits and post them here. Not signing up just to read an article.

    Edit: I actually tried, I AM interested, but they want google account, email and now they want my phone number to send me the link to the article. Sorry, but no.

    Would also be nice if people could send links and info without these childish side digs like 'taking head out of sand'.

    What are you talking about? I have just read the article in full without needing to sign up to the site.


  • #9647
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,430 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    MerlinSouthDub wrote: »
    Symptomatic close contacts will get tested anyway, so it’s an even smaller effect than your estimate.

    Yes, sorry you're totally correct on that, I completely forgot about that.
    Assuming 25% are asymptomatic, those close contact figures would be 1/4, so even less.


  • #9648
    one armed dwarf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 929 ✭✭✭one armed dwarf


    re NYtimes article, if you delete all your cookies you can read their articles. Best to do it in a browser you don't use much cause you'll be deleting google cookies too


  • #9649
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,324 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Kunta Kinte wrote: »
    What are you talking about? I have just read the article in full without needing to sign up to the site.

    Weirdly enough it now worked for me too.

    Having read the article however I am struggling to find the evidence bit.

    The closets I got to it was at the end where they say that evidence (they call it surety) can only be gained over a long period but they managed to string together other evidence. Only they fail to mention what that other evidence actually is. I did kinda cross read it though, maybe it escaped me.


  • #9650
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,430 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    Weirdly enough it now worked for me too.

    Having read the article however I am struggling to find the evidence bit.

    The closets I got to it was at the end where they say that evidence (they call it surety) can only be gained over a long period but they managed to string together other evidence. Only they fail to mention what that other evidence actually is.

    Seems to be more an article on how they found it rather than how it's more infectious.


  • #9651
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,324 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    Seems to be more an article on how they found it rather than how it's more infectious.

    Seems that way to me too.

    Maybe the 'take your head out of the sand' poster can point us to the evidence part? Probably gone to bed which is what I'll do now. G'night everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • #9652
    DraftDodger
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 284 ✭✭DraftDodger


    Cerveza wrote: »
    Numbers are nearly there to get schools back. Norma needs to buck up this week and make it happening.

    Numbers are weeks away from schools reopening I'm afraid.


  • #9653
    josip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,811 ✭✭✭✭josip


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Does anyone else think joggers and runners should be asked to wear masks when running . ? We walk in parks within 5k and constantly have to step aside from puffing and blowing joggers . They pass us out and we have to wait and not step straight into their blown out breath


    If you're worried about joggers or groups of people, just fake a bout of coughing before they pass and they'll give you a wide berth.


  • #9654
    leck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭leck


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    You need to quote the essential bits and post them here. Not signing up just to read an article.

    Edit: I actually tried, I AM interested, but they want google account, email and now they want my phone number to send me the link to the article. Sorry, but no.

    Would also be nice if people could send links and info without these childish side digs like 'taking head out of sand'.
    I scanned the article that was linked and don't think it addressed how much more transmissible the UK variant (B.1.1.7) is. But there's another article at NYT which says:
    B.1.1.7 is estimated to be roughly 50 percent more transmissible than other variants. Federal health officials warn that it may become the dominant variant in the United States by March. It is no more deadly than other forms of the coronavirus. But because it can cause so many more infections, it may lead to many more deaths.
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/health/coronavirus-mutations-B117-variant.html


  • #9655
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,430 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    leck wrote: »
    I scanned the article that was linked and don't think it addressed how much more transmissible the UK variant (B.1.1.7) is. But there's another article at NYT which says:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/health/coronavirus-mutations-B117-variant.html
    B.1.1.7 is estimated to be roughly 50 percent more transmissible than other variants. Federal health officials warn that it may become the dominant variant in the United States by March. It is no more deadly than other forms of the coronavirus. But because it can cause so many more infections, it may lead to many more deaths.
    Yes, that's so definitive, lots of may's and if's.... They are saying it's not more deadly, but the UK is saying it is?


  • #9656
    Just Saying
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 306 ✭✭Just Saying


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    Or could it be that with Christmas more people arrived in Ireland from the UK who were positive than the number of positive people in Ireland?
    If 100 in Ireland are infected and 200 positive people from the UK arrive. Right then the UK variant is 66.66% without any additional transmission.

    Not necessarily.It would depend on the percentage of the 200 arrivals that had the UK variant.


  • #9657
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,430 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Just Saying wrote: »
    Not necessarily.It would depend on the percentage of the 200 arrivals that had the UK variant.

    Assuming it was as rampant as the UK say, I was using a 100% figure. But any % higher than the native strain would make it the dominant strain.

    You could also argue with such a massive influx of people who have been away for a prolonged period, they may have more close contacts than a native person, thus pushing up the infection rate of the strain and making it appear more infectious.


  • #9658
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,822 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    When ever you see vaccinating on tv in US its always young rich white people in big pickups, wtf


  • #9659
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,430 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    When ever you see vaccinating on tv in US its always young rich white people in big pickups, wtf

    I'm curious as to how the US will vaccinate illegal immigrants?
    There has to be a way to record vaccinations, but they may be reluctant to come forward for fear of deportation.


  • #9660
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    brickster69 wrote: »
    No idea how this Brazil mutation started

    https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1353159294879981568


    Longer video from Brazil here:





    Doesn't seem like they are scared by the looks of it. Deaths per million are roughly the same as the EU though there might be a bit of underreporting. Probably a fair amount of immunity among the younger population.


  • Advertisement
  • #9661
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,760 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    Longer video from Brazil here:





    Doesn't seem like they are scared by the looks of it. Deaths per million are roughly the same as the EU though there might be a bit of underreporting. Probably a fair amount of immunity among the younger population.

    Looks great


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement