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 XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

1…304305307309310…333

Comments

  • #9182
    OwenM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 860 ✭✭✭OwenM


    CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »
    To be honest I most believe the most likely result for j&j is that the EMA will delay approval until results of the two dose trial come in and that regimen will be approved.

    Based on what? Just your own random musings? A single dose vaccine has huge utility and the trials completed so far were based on a single dose.


  • #9183
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,270 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Yeah, I'd be wary of scientists bringing gifts like this. IMO, it's best to assume that we looking at 6 months and more.

    This 100%...
    a medicine, vaccine, drug, has been proven to be 4 times more likely to succeed or get to market if the manufacturer does not release the data for peer/independent review, which has yet to be done in full. Older people are considered dead ducks in such trials, as they can often pass away or react badly, so they make the product look bad.. This is why I'm betting there was only a few over 65's in one of the trials, the very cohort at risk it seems.
    Even at this stage the jabs in the arms are still "on trial" in terms of efficacy though the Israel one looks good.

    There's a also a yellow card system in the UK where you can actually submit any side effects other than the usual ones.. I hope people realize that too.


  • #9184
    Cork2021
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭Cork2021


    Not good enough, ;-)

    https://twitter.com/coronavirusgoo1/status/1363786622131707908?s=21


  • #9185
    Widdensushi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,594 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    caveat emptor wrote: »
    Whatever your opinion of David McWilliiams or Denmark, it's a good question.

    https://twitter.com/davidmcw/status/1363762977426575361?s=20

    Fair play to you, I shudder to think how much time you are giving this every day but if I want to find the most negative news any day I know where I will find it, you are consistent in an inconsistent world.


  • #9186
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Widdensushi wrote: »
    Fair play to you, I shudder to think how much time you are giving this every day but if I want to find the most negative news any day I know where I will find it, you are consistent in an inconsistent world.

    Thing is, that is actually a positive story, just with a negative spin. If Denmark will have enough supply to vaccinate everyone by the end of June, well, so will we


  • Advertisement
  • #9187
    Away With The Fairies
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭Away With The Fairies


    Widdensushi wrote: »
    Fair play to you, I shudder to think how much time you are giving this every day but if I want to find the most negative news any day I know where I will find it, you are consistent in an inconsistent world.

    It's a very good question. Why are there very different results in the 2 countries? And you don't seem to care but to call the poster out on negativity.


  • #9188
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,270 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Not different results. Different projections.

    yea Doc, like the formulae for the happiest day of the year or most depressing month...type of projections..:D


  • #9189
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Widdensushi wrote: »
    Fair play to you, I shudder to think how much time you are giving this every day but if I want to find the most negative news any day I know where I will find it, you are consistent in an inconsistent world.

    I actually don't think its a negative post?


  • #9190
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,769 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Cork2021 wrote: »
    Not good enough, ;-)

    https://twitter.com/coronavirusgoo1/status/1363786622131707908?s=21

    I think we need to extend lockdown to October at the very earliest based on this very disappointing news

    it's clear to us all now that this vaccination program is failing


  • #9191
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,769 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thing is, that is actually a positive story, just with a negative spin. If Denmark will have enough supply to vaccinate everyone by the end of June, well, so will we

    we may have the stockpiled supply but we likely won't have the administrative and/or practical means in place to administer them (on a par with Denmark)

    Hopefully that's not the case


  • Advertisement
  • #9192
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Widdensushi wrote: »
    Fair play to you, I shudder to think how much time you are giving this every day but if I want to find the most negative news any day I know where I will find it, you are consistent in an inconsistent world.

    This is a far more negative post than anything Caveat contributes.

    Many of the people who clicked like on this crap are essentially non-contributors. They bring zero to the debate, just personal abuse. Much like yourself.


  • #9193
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,517 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    This is a far more negative post than anything Caveat contributes.

    Many of the people who clicked like on this crap are essentially non-contributors. They bring zero to the debate, just personal abuse. Much like yourself.

    Horsesh1t. Some people are just doom merchants and only post negative crap. Its tiresome.


  • #9194
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Horsesh1t. Some people are just doom merchants and only post negative crap. Its tiresome.

    Well then you have the wrong person. That's not Caveat.

    How in the name of **** is posting an interesting question from Dave McWilliams seen as being negative?
    Why should Caveat have to deal with attacks on his or her very nature because of it?

    Is this "positive"?
    Are you the good guys? I'd want nothing to do with your "positivity". Why don't you stop visiting a forum on an ongoing pandemic looking to be cheered up.


  • #9195
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Well then you have the wrong person. That's not Caveat.

    How in the name of **** is posting an interesting question from Dave McWilliams seen as being negative?
    Why should Caveat have to deal with attacks on his or her very nature because of it?

    Is this "positive"?
    Are you the good guys? I'd want nothing to do with your "positivity". Why don't you stop visiting a forum on an ongoing pandemic looking to be cheered up.
    More coffee, more time off the keyboard! :)


  • #9196
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,517 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Well then you have the wrong person. That's not Caveat.

    How in the name of **** is posting an interesting question from Dave McWilliams seen as being negative?
    Why should Caveat have to deal with attacks on his or her very nature because of it?

    Is this "positive"?
    Are you the good guys? I'd want nothing to do with your "positivity". Why don't you stop visiting a forum on an ongoing pandemic looking to be cheered up.

    Interesting my hoop. The answer to the question is in the article for christs sake. Its sensationalist, negative, headline grabbing sh1te from McWillians.


  • #9197
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Widdensushi wrote: »
    Fair play to you, I shudder to think how much time you are giving this every day but if I want to find the most negative news any day I know where I will find it, you are consistent in an inconsistent world.

    You can't dismiss valid criticisms of the govt as someone just posting negative news for the sake of it.

    Are we supposed to ignore any hard questions because they are negative and might hurt your feelings?:pac:


  • #9198
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Interesting my hoop. The answer to the question is in the article for christs sake. Its sensationalist, negative, headline grabbing sh1te from McWillians.

    This is a very negative analysis. Are you always so negative?

    I find it very interesting that the Danes are telling their people they'll all have access to vaccines by July.
    That is not the message over here. Why not?

    It's an entirely valid topic of discussion, but all you can do is attack the poster.


  • #9199
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,059 ✭✭✭✭spookwoman


    timmyntc wrote: »
    You can't dismiss valid criticisms of the govt as someone just posting negative news for the sake of it.

    Are we supposed to ignore any hard questions because they are negative and might hurt your feelings?:pac:

    No one they don't like is allowed to ask valid questions or criticise the government.

    I got bingo on doommerchants


  • #9200
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,517 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    This is a very negative analysis. Are you always so negative?

    I find it very interesting that the Danes are telling their people they'll all have access to vaccines by July.
    That is not the message over here. Why not?

    It's an entirely valid topic of discussion, but all you can do is attack the poster.

    I criticised McWilliams. We are using different projections. It's in the article. Maybe read it.


  • #9201
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,517 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    spookwoman wrote: »
    No one they don't like is allowed to ask valid questions or criticise the government.

    I got bingo on doommerchants

    Well done you. Criticise the government all you want, but the vaccine rollout is being managed by the HSE. Discussions should be fact based, not based on sensationalised tweets from people trying to attract clicks.


  • Advertisement
  • #9202
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    padjocollins wrote: »
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-april-11613669731

    Topol has disputed the claim that US will have herd immunity by April, as made in WSJ by John Hopkins physician, based on below:

    Eric Topol
    @EricTopol
    No, we won't. A deeply flawed oped
    https://wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-april-11613669731?mod=e2two
    —55% of Americans do not have natural immunity
    —2/3 of the US population has not had covid
    —Wrong on T-cell protection
    —Very high Brazil infection rate was not protective
    —150M will not be vaccinated by March end

    And

    - Turns a blind eye to variants, particularly B.1.1.7, which has accounted for peak pandemic surges, hospitalization, and deaths in Israel, UK, Ireland and Portugal, and now seeded throughout the US.

    I think if you're going to make such a big claim, you should seek to back it up with convincing data that is peer-reviewed and then WSJ can publish a coed on this basis. Strange for it to be the other way around.

    ETA: Guy who wrote the op-ed is apparently a surgical oncologist, so probably won't be publishing peer-reviewed data any time soon on this one.


  • #9203
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Apparently all schools in England are to open on the 8th.

    This is pretty cold, but it gives us the opportunity to sit back and see what happens.

    Ireland gets to go first, leaving cert back next week apparently.


  • #9204
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    WoollyRedHat wrote: »
    Topol has disputed the claim that US will have herd immunity by April, as made in WSJ by John Hopkins physician, based on below:

    Eric Topol
    @EricTopol
    No, we won't. A deeply flawed oped
    https://wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-april-11613669731?mod=e2two
    —55% of Americans do not have natural immunity
    —2/3 of the US population has not had covid
    —Wrong on T-cell protection
    —Very high Brazil infection rate was not protective
    —150M will not be vaccinated by March end
    Topol is generally Ok but these types of public p1ssing contests don't help the debate any more as they give the impression people just want to be right. I think we mere humans have already reflected on the improbability of it happening without that dreaded long list of selected facts which show that I am right tweets.


  • #9205
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,059 ✭✭✭✭spookwoman


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Well done you. Criticise the government all you want, but the vaccine rollout is being managed by the HSE. Discussions should be fact based, not based on sensationalised tweets from people trying to attract clicks.

    You might want to look up the chain of command for the HSE.

    Code of governence of the HSE

    Minister for Health
    then HSE Board etc etc.

    So yes the government is responsible for the rollout.


  • #9206
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Topol is generally Ok but these types of public p1ssing contests don't help the debate any more as they give the impression people just want to be right. I think we mere humans have already reflected on the improbability of it happening without that dreaded long list of selected facts which show that I am right tweets.

    I agree public pissing contests are no good but in fairness he follows up to take aim at WSJ for not employing fact-checkers. That's the third publication in past week to post articles that can be said to be either misleading or based on misrepresentation. No surprise they were all Financial newspapers.


  • #9207
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    seamus wrote: »
    Should be around 715 by Saturday this week. Under 700 would be a great number.
    We landed at 719 on Saturday.

    Nevertheless, I'm a little concerned that we're about to see a plateau in hospital numbers. Or at least a slowing down. Last week saw admissions flatten a bit around 40/day. Though that could have been a blip.

    Weekly drops;
    25th - 30th: Down 454 (23%)
    2nd - 6th: Down 330 (21.6%)
    9th - 13th: Down 314 (26%)
    15th - 20th: Down 197 (21.5%)

    We *might* be at 560 by this Saturday. I would like to see admissions more solidly at 30/day by the end of the week though.

    The picture in ICU is a bit clearer than it was. It's been a fairly clean linear decline since the start of the month. This lets us make half decent projections.

    Short-term, we could be around 130 in ICU come 1st March. Down to ~100 by Paddy's Day, and then potentially around 60 by Easter. Obviously the projections get less reliable the further out you go.


  • #9208
    caveat emptor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭caveat emptor


    I see we are back to positive / negative. Hope vs doom merchants etc. Thanks to Lawred2 for positing an opinion on why Denmark might be able to do it quicker than us. Will be interesting to see. Hopefully our government are being overly negative in their projects. Based on how positive they've been throughout this though I think they might just starting to be realistic which is generally better than both positive and negative projections.

    Reducing everything to positive and negative is only really useful when doing something like a PCR test.


  • #9209
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 232 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cork2021 wrote: »
    Not good enough, ;-)

    https://twitter.com/coronavirusgoo1/status/1363786622131707908?s=21

    That'll be the goalposts shifted again here ... house arrest and prohibition of private business continues until a vaccine is found that reduces chances of hospitalisation by 95% :D.


  • #9210
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    This is a very negative analysis. Are you always so negative?

    I find it very interesting that the Danes are telling their people they'll all have access to vaccines by July.
    That is not the message over here. Why not?

    It's an entirely valid topic of discussion, but all you can do is attack the poster.

    Because Denmark have made their projection on supply that is as yet uncertain, whereas we have made our projection on secured supply


  • Advertisement
  • #9211
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    caveat emptor wrote: »
    I see we are back to positive / negative. Hope vs doom merchants etc. Thanks to Lawred2 for positing an opinion on why Denmark might be able to do it quicker than us. Will be interesting to see. Hopefully our government are being overly negative in their projects. Based on how positive they've been throughout this though I think they might just starting to be realistic which is generally better than both positive and negative projections.

    Reducing everything to positive and negative is only really useful when doing something like a PCR test.

    5,000 people giving 20 doses per day will get everyone done in Q2, if we have the supply.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement