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 XXXIII-231,484 ROI(4,610 deaths)116,197 NI (2,107 deaths)(23/03)Read OP

1…7576788081…326

Comments

  • #2312
    Lawlz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74 ✭✭Lawlz


    What does everything think of the media & politicians ignoring the largely peaceful aspect of Saturday’s protest and focusing on the violence & participation of the far right?


    I do not condone in any way the violence and disruption that happened.


    However I see it as a way to undermine those who may have sympathized with/ supported/ understood why people attended and as a way to deter people from attending again for fear of being labeled far right/ extremist/ a conspiracy theorist.


    A lot of people were there purely at frustration at the extension of the 5k rule, communication issues etc.

    Thoughts?

    (I’m a bystander who didn’t attend btw)


  • #2313
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,039 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    agoodpunt wrote: »
    If your GODS have there way level 5 will be the new normal or when ever the HSE capacity is threatened
    As long as it dosent effect you i am all right jack tax payer foots my bills
    Well, I don't think NPHET are gods - this time last year I had stocked up for a couple of months and started isolating, and was bemoaning how ridiculously slow NPHET/the gov't/WHO were to take action, and advised friends and family to make some preparations. I overshot, for sure, and still have some pasta to get through, but I in no way think NPHET are infallible. I do think they are MORE reliable - which is what I said - than the "elected government" which irate posters seem to swing between loving and hating depending on whether they feel like having a pop at NPHET or not, and certainly more reliable than some blithering idiots on the internet.



    And though it's irrelevant and I know you're just trying to have a completely groundless pop to support your other nonsense - the tax payer doesn't pay my bills; I'm self-employed and making about fifteen percent less than I was pre-pandemic and would make more if I were on the PUP, but have been working throughout.



    But you may feel free to go ahead and spew your bile if it makes you feel better.


  • #2314
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RTE back on the fear wagon today. On the day the schools go back, let's throw out some large numbers about Covid in children with no context at all;

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0301/1199998-covid19-ireland/

    1,403 cases is 13.6% of the cases reported during this time period. 0-12 year olds make up about 20% of the population.

    Of course, the headline is not "Infection rates in children 30% lower than average".

    28 hospitalisations out of 1403 is a 2% hospitalisation rate. And I guarantee if you investigated, a majority of these would be hospital-acquired or precautionary admissions on babies and children with medical conditions.

    So on the day schools start returning, the headline is not, "Children less likely to catch Covid; hospitalisation rate low". No, no, "LOOK AT ALL THE CHILDREN WHO'VE GOT COVID. YOURS COULD BE NEXT".

    FFS.


  • #2315
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,653 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    seamus wrote: »
    RTE back on the fear wagon today. On the day the schools go back, let's throw out some large numbers about Covid in children with no context at all;

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0301/1199998-covid19-ireland/

    1,403 cases is 13.6% of the cases reported during this time period. 0-12 year olds make up about 20% of the population.

    Of course, the headline is not "Infection rates in children 30% lower than average".

    28 hospitalisations out of 1403 is a 2% hospitalisation rate. And I guarantee if you investigated, a majority of these would be hospital-acquired or precautionary admissions on babies and children with medical conditions.

    So on the day schools start returning, the headline is not, "Children less likely to catch Covid; hospitalisation rate low". No, no, "LOOK AT ALL THE CHILDREN WHO'VE GOT COVID. YOURS COULD BE NEXT".

    FFS.

    Keep your children watching RTE instead of going to school, if they take their eyes off the tv go outside they might die


  • #2316
    PTH2009
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,689 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    seamus wrote: »
    RTE back on the fear wagon today. On the day the schools go back, let's throw out some large numbers about Covid in children with no context at all;

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0301/1199998-covid19-ireland/

    1,403 cases is 13.6% of the cases reported during this time period. 0-12 year olds make up about 20% of the population.

    Of course, the headline is not "Infection rates in children 30% lower than average".

    28 hospitalisations out of 1403 is a 2% hospitalisation rate. And I guarantee if you investigated, a majority of these would be hospital-acquired or precautionary admissions on babies and children with medical conditions.

    So on the day schools start returning, the headline is not, "Children less likely to catch Covid; hospitalisation rate low". No, no, "LOOK AT ALL THE CHILDREN WHO'VE GOT COVID. YOURS COULD BE NEXT".

    FFS.

    Shower of bastards


  • Advertisement
  • #2317
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,039 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    SeaMermaid wrote: »
    My phone is older than hers and it's holding up well. She mentioned something about not being happy with the app a few months ago and I just happened to ask about it again... I'm seriously questioning out friendship now.
    I think it depends on the model of phone - there was a patch released at some point to address the severe battery draining on some phones.
    The app appears to have died a death - if I recall correctly, they were telling some people they weren't close contacts despite the app saying so, etc?


    "Questioning the friendship" just sounds like trolling, tbh.


  • #2318
    What Username Guidelines
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭What Username Guidelines


    Lawlz wrote: »
    What does everything think of the media & politicians ignoring the largely peaceful aspect of Saturday’s protest and focusing on the violence & participation of the far right?


    I do not condone in any way the violence and disruption that happened.


    However I see it as a way to undermine those who may have sympathized with/ supported/ understood why people attended and as a way to deter people from attending again for fear of being labeled far right/ extremist/ a conspiracy theorist.


    A lot of people were there purely at frustration at the extension of the 5k rule, communication issues etc.

    Thoughts?

    (I’m a bystander who didn’t attend btw)

    I don't feel strong enough on the issues to protest personally, but it is worrying that the whole thing can be brushed aside as just trouble makers, right-wing-nuts, etc when people are genuinely out to try and make their voices heard. I do admit I laughed at the "There souls" and the can of Heineken pic, so if I had been there masked and acting appropriately to voice my frustration, I'd be even more frustrated now that that image and the images of fireworks are the key talking points.
    Rebelbrowser wrote: »
    One of rte.ie leading stories at present is that there were 1403 covid cases amongst under 12s in the last 14 days see https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0301/1199998-covid19-ireland/

    The story is devoid of comment though. I'm trying to decide is this news good, bad or indifferent? There were approx 10,000 cases over the same period from some quick googling so u12s were ca 14%. Again from some quick googling in the 2016 census there were 880k u12s out of a population of 4.726m so, crudely, 18.5%. So the u12 covid stats for the last 14 days are a bit less than pro rata - but not pass remarkably so either way.

    So, again, what am I supposed to be taking from this story? It's front page splash suggests it's big news. Thoughts?

    Read it myself and it immediately struck me as not-even-thinly-veiled clickbait. Kids back to school this morning, tensions are perhaps a little higher with parents of primary-aged kids, this is guaranteed to get clicks. The fact that no opinion is formed by the data and as you've pointed out, a completely unremarkable stat.


  • #2319
    mcburns07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,420 ✭✭✭mcburns07


    seamus wrote: »
    RTE back on the fear wagon today. On the day the schools go back, let's throw out some large numbers about Covid in children with no context at all;

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0301/1199998-covid19-ireland/

    1,403 cases is 13.6% of the cases reported during this time period. 0-12 year olds make up about 20% of the population.

    Of course, the headline is not "Infection rates in children 30% lower than average".

    28 hospitalisations out of 1403 is a 2% hospitalisation rate. And I guarantee if you investigated, a majority of these would be hospital-acquired or precautionary admissions on babies and children with medical conditions.

    So on the day schools start returning, the headline is not, "Children less likely to catch Covid; hospitalisation rate low". No, no, "LOOK AT ALL THE CHILDREN WHO'VE GOT COVID. YOURS COULD BE NEXT".

    FFS.

    Was shocked when I saw it earlier. Blatantly trying to play on the fear of some parents sending their kids back to school. What are they playing at.


  • #2320
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Lawlz wrote: »
    What does everything think of the media & politicians ignoring the largely peaceful aspect of Saturday’s protest and focusing on the violence & participation of the far right?


    I do not condone in any way the violence and disruption that happened.


    However I see it as a way to undermine those who may have sympathized with/ supported/ understood why people attended and as a way to deter people from attending again for fear of being labeled far right/ extremist/ a conspiracy theorist.


    A lot of people were there purely at frustration at the extension of the 5k rule, communication issues etc.

    Thoughts?

    (I’m a bystander who didn’t attend btw)

    They've been doing this since forever, tbf. There's a particularly militant activist group called Eirigí and I remember during both the water charges protests and the student fees protests of the early 2010s, the f*ckers would always splinter away from the main protest, sit down on O'Connell Bridge, and essentially shut down the entire city's bus network and choke off a gigantic proportion of car users as well, thus creating a horribly long traffic bottleneck for people trying to get home from town by any means other than the DART.

    Inevitably, the earlier headlines from that day of "tens of thousands protest in Dublin" would be scratched in favour of "Traffic chaos as protesters blockade bridge", and the main protest, its numbers and its speeches etc, would get absolutely no coverage.

    We were always absolutely furious with that tiny crowd of gobsh!tes for hijacking the protest and its coverage in this way. I imagine those who protested on Saturday feel exactly the same way about the w@nker with the rocket.

    My one criticism of the Gardaí is the closure of Stephen's Green, tbh. I realise the point of it was meant to stop any kind of protest gathering taking place at all, but it was clearly going to happen anyway, and blocking the protest off on Grafton St just seems like by far the worse of two evils. It was well publicised in advance that the protest was headed for Stephen's Green so anyone who didn't want to be involved could have avoided the area, but essentially kettling it into Grafton St in this manner was always going to result in chaos.

    Not remotely defending the c*nt with the rockets. I hope they get him for attempted murder honestly, I don't see how firing what is essentially a colourful grenade at someone's face can possibly be interpreted as anything else. Fireworks have become immensely more powerful than they used to be in the last number of years thanks to Britain's reclassification of the permitted flash powder content in consumer fireworks, and thus most rockets you see or hear the last couple of Halloweens would have been absolutely off limits to all but professional displays up until around 2016/2017.


  • #2321
    titan18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,057 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    You'd have the politicians going on about misinformation then spreading online in groups and you've RTE and ISAG just pouring it out with nothing said about it then


  • Advertisement
  • #2322
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,039 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    seamus wrote: »
    RTE back on the fear wagon today. On the day the schools go back, let's throw out some large numbers about Covid in children with no context at all;

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0301/1199998-covid19-ireland/

    1,403 cases is 13.6% of the cases reported during this time period. 0-12 year olds make up about 20% of the population.

    Of course, the headline is not "Infection rates in children 30% lower than average".

    28 hospitalisations out of 1403 is a 2% hospitalisation rate. And I guarantee if you investigated, a majority of these would be hospital-acquired or precautionary admissions on babies and children with medical conditions.

    So on the day schools start returning, the headline is not, "Children less likely to catch Covid; hospitalisation rate low". No, no, "LOOK AT ALL THE CHILDREN WHO'VE GOT COVID. YOURS COULD BE NEXT".

    FFS.
    Well, they said it was until last Saturday, so they're not claiming it's because of schools.. What sort of context would you have added?
    You don't think it's useful to have for comparison over the next few weeks to see whether the numbers do change with schools back?



    "Infection rates in children 30% lower than average" isn't exactly an illuminating ray of sunshine for a disease that people were heretofore claiming left children almost completely unaffected.


    I'll agree RTE are crap in general, but the info in this article doesn't seem "unuseful".


  • #2323
    Infoseeker1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 772 ✭✭✭Infoseeker1975


    seamus wrote: »
    RTE back on the fear wagon today. On the day the schools go back, let's throw out some large numbers about Covid in children with no context at all;

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0301/1199998-covid19-ireland/

    1,403 cases is 13.6% of the cases reported during this time period. 0-12 year olds make up about 20% of the population.

    Of course, the headline is not "Infection rates in children 30% lower than average".

    28 hospitalisations out of 1403 is a 2% hospitalisation rate. And I guarantee if you investigated, a majority of these would be hospital-acquired or precautionary admissions on babies and children with medical conditions.

    So on the day schools start returning, the headline is not, "Children less likely to catch Covid; hospitalisation rate low". No, no, "LOOK AT ALL THE CHILDREN WHO'VE GOT COVID. YOURS COULD BE NEXT".

    FFS.

    I had a look this morning and as you said, it is such irresponsible reporting and more tabloid like than that of a national news outlet. At a time where we all need to see hope, this type of lazy news article is so annoying.


  • #2324
    caveat emptor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭caveat emptor


    seamus wrote: »
    RTE back on the fear wagon today. On the day the schools go back, let's throw out some large numbers about Covid in children with no context at all;

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0301/1199998-covid19-ireland/

    1,403 cases is 13.6% of the cases reported during this time period. 0-12 year olds make up about 20% of the population.

    Of course, the headline is not "Infection rates in children 30% lower than average".

    28 hospitalisations out of 1403 is a 2% hospitalisation rate. And I guarantee if you investigated, a majority of these would be hospital-acquired or precautionary admissions on babies and children with medical conditions.

    So on the day schools start returning, the headline is not, "Children less likely to catch Covid; hospitalisation rate low". No, no, "LOOK AT ALL THE CHILDREN WHO'VE GOT COVID. YOURS COULD BE NEXT".

    FFS.

    Well I see the point you are making and it's a valid one but we shouldn't forget that we were told children don't get it and if they do they don't spread it. That was the narrative prior to the reopening of schools in September. I agree it is clickbait for sure.

    At least half of that axiom has since been proven to be false. (kids don't get it) The latter half seemed to hold true but without widespread testing in schools it's not necessarily clear if it is true or not. Israeli data from schools supported the fact that asymptotic spread was significant there. Different country so might not hold true here.

    Add in the UK variant which is known to be more transmissible in all age groups then we may see this hypothesis being disproved in coming weeks.


  • #2325
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ficheall wrote: »
    Well, they said it was until last Saturday, so they're not claiming it's because of schools.. What sort of context would you have added?
    You don't think it's useful to have for comparison over the next few weeks to see whether the numbers do change with schools back?



    "Infection rates in children 30% lower than average" isn't exactly an illuminating ray of sunshine for a disease that people were heretofore claiming left children almost completely unaffected.


    I'll agree RTE are crap in general, but the info in this article doesn't seem "unuseful".

    It does leave them almost completely unaffected, not uninfected


  • #2326
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    It was the same during the water charge protests, household charge etc. Politicians have always tried to the undermine any legitimacy a protest may have by targeting an element and smearing all by association.
    Protesters make it easy to do that as every protest has a collection of the usual suspects who protest about everything and they are a rag tag bunch of malcontents.


  • #2327
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,173 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    caveat emptor wrote: »
    Well I see the point you are making and it's a valid one but we shouldn't forget that we were told children don't get it and if they do they don't spread it. That was the narrative prior to the reopening of schools in September. I agree it is clickbait for sure.

    At least half of that axiom has since been proven to be false. (kids don't get it) The latter half seemed to hold true but without widespread testing in schools it's not necessarily clear if it is true or not. Israeli data from schools supported the fact that asymptotic spread was significant there. Different country so might not hold true here.

    Add in the UK variant which is known to be more transmissible in all age groups then we may see this hypothesis being disproved in coming weeks.

    We were never told kids don't get it and spread it.


  • #2328
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,860 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    SeaMermaid wrote: »
    Some people turned up to cause trouble. Other people turned up with an appauling grasp on the English language which was evident on the spelling on their jackets. Someone else turned up drinking a can of Heineken. A daytime drinking and within a protest too, doesn't do that movement any good.

    What alternative do the anti covid protesters have to offer the government to control the spread of covid?

    Someone turned up with a firework


  • #2329
    caveat emptor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭caveat emptor


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    It was the same during the water charge protests, household charge etc. Politicians have always tried to the undermine any legitimacy a protest may have by targeting an element and smearing all by association.

    Good point. You see it all the time. Even with the zerocovid thing. You'd swear Thomas Ryan was some kind of L. Ron Hubbard or something and people who think it might be a good idea are scientologists by association.


  • #2330
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    SeaMermaid wrote: »

    What alternative do the anti covid protesters have to offer the government to control the spread of covid?

    This comment suggests there are pro Covid supporters. I would have thought everyone is anti Covid.


  • #2331
    What Username Guidelines
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭What Username Guidelines


    caveat emptor wrote: »
    but we shouldn't forget that we were told children don't get it and if they do they don't spread it.

    We should in fact forget it as nobody ever said that.


  • Advertisement
  • #2332
    wadacrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,172 ✭✭✭wadacrack


    Good numbers

    https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1366417197195747331


  • #2333
    What Username Guidelines
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭What Username Guidelines


    Not bad

    https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1366417197195747331?s=20


  • #2334
    Van.Bosch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭Van.Bosch


    wadacrack wrote: »
    Good numbers

    https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1366417197195747331

    609 last Monday, moving in the right direction


  • #2335
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,962 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    caveat emptor wrote: »
    Good point. You see it all the time. Even with the zerocovid thing. You'd swear Thomas Ryan was some kind of L. Ron Hubbard or something and people who think it might be a good idea are scientologists by association.

    To paraphrase the late Con Houlihan, a man who has never heard of Lionel Messi is capable of anything...


  • #2336
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 57,129 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Mod:

    I know this is a megathread but there are a number of other threads where you can discuss what happened on Saturday. Let's try and keep it out of here. Thanks

    Moderator: Current Affairs/IMHO, Soccer, Pro Wrestling



  • #2337
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,277 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    Nothing is certain in a pandemic except for the exact measures needed for zero covid and how long they would last exactly. Seems an odd statement from Donnelly. No idea what hes basing that on tbh.

    https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1366414098766979079


  • #2338
    paulie21
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,541 ✭✭✭✭paulie21


    Does anyone have yesterday's swabs?


  • #2339
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Sunday: 663 / 13102; 5.06%
    Today: 506 / 12210; 4.14%

    Sunday broke our sub-5% streak, but only barely.

    For context, the two days last weekend were 5.13% & 5.15%. So we're still down on those days, the downward trend remains very strong.


  • #2340
    adam240610
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭adam240610


    paulie21 wrote: »
    Does anyone have yesterday's swabs?

    https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1366418346170871808?s=20


  • Advertisement
  • #2341
    caveat emptor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭caveat emptor


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    We were never told kids don't get it and spread it.

    Sorry yeah you are right. We were told schools were safe and weren't a major contributor to transmission in the community. My apologies. Obviously depends on your definition of safe is with a highly transmissible disease.

    If a family with a child attending school also had a vulnerable household member I doubt they'd call it safe.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement