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…969799101102…326

Comments

  • #2942
    badger54
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22 ✭badger54


    TheDoctor wrote: »
    I had a document last week on it, I’ll try find again. Was up to mid February. Of the 4200 deaths, 39 were below the age of 45 and about 100 below 55.

    Average age was 83 I think.

    Thank you. This being the case - once the care home, over 70s, HCW, and under 70 with certain conditions cohort are vaccinated you would expect hospitalisations and deaths to drop dramatically. Exponentially presumably.

    Do we have a timetable on when we might expect those four cohorts to have been fully vaccinated?

    At that point, any continued lockdown would purely be for the purpose of not allowing the virus a sufficient breeding ground for new variants to develop and/or known variants to spread?

    Is that where we are in a nutshell?

    I'm not anti-lockdown. I believe in the greater good and I've played my part and will continue to do so. Having said that, surely when those four cohorts are vaccinated, and we see the resultant huge drop in hospitalisations and deaths, life can get back to Level 3?


  • #2943
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Timmy O Toole wrote: »
    Will never be realesed as the facts wouldn't scare people enough. The average age of deaths is in the 80s.

    But at the end of the day, hospitals getting overwhelmed and shutting off most other services to it's population to deal with the amount of people covid sickens needing hospital is a scary enough reality, isn't it?


  • #2944
    TheDoctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,980 ✭✭✭TheDoctor


    badger54 wrote: »
    Thank you. This being the case - once the care home, over 70s, HCW, and under 70 with certain conditions cohort are vaccinated you would expect hospitalisations and deaths to drop dramatically. Exponentially presumably.

    Do we have a timetable on when we might expect those four cohorts to have been fully vaccinated?

    At that point, any continued lockdown would purely be for the purpose of not allowing the virus a sufficient breeding ground for new variants to develop and/or known variants to spread?

    Is that where we are in a nutshell?

    I'm not anti-lockdown. I believe in the greater good and I've played my part and will continue to do so. Having said that, surely when those four cohorts are vaccinated, and we see the resultant huge drop in hospitalisations and deaths, life can get back to Level 3?


    Plodder posted this just after my comment.

    Its a more up to date version of the report I was alluding to. Page 25/30 is the deaths data.

    77.3% of deaths over 75 years of age (3337 out of 4319)

    2.6% of deaths under 54 years of age (110 out of 4319)

    Wont ever be mentioned though, not a scary enough stat!

    For comparison 148 people died on Irish roads last year.
    I'd say the vast majority of them were younger drivers.

    Could be statistically argued under 54 years of age, driving a car is more dangerous to you than covid.

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/epidemiologyofcovid-19inirelandweeklyreports/COVID-19%20Weekly%20Report_%20Week%208_%20Slideset_HPSC_WEB_v1.0.pdf


  • #2945
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    Klonker wrote: »
    Well I think it's not a proportional reaction at all even though I still think it was wrong what happened. Zero people are more likely to have caught the virus at that gathering than the 30 or 40 of your example.

    I'm curious to know how you'll feel this winter coming if we are told 1000 people are likely to die of covid over the winter if we all act over Christmas like we did pre pandemic e.g. Christmas parties, sessions, large family gatherings. Would you think we should have restrictions to lesson the expected deaths over that period?

    Yes of course I would


  • #2946
    ArthurDayne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    Drumpot wrote: »
    I can’t remember ever having to experience a pandemic in my lifetime so your comments are relatively redundant. In short, many people lack the capacity to understand and appraise the current situation in a rational manner that apportions responsibility to the actions of people making decisions that go against the common interest during this crisis situation.

    Could we of handled things better? Could we of done things differently? Of course, but none of this excuses people breaking rules that most of us are following. If everybody just decided to do what they want you get anarchy. I don’t think some of you get this. Democracy’s are at their core about us following what the majority want, preferably with most people benefiting in societyand what’s in thee interest of the greater good, not what the loud minority want. The large majority probably do want less restrictions but most accept it’s not feasible right now. In short, the majority of the population are responsible adults who appreciate they have to make sacrifices at the moment until this crisis passes.

    This is a crisis situation , so to try and apply levels of normality “students love to socialise” etc, is maybe not so much a false dichotomy but a disingenuous defence of what is currently anti social behavior. Part of the reason some people excuse it is because they clearly lack the capacity to fathom how serious things are. “But not everybody is feeling pain the same”, that’s true but that doesn’t excuse those who feel they are having a tougher time of it by breaking the guidelines the majority are following.

    People with medical conditions or over 60 are scared for their lives. People not in the public service are worried about their job security (I’m self employed). People with young children ( I have young children) are having to manage different issues to people with older children. Certain public service jobs are really trying right now for numerous reasons (healthcare, Garda , teachers even). And then we have a section of society who are finding the lack of socialising options as their biggest concern, well whoopty f*kin doo , welcome to the real world, we all have struggles with this.. Everybody is suffering in some form but most are doing their best to manage things without affecting others.

    When people choose to break restrictions aimed at lowering transmissions, they are by default acting irresponsibly and its leading to outbreaks , particularly when it’s lock ins or unwise social gatherings that involved alcohol.

    What I’ve noticed a lot is that people will choose whatever narrative suits their proclivitys. Many people are so absorbed in themselves and how they feel about this last 12 months they can’t step back from this and see the bigger picture. People react differently to situations. Not all tennagees or college kids are acting the bollox, in many cases the values and attitudes of those around them and their family will heavily influence their actions.

    I won’t pretend to of been perfect during this crisis but I can honestly say that generally I have been very cautious and tried to make sure I don’t take unnecessary risks that might affect me or others.

    Next year, or any year thereafter, where there is a flu outbreak — will you advocate lockdown? No, because you will not see lockdown as being a proportionate response to the scale of death. Does that man that your view of those who “fear for their lives” because of flu is simply “f**k them and let them die”? Does it make you some sort of degenerate if at all times you are not utterly conscious that you could be spreading a virus to someone that will kill them? Of course not.

    You are waving the spectre of people fearing for their lives due to Covid at me as if you had unearthed some great moral finding that I was unaware of. But I can just as easily wave back at you the fact that every year of your life up to last year, and I would venture every year of your life after this pandemic ends, you did not and will not lose a second’s sleep over strangers who will continue to fear for their lives from infectious respiratory illness or whatever else. You will not call for lockdown laws that might prevent them getting those diseases. That doesn’t make you a bad person, simply someone who understands that the preservation and prolongation of life exists in delicate balance with other interests.

    Law is not a creation of some higher power — it is a man made concept which differs greatly in many contexts around the world. Disobedience with law is not invariably “acting the bollocks” or being immoral or antisocial — it can also reflect the fact that a law or the way in which it is implemented is not workable. When people do not comply with policy, it is not always because the people are inherently selfish degenerates, it can also simply be a reflection of a policy that is not sustainable. Personally I think invoking the spectre of “anarchy” because a few young ones met up for a drinking session is spectacularly hyperbolic — but even if we followed that logic — ask yourself why it would lead to anarchy? People would stop complying with laws when they lose their sense of buy-in — when it becomes apparent to them that the law is no longer the proportionate response to the evil it is supposed to prevent. If it is anarchy you fear, the you should fear unsustainable laws, not Irish teenagers who fancy a can and meeting their mates.


  • Advertisement
  • #2947
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    ArthurDayne wrote: »
    Could you please provide us with a list of every single time you went out in your twenties and thought “Oh god I might catch / pass a virus onto someone”? How many times did you ever decline to leave the house out of fear that you may directly or indirectly cause or contribute to an accident or a death? The truth is that throughout your life you may well have contributed to someone or several people dying — you have no way of knowing and I doubt it has ever crossed your mind. Instead, you pontificate about how little others care when inevitably the day will come again when you don’t spend your time drawing endless Venn Diagrams of the many ways in which you might be contributing to misery and death locally and around the world.

    The idea that human beings should be made to feel responsible for every single ripple and every single flutter of the butterfly effect from all their actions is utterly devoid of sustainability. Lockdown was never touted or advertised as a year long suppression of the fundamentals of human nature — and if it had been, I doubt that many would have been as eager to roll with it. These students were out and about because that is the very essence of being young, their ability to socialise has been suppressed in ways and in duration that would go beyond even wartime.

    There is little point in being an advocate for the government’s policy if you are not willing to accept that it involves a fundamental suppression of human nature which will inevitably lead to disobedience. If you do not accept it, then your thinking is illogical and devoid of realism.

    There was no pandemic when I was in my twenties. And we're not talking about a couple of young people sneaking into another friend's house for a few drinks. We're talking about behaviour that would have been unacceptable in normal times and is doubly so now.
    And no, I have never knowingly broken the law and put other people's lives ar risk by doing so.


  • #2948
    badger54
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22 ✭badger54


    TheDoctor wrote: »
    Plodder posted this just after my comment.

    Its a more up to date version of the report I was alluding to. Page 25/30 is the deaths data.

    77.3% of deaths over 75 years of age (3337 out of 4319)

    2.6% of deaths under 54 years of age (110 out of 4319)

    Wont ever be mentioned though, not a scary enough stat!

    For comparison 148 people died in Irish roads last year.
    I'd say the vast majority of them were younger drivers.

    Could be statistically argued under 54 years of age, driving a car is more dangerous to you than covid.

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/epidemiologyofcovid-19inirelandweeklyreports/COVID-19%20Weekly%20Report_%20Week%208_%20Slideset_HPSC_WEB_v1.0.pdf

    Thank you for sharing.

    Very interesting document.

    Age group (years) Total Percent
    <45 yrs 46 1.1%
    45-54 yrs 64 1.5%
    55-64 yrs 213 4.9%
    65-74 yrs 657 15.2%
    75-84 yrs 6 1464 33.9%
    85+ yrs 1873 43.4%
    Unknown 2 0.0%
    Total 4319 100.0%

    So, after over 70s vaccinated, the remainder of the population (which will also exclude healthcare workers who will now have been vaccinated also) will have accounted for less than 10% of all deaths to this point.

    Hard to fathom how we couldn't move to at least Level 3 at that point.

    If they don't (presumably to restrict emergence of variants before herd immunity level of vaccination achieved in general population), and the focus turns to case numbers exclusively (given that hospitalisations/deaths will plummet dramatically) in order to justify continued lockdown - hard to see how the general public will comply at that point.


  • #2949
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    ArthurDayne wrote: »
    Next year, or any year thereafter, where there is a flu outbreak — will you advocate lockdown? No, because you will not see lockdown as being a proportionate response to the scale of death. Does that man that your view of those who “fear for their lives” because of flu is simply “f**k them and let them die”? Does it make you some sort of degenerate if at all times you are not utterly conscious that you could be spreading a virus to someone that will kill them? Of course not.

    You are waving the spectre of people fearing for their lives due to Covid at me as if you had unearthed some great moral finding that I was unaware of. But I can just as easily wave back at you the fact that every year of your life up to last year, and I would venture every year of your life after this pandemic ends, you did not and will not lose a second’s sleep over strangers who will continue to fear for their lives from infectious respiratory illness or whatever else. You will not call for lockdown laws that might prevent them getting those diseases. That doesn’t make you a bad person, simply someone who understands that the preservation and prolongation of life exists in delicate balance with other interests.

    Law is not a creation of some higher power — it is a man made concept which differs greatly in many contexts around the world. Disobedience with law is not invariably “acting the bollocks” or being immoral or antisocial — it can also reflect the fact that a law or the way in which it is implemented is not workable. When people do not comply with policy, it is not always because the people are inherently selfish degenerates, it can also simply be a reflection of a policy that is not sustainable. Personally I think invoking the spectre of “anarchy” because a few young ones met up for a drinking session is spectacularly hyperbolic — but even if we followed that logic — ask yourself why it would lead to anarchy? People would stop complying with laws when they lose their sense of buy-in — when it becomes apparent to them that the law is no longer the proportionate response to the evil it is supposed to prevent. If it iA few s anarchy you fear, the you should fear unsustainable laws, not Irish teenagers who fancy a can and meeting their mates.

    A few young ones met up for a drinking session??? Eh no a hundred people had a loud and raucous party out on the public streets, set off fireworks in the middle of a housing estate and climbed up on roofs.


  • #2950
    fawlty682
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭fawlty682


    Grandmother in small midlands town aged 89. Daughter rang doctor last week. Vaccines expected on Friday last. Rang yesterday. Vaccines did not arrive. This does not suggest coordination. Paul Reid spouting all
    over 85s will be done this week. Maybe a miracle by Friday.


  • #2951
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    fawlty682 wrote: »
    Grandmother in small midlands town aged 89. Daughter rang doctor last week. Vaccines expected on Friday last. Rang yesterday. Vaccines did not arrive. This does not suggest coordination. Paul Reid spouting all
    over 85s will be done this week. Maybe a miracle by Friday.
    That was Donnelly and Sunday is the last day of the week.


  • Advertisement
  • #2952
    TheDoctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,980 ✭✭✭TheDoctor


    badger54 wrote: »
    Thank you for sharing.

    Very interesting document.

    Age group (years) Total Percent
    <45 yrs 46 1.1%
    45-54 yrs 64 1.5%
    55-64 yrs 213 4.9%
    65-74 yrs 657 15.2%
    75-84 yrs 6 1464 33.9%
    85+ yrs 1873 43.4%
    Unknown 2 0.0%
    Total 4319 100.0%

    So, after over 70s vaccinated, the remainder of the population (which will also exclude healthcare workers who will now have been vaccinated also) will have accounted for less than 10% of all deaths to this point.

    Hard to fathom how we couldn't move to at least Level 3 at that point.

    If they don't (presumably to restrict emergence of variants before herd immunity level of vaccination achieved in general population), and the focus turns to case numbers exclusively (given that hospitalisations/deaths will plummet dramatically) in order to justify continued lockdown - hard to see how the general public will comply at that point.

    I've never considered how many cases to be the issue, more of who is making up the cases.

    With our cases now down to around 700 a day, hospitalisations in Ireland have gone from 2000 in mid Jan to 500 at end of Feb.

    Early data seems to suggest that the vaccinations are driving down the top end cases (hospital care required).

    After the over 70's, the next group is those over 18 with health issues. Someone said that would account for 98% of deaths vaccinated with those two groups covered though I dont have the data to backup. The report does say though that 85.8% of all deaths had an underlying health condition.


  • #2953
    ArthurDayne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    Harold Sticky Scuba wrote: »
    There was no pandemic when I was in my twenties. And we're not talking about a couple of young people sneaking into another friend's house for a few drinks. We're talking about behaviour that would have been unacceptable in normal times and is doubly so now.


    And no, I have never knowingly broken the law and put other people's lives ar risk by doing so.

    Spoken like a politician! Though, the very fact that you said “knowingly” and “broken the law” makes me think that you have not understood the point I was making. You have put peoples lives at risk your entire life — when you drive car you create a risk that you might cause or be involved in a collision...when you head out and about you create the risk that you will help a virus (like flu for example) spread to someone old or with an underlying condition which might kill or debilitate them. Sure, I am quite certain that you do not act with total disregard for the wellbeing of others, but at the same time you do not hide in your room for fear of putting anyone else in danger.


  • #2954
    thebiglad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,733 ✭✭✭thebiglad


    badger54 wrote: »
    Thank you for sharing.

    Very interesting document.

    Age group (years) Total Percent
    <45 yrs 46 1.1%
    45-54 yrs 64 1.5%
    55-64 yrs 213 4.9%
    65-74 yrs 657 15.2%
    75-84 yrs 6 1464 33.9%
    85+ yrs 1873 43.4%
    Unknown 2 0.0%
    Total 4319 100.0%

    So, after over 70s vaccinated, the remainder of the population (which will also exclude healthcare workers who will now have been vaccinated also) will have accounted for less than 10% of all deaths to this point.

    Hard to fathom how we couldn't move to at least Level 3 at that point.

    If they don't (presumably to restrict emergence of variants before herd immunity level of vaccination achieved in general population), and the focus turns to case numbers exclusively (given that hospitalisations/deaths will plummet dramatically) in order to justify continued lockdown - hard to see how the general public will comply at that point.

    Its easy if the public are not informed of this data or, how it is presented and as they are so scared now by the last year's reporting they will dismiss any non official source as quacks.

    I have said it before - like him or loath but BJ in UK is sowing a different message, building up positivity and expectation of conclusion whereas our 'leaders' keep preparing us for more lockdown.


  • #2955
    Klonker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,669 ✭✭✭Klonker


    Harold Sticky Scuba wrote: »
    Yes of course I would

    See again this isn't a proportional response. You know that covid isn't going away anytime soon? It's going to kill people every year, people are going to have to get used to that. There were around 4000 deaths from respiratory deseases in Ireland in 2016 yet we never even think about having any kind of restrictions yet come next winter you'd expect some to avoid 1000 deaths from covid.

    I'm not saying covid is the same as flu before people accuse me of that, I know it's a lot worse. But once vulnerable are vaccinated then the rates of hospitalities and deaths might be similar and we are just going to have to except it like we do with flu and other diseases.


  • #2956
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    ArthurDayne wrote: »
    Spoken like a politician! Though, the very fact that you said “knowingly” and “broken the law” makes me think that you have not understood the point I was making. You have put peoples lives at risk your entire life — when you drive car you create a risk that you might cause or be involved in a collision...when you head out and about you create the risk that you will help a virus (like flu for example) spread to someone old or with an underlying condition which might kill or debilitate them. Sure, I am quite certain that you do not act with total disregard for the wellbeing of others, but at the same time you do not hide in your room for fear of putting anyone else in danger.

    Yes and when aaw is put in place to minimise the risk such as drink drive laws I obey them.

    You seem to have a very black and white view of things. The fact that it's impossible to live a risk free existence doesn't mean that when a worldwide pandemic exists people should be entitled to ignore legal restrictions. Your arguments are quite silly.


  • #2957
    ArthurDayne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    Harold Sticky Scuba wrote: »
    A few young ones met up for a drinking session??? Eh no a hundred people had a loud and raucous party out on the public streets, set off fireworks in the middle of a housing estate and climbed up on roofs.

    Yes, and the longer lockdown goes on, the more likely it is that young people will want to go a bit mad. If you want to support a policy that suppresses the fundamental human desire to socialise, go right ahead, but there is little point whingeing when it starts to crack people up.

    If you support the policy, you cannot disown its inevitable outcomes.


  • #2958
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    Klonker wrote: »
    See again this isn't a proportional response. You know that covid isn't going away anytime soon? It's going to kill people every year, people are going to have to get used to that. There were around 4000 deaths from respiratory deseases in Ireland in 2016 yet we never even think about having any kind of restrictions yet come next winter you'd expect some to avoid 1000 deaths from covid.

    I'm not saying covid is the same as flu before people accuse me of that, I know it's a lot worse. But once vulnerable are vaccinated then the rates of hospitalities and deaths might be similar and we are just going to have to except it like we do with flu and other diseases.

    I thought you said 1000 deaths. Yes obviously we're going to have to live with the fact of covid for a long time. But currently the risks are very high and, as we have seen any rlarge scale reaxation of restrictions can have serious consequences.
    Once the risks drop considerably then yes. we'll have to accept that unfortunately a small number of people will die every year from covid as they do from flu. measles etc.

    Apologies for misreading your figure.


  • #2959
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,277 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1367125114358272005


  • #2960
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    ArthurDayne wrote: »
    Yes, and the longer lockdown goes on, the more likely it is that young people will want to go a bit mad. If you want to support a policy that suppresses the fundamental human desire to socialise, go right ahead, but there is little point whingeing when it starts to crack people up.

    If you support the policy, you cannot disown its inevitable outcomes.

    The worrying thing about your posts is that you seem to think you're arguing very intelligently and eloquently.
    But you are actually spouting irresponsible rubbish.
    It sounds like the stuff those students probably come up with to justify their behaviour to themselves and each other.


  • #2961
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    673 swabs from 15277 tests, 4.41% , Wednesday bump returns but not that bad really.

    3627 tests more than yesterday resulting in 250 more swabs

    Would certainly be helpful later in the week to see the breakdown of where the swabs are coming from, no bump in GP referrals Monday & Tuesday anyway


  • Advertisement
  • #2962
    cjyid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 103 ✭✭cjyid


    The Wednesday bump!

    Still,not bad figures.


  • #2963
    badger54
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22 ✭badger54


    thebiglad wrote: »
    Its easy if the public are not informed of this data or, how it is presented and as they are so scared now by the last year's reporting they will dismiss any non official source as quacks.

    I have said it before - like him or loath but BJ in UK is sowing a different message, building up positivity and expectation of conclusion whereas our 'leaders' keep preparing us for more lockdown.

    I suppose there are two assumptions that could be made.

    1. In fact we will see a substantial reopening once over 70s, HCW, car home, and over 18s with specified conditions are vaccinated. The government are tactically not saying so in order to keep the country diligent and compliant. We clearly saw the impact of not doing so before the December reopening debacle.

    So, essentially, for our own good...they are being the bad cop despite actually being confident in a significant opening sooner than signposted in official communications presently.

    2. The Government believes that due to emergence of new variants significant lockdowns required until herd immunity reached in general population.


    Truth be told, aside from being a tad more upbeat, the Boris approach doesn't deviate too much from our government's. We are simply behind them in terms of vaccinations. But, if deliveries arrive as expected we will catch up by the end of June.

    One could be forgiven for thinking we truly are in the home stretch. Albeit a 6-10 week home stretch.


  • #2964
    wadacrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,172 ✭✭✭wadacrack


    cjyid wrote: »
    The Wednesday bump!

    Still,not bad figures.

    What was last Wednesday's number?


  • #2965
    ArthurDayne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    Harold Sticky Scuba wrote: »
    The worrying thing about your posts is that you seem to think you're arguing very intelligently and eloquently.
    But you are actually spouting irresponsible rubbish.
    It sounds like the stuff those students probably come up with to justify their behaviour to themselves and each other.

    Well Bella, if you can promise me right now that you will advocate lockdown every single year to save / prolong the lives of all sick and elderly people who die in winter, I will concede the argument.

    I doubt you will though — and furthermore you will never accept that this effectively means that you are supporting the condemnation of whatever number people to death via infectious illness on an annual basis.

    Instead, you will blame others for being morally deficient and continue to portray yourself as a saint who has never “knowingly” put anyone at risk — because that way you can point fingers at everyone bar yourself.


  • #2966
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    wadacrack wrote: »
    What was last Wednesday's number?
    716 from 16,607


  • #2967
    titan18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,057 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    716 from 16,607

    Seems worse than last week then.


  • #2968
    Lucas Hood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,206 ✭✭✭Lucas Hood


    titan18 wrote: »
    Seems worse than last week then.

    Positivity rate 0.08% worse than last Wednesday.
    You can forget about that haircut anytime soon.


  • #2969
    titan18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,057 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Lucas Hood wrote: »
    Positivity rate 0.08% worse than last Wednesday.
    You can forget about that haircut anytime soon.

    I have the option whenever I want to of getting one illegally of course. I'm avoiding it atm but might end up if they're not opened in April.


  • #2970
    Theboinkmaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭Theboinkmaster


    With the vaccinations increasing we need to switch focus from daily cases to hospital admissions/ICU.

    Maybe 1,000 cases a day is OK if nobody is being hospitalized.


  • Advertisement
  • #2971
    Theboinkmaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭Theboinkmaster


    titan18 wrote: »
    I have the option whenever I want to of getting one illegally of course. I'm avoiding it atm but might end up if they're not opened in April.

    I think they'll open in May.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement