When will it all end?

jackryan34 · 10-03-2021 03:11PM

ELM327 wrote: »

There are 4 in our household too.
Mask wearing, hand sanitizing etc has meant we havent gotten it so far.

Haha not it hasn't

You were never infront of the virus, never in contact with it, if you had been your getting it

Go into a nursing home that's had an outbreak and your getting this virus

Where a mask, sanitize, whatever you want, your getting it.

TonyMaloney · 10-03-2021 03:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sweden did about the EU average.

Sweden raises the EU average, is weeks behind in reporting deaths, and is beginning a third wave.

dublin49 · 10-03-2021 03:11PM

listening to Leo at 1PM would not suggest there will be much change in April,construction back and 5 kms rule amended is all he mentioned and suggested level 5 will be maintained.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-03-2021 03:13PM

Micky 32 wrote: »

We know how effective the vaccines are. By next winter the old/vulnerable and most adults will definately be completed. I can’t see much serious illness going around by then.

Ok. You think that with c.65% of the population vaccinated , rates of hospitalisation and death will be low enough to avoid needing restrictions. And considering that You won't be making the decisions and Micheal Martin will, then it's not really about whether you think the rates will be low enough to stay restriction free. It will be up to them and they have been pretty risk averse up to now.

So the question is: With about 65% of the population vaccinated and without population level herd immunity and without restrictions in winter, will hospitalisations and deaths remain low enough so the MM won't consider restrictions necessary? The answer to that question is, very simply: We don't know yet, only time will tell.

Monster249 · 10-03-2021 03:13PM

jackryan34 wrote: »

Haha not it hasn't

You were never infront of the virus, never in contact with it, if you had been your getting it

Go into a nursing home that's had an outbreak and your getting this virus

Where a mask, sanitize, whatever you want, your getting it.

It's not as simple as that. I know personally 3 family members who's partners got it but they didn't? Sleeping in the same bed, etc.

The media have been scaremongering for a year, anecdotal experiences from many would suggest it's not as transmissible as made out.

HansKroenke · 10-03-2021 03:15PM

ELM327 wrote: »

I avoided it because I left my house once per week, kept my distance, and wore a mask.

If everyone did this we wouldnt have theneed for a lockdown at all.

That is what lockdown is though :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09 · 10-03-2021 03:17PM

Hellrazer wrote: »

We dont need herd immunity once our over 65s and vulnerable are vaccinated.

We`ve had 4452 deaths so far WITH covid. 92% of them were in over 65s and 93% of all deaths had an underlying condition.

4096 over 65s died WITH covid. That leaves 356 under 65s that died with covid.

Now 93% of all covid deaths have underlying conditions so out of that 356 only 25 healthy people have died from covid 19.

**No reason to stay locked down once our vulnerable (those with underlying conditions) and over 65s are vaccinated.**

All that is WITH restrictions in place all year. We're talking about a situation where people aren't distancing or wearing masks anymore. Signs are good from the preliminary research results. But to pretend we know what will happen next winter without restrictions, is just silly. We don't know yet. We can hope it goes great, but that won't have nay impact on whether it will go great or not.

TonyMaloney · 10-03-2021 03:19PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. You think that with c.65% of the population vaccinated , rates of hospitalisation and death will be low enough to avoid needing restrictions. And considering that You won't be making the decisions and Micheal Martin will, then it's not really about whether you think the rates will be low enough to stay restriction free. It will be up to them and they have been pretty risk averse up to now.

So the question is: With about 65% of the population vaccinated and without population level herd immunity and without restrictions in winter, will hospitalisations and deaths remain low enough so the MM won't consider restrictions necessary? The answer to that question is, very simply: We don't know yet, only time will tell.

Listen to Chris Whitty (UK CMO) on this. They're very concerned about another deadly wave, and are far, far ahead of us on the vaccine front.

https://youtu.be/NbON1RrE3ZI?t=64

HansKroenke · 10-03-2021 03:23PM

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Listen to Chris Whitty (UK CMO) on this. They're very concerned about another deadly wave, and are far, far ahead of us on the vaccine front.

https://youtu.be/NbON1RrE3ZI?t=64

He says this potential surge will only hit some of those who have not been vaccinated or who are not protected by the vaccine. There is no indication this is going to be a group of people large enough to require lockdown let alone social and economic restrictions.

Hellrazer · 10-03-2021 03:26PM

JDD wrote: »

Eh? Are you saying that if the country was completely open for the past year, we'd still only have 4452 deaths? Because our population number is fixed, but the death number is variable depending on the level of infections.

No Im saying that if you take the population as a whole we have had 0.09% of deaths - the death rate as a percentage is the same.

If the death rate increased say with a new variant that was a bigger killer then the the number of deaths would increase. So far no variant has shown that its deadlier.

Surely we just double the number of confirmed infections to get a ballpark of the actual number of cases over the past year, and then work out what the death rate is from there. Which would be 1%, not 0.1%.

But the case numbers arent correct as not everyone has been tested,some are asymptomatic etc.

And then we'd work out what the actual number of death would be if 80% of the country caught covid over the course of a year, which is not unreasonable in a fairly infectious illness. Which would be 40,000 deaths.

But you have to know the death rate of the population which is 0.08 - 0.09 % so regardless. 80% of the population is 3.7 million so even at the death rate of 0.09% its still only 3330 deaths not 40,000.

However, what we're not factoring in is hospital capacity. Say we have a rate of hospitalisation of 5%. And say, if covid was let rip through the community, the peak of infections is 10% of the population infected during a particular month.

That's 470,000 infected, with 25,000 needing hospitalisation. We've only got 14,000 beds, for absolutely everyone. You put in field tents, but you'd have no one to staff them. Loads more people would die. 90,000 seems rather conservative in those circumstances.

The hosptital situation is different - thats purely down to teh state of teh health system in a given country but the death rate is still 0.09% of teh population or 0.6% if you are over 65.

Actually the estimated figure for infections in the population is around 25 - 30% so if you take that figure we`ve had 1.4 million people infected but not all of them have died or even been to hospital or even been a reported case which is why you cant use case numbers to work out fatality rate unless you tested your entire population.

But as a percentage of deaths its still 0.09% which is still only an additional 423 deaths based on your 470k if they were all over 65 it would be an additional 2820 deaths.

It doesnt scale the way you think unless there is a variant with a higher death rate.

Doubling the case numbers doesnt double the death rate as case numbers arent reliable.

the kelt · 10-03-2021 03:29PM

jackryan34 wrote: »

Haha not it hasn't

You were never infront of the virus, never in contact with it, if you had been your getting it

Go into a nursing home that's had an outbreak and your getting this virus

Where a mask, sanitize, whatever you want, your getting it.

Thats really not the case!

TonyMaloney · 10-03-2021 03:29PM

HansKroenke wrote: »

He says this potential surge will only hit some of those who have not been vaccinated or who are not protected by the vaccine. There is no indication this is going to be a group of people large enough to require lockdown let alone social and economic restrictions.

There is clearly modelling available to them that suggests that another wave might require restrictions being reapplied, hence their caution.

He says as much himself in the video I linked. You might have to watch until the end.

Batattackrat · 10-03-2021 03:30PM

I think a lot of people agree some restrictions are still needed a level 2/3 type at the moment but with the mandatory quarantining now on arrival and the over 70's been vaccinated its getting a bit much at this stage.

Minimum Level 3 should be introduced in April or even before it.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-03-2021 03:31PM

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Listen to Chris Whitty (UK CMO) on this. They're very concerned about another deadly wave, and are far, far ahead of us on the vaccine front.

https://youtu.be/NbON1RrE3ZI?t=64

I'm not sure where Chris Whitty is getting his information doesn't he read Boards.ie?

Fact is that it's just not as simple as vaccinate c.65% of the population and reopen and forget about it. The reopening has to be managed and the winter will be a question mark that will only be resolved with time. Pretending we know the answer won't have any effect on the reality of what happens. Some people seem to really need to pretend they know the answer to a question which they couldn't possibly know.

ELM327 · 10-03-2021 03:32PM

HansKroenke wrote: »

That is what lockdown is though :rolleyes:

Big big difference between me making that choice for our family, rather than government enforcement on everyone.
If I were 21 and in good health I'd be very annoyed.

jackryan34 wrote: »

Haha not it hasn't

You were never infront of the virus, never in contact with it, if you had been your getting it

Go into a nursing home that's had an outbreak and your getting this virus

Where a mask, sanitize, whatever you want, your getting it.

If you keep your distance and wear a mask you will not get it.
One of my friends (couple + 1 special needs child), the mrs got it but the husband and child did not. And they are sharing a 3 bed semi and the man and woman sharing a bed.

spaceHopper wrote: »

No living like hermits and not letting our kids out to play with others has done it but that's not sustainable it's bad for their development and forming friendships

At the end of the day we are stuck until most people have the vaccine

Keeping isolated by enforcement has done it, but it's like using a hammer to crack a nut. Unwieldy and excessive.

ELM327 · 10-03-2021 03:32PM

the kelt wrote: »

Thats really not the case!

+1

Then everyone would have had it, every doctor, every nurse, every tester, all their families etc

TonyMaloney · 10-03-2021 03:41PM

Hellrazer wrote: »

Figures can be manipulated to get your point across but Ive done the maths on 13 european countries and the death rate as a % of population is always fairly constant @ 0.08 - 0.09 % of the entire population will die with covid and if you are over 65 then its 0.5 - 0.6%

Figures can certainly be manipulated. Speaking of which, what were the 13 countries you've used for this?
I strongly suspect you haven't used any of the better performing European countries at all.

Anyway, the percentage of a population that died of covid is not some pure number. It is of course heavily influenced by the quality and capacity of a given health care system, and the mitigating techniques nations used to suppress the virus.

And that's why nobody else seeks to use this metric in the way you seek to. It doesn't actually reflect the mortality rate of the disease at all.
CFR is flawed to the point of being almost useless, but what you're proposing is even worse.

HBC08 · 10-03-2021 03:44PM

Hellrazer wrote: »

I linked to an article from our National broadcaster which has now been removed for obviously being incorrect.
And if you followed the thread I accepted it was incorrect.

My point is you believed what was obviously incorrect info,you didn't have the critical thinking or reasoning skills to know that there was no way it was true.
I didn't follow the thread and apologies that I didn't see you had seen the error.

TonyMaloney · 10-03-2021 03:47PM

HBC08 wrote: »

My point is you believed what was obviously incorrect info,you didn't have the critical thinking or reasoning skills to know that there was no way it was true.
I didn't follow the thread and apologies that I didn't see you had seen the error.

That's bloody harsh. He or she may be wrong here and there, but there's nothing wonky about Hell's brain function.

Micky 32 · 10-03-2021 03:52PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. You think that with c.65% of the population vaccinated , rates of hospitalisation and death will be low enough to avoid needing restrictions. And considering that You won't be making the decisions and Micheal Martin will, then it's not really about whether you think the rates will be low enough to stay restriction free. It will be up to them and they have been pretty risk averse up to now.

So the question is: With about 65% of the population vaccinated and without population level herd immunity and without restrictions in winter, will hospitalisations and deaths remain low enough so the MM won't consider restrictions necessary? The answer to that question is, very simply: We don't know yet, only time will tell.

I’ll repeat. Critical mass vaccinated= Low hospitalization = little or no restrictions. Come winter feel free to hide under your bed. The end of this is coming. The vaccines work,

The 65 % as you claim will be the ones that would most likely end up in hospital but they’ll be protected.

Now you wouldn’t be suggesting the vaccines don’t work and that they are a waste of time now would you??

Hellrazer · 10-03-2021 04:01PM

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Figures can certainly be manipulated. Speaking of which, what were the 13 countries you've used for this?
I strongly suspect you haven't used any of the better performing European countries at all.

Italy,Spain,UK,Czech republic, France,Belgium,Estonia , Ireland,Germany, IndiaNetherlands,US were the ones I can remember.

Anyway, the percentage of a population that died of covid is not some pure number. It is of course heavily influenced by the quality and capacity of a given health care system, and the mitigating techniques nations used to suppress the virus.

Its actually not - you can test it yourself if you wish. the UK and Czechia were anaomalies with higher rates .India had much lower rates for some reason - possible down to under reporting.

And that's why nobody else seeks to use this metric in the way you seek to. It doesn't actually reflect the mortality rate of the disease at all.
CFR is flawed to the point of being almost useless, but what you're proposing is even worse.

Thats fair enough but other data is even less reliable - at least this is consistent.

ypres5 · 10-03-2021 04:04PM

Micky 32 wrote: »

I’ll repeat. Critical mass vaccinated= Low hospitalization = little or no restrictions. Come winter feel free to hide under your bed. The end of this is coming. The vaccines work,

The 65 % as you claim will be the ones that would most likely end up in hospital but they’ll be protected.

this has been said to him by me and other posters umpteen times but it doesn't seem to make any difference to him

monkeybutter · 10-03-2021 04:08PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Big big difference between me making that choice for our family, rather than government enforcement on everyone.
If I were 21 and in good health I'd be very annoyed.

If you keep your distance and wear a mask you will not get it.
One of my friends (couple + 1 special needs child), the mrs got it but the husband and child did not. And they are sharing a 3 bed semi and the man and woman sharing a bed.

Keeping isolated by enforcement has done it, but it's like using a hammer to crack a nut. Unwieldy and excessive.

look o the family, maybe they had it already

maybe a false negative

for eveyone I know this lad who licked a window and didn't get it there are 100 who did

one person in the house got it, the rest did

i know 5 families who one person spread to all at xmass, basically thats how anyone i know who go it recently got it like that

a few more from schools and playschool and a few in nursing homes

you can be 21 and annoyed all you want, sure it'll toughed em up

TonyMaloney · 10-03-2021 04:12PM

Hellrazer wrote: »

Italy,Spain,UK,Czech republic, France,Belgium,Estonia , Ireland,Germany, IndiaNetherlands,US were the ones I can remember.

There's going to be a huge difference between Czech rep. and say Norway.
The virus is not less lethal in Norway, there are clearly other factors at play.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Its actually not - you can test it yourself if you wish. the UK and Czechia were anaomalies with higher rates .India had much lower rates for some reason - possible down to under reporting.

I've no idea what's going on with India either. It's weird.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Thats fair enough but other data is even less reliable - at least this is consistent.

It is consistent, but what is it truly a measure of? That's the problem with it. It's really more a guide for how well a nation coped, rather than the mortality rate of the virus itself.

I guarantee you if you expand on the 13 countries you'll see it varies wildly. Include NZ for the craic.

10-03-2021 04:27PM

Into month 6 now where inter county travel has only being permitted for 8 days of that half a year.

Let that sink in...

Hellrazer · 10-03-2021 04:31PM

TonyMaloney wrote: »

There's going to be a huge difference between Czech rep. and say Norway.
The virus is not less lethal in Norway, there are clearly other factors at play.

Czechia has a higher population with underlying conditions - thats probably why.

I've no idea what's going on with India either. It's weird.

Ive tried to get more data but India seems to be fairly bad at reporting a lot of covid related issues.

It is consistent, but what is it truly a measure of? That's the problem with it. It's really more a guide for how well a nation coped, rather than the mortality rate of the virus itself.

Id have to say that its a more of a measure of the mortality than CFR or IFR.

Even when tested against other countries regardless of other external issues the one that sticks out is that in almost all these countries the death rate in over 65s is still between 92-93 % as a total of all deaths in that country.

I guarantee you if you expand on the 13 countries you'll see it varies wildly. Include NZ for the craic.

NZ has basically been a country in lock down with no inward travel since last year. And its an interesting one.

Its never going to be an easy one to compare though.

But here goes.

4.91 million population.
26 covid deaths - death rate of 0.0005 %
Over 65s - 495600 - Death rate .005%

So lock down has probably saved them 2450 deaths.

Sobit1964 · 10-03-2021 04:35PM

Hellrazer wrote: »

Ive tried to get more data but India seems to be fairly bad at reporting a lot of covid related issues.

One thing is for sure - its not tens of millions of dead as some of the the statistically challenged members of the church of concern would indicate might happen.

And this is without any of the first world standards that Ireland enjoys.

batman_oh · 10-03-2021 04:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Into month 6 now where inter county travel has only being permitted for 8 days of that half a year.

Let that sink in...

And it's going to be late July (based on level 4 not kicking in until mid May) before it's restored. So that will be 9 months of it in a row - completely unheard of anywhere else. Add in the amount of time it was limited last spring and summer and you have an absolute farce

ELM327 · 10-03-2021 04:41PM

monkeybutter wrote: »

look o the family, maybe they had it already

maybe a false negative

for eveyone I know this lad who licked a window and didn't get it there are 100 who did

one person in the house got it, the rest did

i know 5 families who one person spread to all at xmass, basically thats how anyone i know who go it recently got it like that

a few more from schools and playschool and a few in nursing homes

you can be 21 and annoyed all you want, sure it'll toughed em up

What is your fetish for lockdown?

El_Duderino 09 · 10-03-2021 04:47PM

Micky 32 wrote: »

I’ll repeat. Critical mass vaccinated= Low hospitalization = little or no restrictions. Come winter feel free to hide under your bed. The end of this is coming. The vaccines work,

The 65 % as you claim will be the ones that would most likely end up in hospital but they’ll be protected.

Now you wouldn’t be suggesting the vaccines don’t work and that they are a waste of time now would you??

I know you're repeating, you're not really engaging with the question though.

I totally understand your assertion (it's so stripped of any nuance and simplified that it's really not a difficult assertion to understand). The only problem is that we don't have enough information to make that assertion, yet. The opposite to what you're doing would be to claim that there will definitely be lockdowns next winter. I'm not doing that we don't have enough information to make that claim either. What I am saying is that we don't have enough information to make the of either definite lockdown or definitely no restrictions.

The vaccines work really well. They don't work 100%, but nobody suggested they work 100%. What we do have is good evidence that the vaccine dramatically reduced transmissions, hospitalisations and deaths in lockdown conditions where interactions are severely limited. So the question is whether they work well enough, with about 65% of the population vaccinated, in winter, without restrictions. And the real question is whether MM and NPHET will consider the hospitalisation and death rate low enough to not reimpose any restrictions. Truth is we don't know yet.

When will it all end?

Comments