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 XXXIV-249,437 ROI(4,906 deaths) 120,195 NI (2,145 deaths)(01/05)Read OP

1…153154156158159…324

Comments

  • #4652
    DebDynamite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭DebDynamite


    ninebeanrows wrote: »
    That is an extremely low positivity rate! Much lower than in the community!

    Also, I assume this includes the workers at the hotels etc!

    A 2.3% positivity rate.

    These people would’ve already have a negative Covid test to allow them to travel in the first place. You’d have to imagine so how many cases are coming through currently from other countries where hotel quarantine is not required or from people bypassing the hotel quarantine coming from high-risk countries. Or how many cases came through from travel when there were absolutely no controls, i.e before the need for a negative test.

    A 2.3% positivity rate (I fixed your post) from people who would’ve tested negative a few days earlier is close enough to our overall positivity rate in the country and show the need for mandatory quarantine.


  • #4653
    JP100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 498 ✭✭JP100


    Knine wrote: »
    We followed guidelines all year, only 1 social bubble visitor. Only left the house to go for walks and food shop. My daughter caught it in school and we all tested positive. Luckily I was very careful with contacts & did not go visit my very high risk family members!

    Yep, and unfortunately a regular story in communities all around the country.


  • #4654
    ninebeanrows
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,780 ✭✭✭✭ninebeanrows


    DebDynamite wrote: »
    These people would’ve already have a negative Covid test to allow them to travel in the first place. You’d have to imagine so how many cases are coming through currently from other countries where hotel quarantine is not required or from people bypassing the hotel quarantine coming from high-risk countries. Or how many cases came through from travel when there were absolutely no controls, i.e before the need for a negative test.

    Yea the above positive rate is wrong. It is lower than the community rate and we don't know who is testing positive.

    Is it the workers?

    Is it people coming in without having had a PCR test?

    Is it people coming with having already negative PCR tests?

    The number is useless on its own.


  • #4655
    JP100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 498 ✭✭JP100


    Knine wrote: »
    Really? Yawn?

    Hopefully what happened in my house the last 2 weeks does not visit your door! One person very close to me is very sick!

    Sorry to hear that.


  • #4656
    normanoffside
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,234 ✭✭✭✭normanoffside


    ninebeanrows wrote: »
    Yea the above positive rate is wrong. It is lower than the community rate and we don't know who is testing positive.

    Is it the workers?

    Is it people coming in without having had a PCR test?

    Is it people coming with having already negative PCR tests?

    The number is useless on its own.

    Everyone who goes into MHQ gets tested on day 2 and 10 I think?


  • Advertisement
  • #4657
    Knine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Knine


    JP100 wrote: »
    Yep, and unfortunately a regular story in communities all around the country.

    And the school is not opening next week! The official figures affected are far less than the reality & we were 'Told Off' if we asked questions!


  • #4658
    DebDynamite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭DebDynamite


    ninebeanrows wrote: »
    Yea the above positive rate is wrong. It is lower than the community rate and we don't know who is testing positive.

    It’s not that much lower. Our overall positivity rate hovers around the 3% daily. When you consider these people would’ve had a negative test in the few days prior, it’s very high.


  • #4659
    JP100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 498 ✭✭JP100


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Why is that?

    Because they've become politician than the politicians themselves.


  • #4660
    ninebeanrows
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,780 ✭✭✭✭ninebeanrows


    DebDynamite wrote: »
    It’s not that much lower. Our overall positivity rate hovers around the 3% daily. When you consider these people would’ve had a negative test in the few days prior, it’s very high.

    No, that is what I am trying to highlight.

    A lot of the people who are brought there now are people who arrive without a negative PCR test as still happens, especially for some shorter haul flights.

    So your assumption above is false but most people will have similar beliefs as you as that is how it is portrayed.

    We have no idea who the positives came from.
    ----

    Rules at moment is if you arrive without a negative PCR you go the MHQ......if you arrive from the designated countries with or without a negative PCR you go to the MHQ


  • #4661
    Sanjuro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Sanjuro


    Knine wrote: »
    We followed guidelines all year, only 1 social bubble visitor. Only left the house to go for walks and food shop. My daughter caught it in school and we all tested positive. Luckily I was very careful with contacts & did not go visit my very high risk family members!

    So we should do what, exactly? Base public health policy on your one anecdote?


  • Advertisement
  • #4662
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    JP100 wrote: »
    Because they've become politician than the politicians themselves.

    Well this is bollocks.


  • #4663
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,468 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    JP100 wrote: »
    Is they nothing you won't defend these organisations over on here! They've been messing up in the age cohorts for Astrazeneca for a while now and now have to be dragged, kicking and screaming into making any changes to the cohorts allocated for Astrazeneca.

    Nice opening line, but what defending is there in a statement that says let the investigation take place first.

    Your jumping to conclusions while the experts I'm sure will be currently gathering the information etc and will come to their conclusion.


  • #4664
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,468 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    Turtwig wrote: »
    On the face of it from the details in the article it would be one hell of a coincidence for this to be unrelated to the vaccine administration.

    Absolutely but better for NIAC & HPRA to gather all the facts and information and go from there


  • #4665
    DebDynamite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭DebDynamite


    ninebeanrows wrote: »
    No, that is what I am trying to highlight.

    A lot of the people who are brought there now are people who arrive without a negative PCR test as still happens, especially for some shorter haul flights.

    So your assumption above is false but most people will have similar beliefs as you as that is how it is portrayed.

    We have no idea who the positives came from.
    ----

    Rules at moment is if you arrive without a negative PCR you go the MHQ......if you arrive from the designated countries with or without a negative PCR you go to the MHQ

    So people are arriving without a negative test? It’s a good job so we have mandatory quarantine and that these cases are being picked up while they’re quarantining.


  • #4666
    ninebeanrows
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,780 ✭✭✭✭ninebeanrows


    DebDynamite wrote: »
    So people are arriving without a negative test? It’s a good job so we have mandatory quarantine and that these cases are being picked up while they’re quarantining.

    Yep, I would agree that we should have Quarantine and testing measures for those people who arrive without a negative PCR.


  • #4667
    Boggerman12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 130 ✭✭Boggerman12


    Still bull****ting on about how to discredit that outdoors is safe.disband nphet to hell.they want zero COVID or in otherworlds a fantasy.


  • #4668
    Marty Bird
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,311 ✭✭✭Marty Bird


    Variants of concern have escaped the vaccines reported around the world, anyone got a link to that ?

    🌞6.02kWp⚡️3.01kWp South/East⚡️3.01kWp West



  • #4669
    Knine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Knine


    Sanjuro wrote: »
    So we should do what, exactly? Base public health policy on your one anecdote?

    Maybe they should have not broadcast that schools were safe!

    One ' Anecote' as you put it has affected at the very least 40 people! Lets just hope there are no fatalities from that!


  • #4670
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Boggerman12 wrote: »
    Still bull****ting on about how to discredit that outdoors is safe.disband nphet to hell.they want zero COVID or in otherworlds a fantasy.

    Love to know where you heard this.

    Another who actually isn’t watching the briefing.


  • #4671
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Absolutely but better for NIAC & HPRA to gather all the facts and information and go from there

    100% Agree there. AZ will still have a place in our vaccination programme. We just need to identify the at risk cohorts to this particular type of event. If the reports in Europe are through that might just entail a pre-screening antibody test. Or monitoring people's bloods after the vaccination.

    Just because a medication is linked to serious side effects fatalities doesn't mean it will cease being of use. The highest profile one I can recall in recent years is Tysabri.


  • Advertisement
  • #4672
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,329 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Are you concerned about varients of concern?


  • #4673
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Marty Bird wrote: »
    Variants of concern have escaped the vaccines reported around the world, anyone got a link to that ?
    No, because they haven't!


  • #4674
    Polar101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,061 ✭✭✭Polar101


    Arghus wrote: »
    Are you concerned about varients of concern?

    I knew "variants of concern" was a poor term.

    I preferred the "killer variants" myself, it was more edgy.


  • #4675
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Polar101 wrote: »
    I knew "variants of concern" was a poor term.

    I preferred the "killer variants" myself, it was more edgy.
    Acronyms is why - VOC and VUI!


  • #4676
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Ronan Glynn showing that the nay-sayers don’t bother him whatsoever.


  • #4677
    Boggerman12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 130 ✭✭Boggerman12


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Love to know where you heard this.

    Another who actually isn’t watching the briefing.

    Watching the briefing and it’s the same auld bs from the sages at the top table


  • #4678
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Boggerman12 wrote: »
    Watching the briefing and it’s the same auld bs from the sages at the top table

    Conveniently left out that Glynn repeatedly said that outdoors are 20x safer than indoors and if people are going to meet then pleading with them to do so outdoors.

    Why is that?

    It’s worse, not only are you watching the briefing but you’re actually either ignoring its content or you’re intentionally cherry-picking one statement.

    Also, just to remind you, the government can change the rules to outdoor gatherings any time it wants.


  • #4679
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Boggerman12 wrote: »
    Watching the briefing and it’s the same auld bs from the sages at the top table
    I keep saying, the HSE one is where it's at! Loads more to get your teeth in. This one is full of journalists who haven't learnt anything in a year!


  • #4680
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,468 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    Turtwig wrote: »
    100% Agree there. AZ will still have a place in our vaccination programme. We just need to identify the at risk cohorts to this particular type of event. If the reports in Europe are through that might just entail a pre-screening antibody test. Or monitoring people's bloods after the vaccination.

    Just because a medication is linked to serious side effects fatalities doesn't mean it will cease being of use. The highest profile one I can recall in recent years is Tysabri.

    Absolutely agree 100%


  • Advertisement
  • #4681
    caveat emptor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭caveat emptor


    Knine wrote: »
    Maybe they should have not broadcast that schools were safe!

    One ' Anecote' as you put it has affected at the very least 40 people! Lets just hope there are no fatalities from that!

    Sorry to hear of your situation. Hopefully those affected recover quickly.

    You can clearly see the rise and fall pre and post Easter in the relevant age groups (kids and parents of school going kids).

    Of course we are told it's unrelated but it doesn't stand to reason IMO.


    This is most pronounced in 1-4 and 5-14.

    549578.png


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement