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…204205207209210…324

Comments

  • #6182
    OwenM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 860 ✭✭✭OwenM


    Faugheen wrote: »

    It’s not the first time I’ve had to explain why the R-number is nearly always in that 0.6-1 area as a minimum and once again the poster doesn’t like it and just says I’m chatting sh*te.

    An R value range like that has no practical or theoretical value or utility of any kind, such a broad range is simply a failure and an admission that they don't know if cases will be stable or fall quickly - and you think that's a defensible position from a nation states epidemiological modelling group established to advise a health service and a government during a pandemic? If the level of uncertainty is that high this pandemic might actually be finished for all we know.


  • #6183
    Derek Zoolander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭Derek Zoolander


    Lumen wrote: »
    I wrote immunity and I meant immunity :pac:

    There was a study done of COVID reinfections. The median period between infections was about six months.

    Stats is hard so it's not necessarily the case that median reinfection period = average immunity period but it'll do for boards.

    do you have a link to that study

    below study shows lack of reinfection but again only for six months as that was the timeline but there should be studies for a longer timeline by now

    https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/previous-covid-19-may-cut-risk-reinfection-84


  • #6184
    External Association
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭External Association


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Thanks for the laugh, brightened up my day no end. If you find these threads contrary to your liking, there are other fora on this site to frequent. Just a thought, mind.

    I enjoy laughing at your posts too Bertie. Regardless of the thread you like to get in first. Someday you'll say something funny, by accident :)

    P.s. If that brightened up your day I hope tomorrow is better :D


  • #6185
    OwenM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 860 ✭✭✭OwenM


    Charles Babbage wrote: »
    Most were never at risk of death.
    Long Covid is a significant cause of chronic illness and one third of people who get Covid have some psychiatric and neurological effects.

    Large numbers of cases would mean significant illness in the population even if nobody died.

    None if this is necessary if people will just stall the ball for few weeks until the vaccinations are completed.

    Have you a source for that please, I'm not aware of any quantitative studies nd most people are quoting media articles which are in turn taken from random quotes from 'experts in the field' or propaganda from Zerocovid nutjobs.


  • #6186
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,149 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    External Association wrote: »
    I think it would be a good idea to close down all Covid threads for a week and see how it went.

    It might be useful in helping a very small percentage of the population forget about it for a while and begin adaptation to a post Covid world.

    It has become an obsession. Practically every angle done to death. Wash your hands, social distance, do the right things but mentally move on to progress something else in your life.

    The litany of posters banned from here. It's a thread of one upmanship, tension and negativity. If anyone says well what are you doing here, it's my second post here.
    Posters banned, lol. They're all back with shiny new accounts, some with several new accounts.


  • Advertisement
  • #6187
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,477 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Derek Zoolander wrote: »
    do you have a link to that study

    below study shows lack of reinfection but again only for six months as that was the timeline but there should be studies for a longer timeline by now

    https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/previous-covid-19-may-cut-risk-reinfection-84

    Unfortunately I can't find it.

    However, here's a HIQA report that covers many studies, last updated on 5 March 2021.

    https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2021-03/Duration-of-protective-immunity_Evidence-Summary.pdf


  • #6188
    External Association
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭External Association


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    Posters banned, lol. They're all back with shiny new accounts, some with several new accounts.

    Never!

    It's indicative of the tension on here.


  • #6189
    Charles Babbage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,588 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    Hellrazer wrote: »
    Jesus youre being very optimistic if you think it will be a few "weeks" before the vaccinations are completed - we`ll be luck if theyre completed in 2021 at all.


    there will likely be children unvaccinated at the end of 2021 and perhaps I should have said first vaccination rather than second. But with the news today that Ireland is getting another 5500,000 Pfizer vaccines in Q2 then all adults will be vaccinated in the summer, unless they themselves avoid it.

    And I am not saying do not ease restrictions, I am saying do not throw open the floodgates.


  • #6190
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    OwenM wrote: »
    An R value range like that has no practical or theoretical value or utility of any kind, such a broad range is simply a failure and an admission that they don't know if cases will be stable or fall quickly - and you think that's a defensible position from a nation states epidemiological modelling group established to advise a health service and a government during a pandemic? If the level of uncertainty is that high this pandemic might actually be finished for all we know.

    Because the R-number is at that particular moment in time, and it's used to project would happen if it is at certain points into the future.

    Again, an R of 0.5 would mean, if it stays that way, that new cases will project to be cut in half. An R of 1.1 would mean they'll go up slightly.

    This is compiled by many people, not just Philip Nolan. Should we just do away with it altogether? What does that achieve?

    Regardless, the point you made that my post was 'nonsense' doesn't hold up, because you have no basis for it other than you don't trust it, with no alternative provided despite being asked.


  • #6191
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,653 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Because the R-number is at that particular moment in time, and it's used to project would happen if it is at certain points into the future.

    Again, an R of 0.5 would mean, if it stays that way, that new cases will project to be cut in half. An R of 1.1 would mean they'll go up slightly.

    This is compiled by many people, not just Philip Nolan. Should we just do away with it altogether? What does that achieve?

    Regardless, the point you made that my post was 'nonsense' doesn't hold up, because you have no basis for it other than you don't trust it, with no alternative provided despite being asked.

    An R number with a range as large as that is effectively useless.

    A range of 0.5 to 1.0 would mean we are either suppressing the virus, or we are not. Its totally inconclusive and is basically a cop-out by Nolan et al - afraid to commit to one number so they give a broad range which means they are always "right", but the data they present is of no use to anyone.


  • Advertisement
  • #6192
    External Association
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭External Association


    All now eagerly awaiting the swab numbers. Who'll get in first with the eagerly anticipated stats.

    And could someone 'pull off' the double? Stats and cases in one day.. Hasn't been done in over 3 mts.


  • #6193
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,149 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    External Association wrote: »
    All now eagerly awaiting the swab numbers. Who'll get in first with the eagerly anticipated stats.

    And could someone 'pull off' the double? Stats and cases in one day.. Hasn't been done in over 3 mts.

    That's quite a bit of research for a throwaway line in a post from a poster that's only been here a month.


  • #6194
    Derek Zoolander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭Derek Zoolander


    Lumen wrote: »
    Unfortunately I can't find it.

    However, here's a HIQA report that covers many studies, last updated on 5 March 2021.

    https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2021-03/Duration-of-protective-immunity_Evidence-Summary.pdf

    one thing to note on those studies is that they don't preclude a longer period of immunity - they just were run for a 6 month period - in fact the HIQA summary calls this out - so we cannot preclude a longer lasting immunity.

    The applicability of included studies may be limited due the completion of all
    studies before December 2020, preceding the widespread identification and
    spread of a number of new variants of international concern since December
    2020 and preceding vaccine roll-out. Thus, the applicability of the findings to
    recent variants of concern and vaccinated populations is unknown. Separately,
    as all studies provided estimates in the general population or HCWs, it is
    unclear how generalisable the findings are to other populations such as the
    elderly, those with comorbidities and immunocompromised individuals.


  • #6195
    External Association
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭External Association


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    That's quite a bit of research for a throwaway line in a post from a poster that's only been here a month.

    It's a guestimate, I can assure you I'm not counting!

    You're saying I'm a rereg but haven't the balls to say it outright because maybe if you're not careful you could get a ban! Oh Jesus, Mary and Joseph not a ban on boards.. you're reputation would be in ruins.

    Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that said poster here has been following boards since the Feb 2009 snowfall, but only registered in lockdown a few weeks ago. I feel like I know a lot of you.

    And yes genuinely why not close the whole thing for a week. Some are absolutely addicted. Would be beneficial.


  • #6196
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    Lumen wrote: »
    I wrote immunity and I meant immunity :pac:

    There was a study done of COVID reinfections. The median period between infections was about six months.

    Stats is hard so it's not necessarily the case that median reinfection period = average immunity period but it'll do for boards.


    I would like to see that study. I have read about maybe 10 reinfections, I suppose there are more but in the grand scheme of things the level of reinfections at this stage is infinitesimal as far as I understand. So either these people who have been infected in the first instance are not being exposed to the virus or they are and they are immune. I would say the latter.


  • #6197
    marno21
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,709 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    453 swabs at 2.68%. Nice and stable.

    Difficult to compare week to week due to Easter. But it’s still a good result.


  • #6198
    External Association
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭External Association


    marno21 wrote: »
    453 swabs at 2.68%. Nice and stable.

    Difficult to compare week to week due to Easter. But it’s still a good result.

    I don't think Easter had any negative effect on numbers or we'd see by now. It will probably take a few days to see if the school full reopening will?


  • #6199
    giveitholly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭giveitholly


    marno21 wrote: »
    453 swabs at 2.68%. Nice and stable.

    Difficult to compare week to week due to Easter. But it’s still a good result.

    No Wednesday bump on swabs this week which is great,hopefully the same tomorrow


  • #6200
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Still need to get to the end of the week to know if there's been any Easter "bump". Looking good though. If there has been one, it's been absorbed and counteracted by the overall downward trend.

    Won't know about any school impact until the middle of next week at the earliest. Probably see a small bump in referrals next Monday as more kids mixing means more sniffles and coughs.

    The last five days' swab numbers got revised, resulting in positivity rates for all of those days dropping very marginally.


  • #6201
    Klonker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,669 ✭✭✭Klonker


    Stat I found interesting.

    If the over 85 category is ignored, there has been a 1.5 : 1 ratio of men dying of covid in Ireland compared to women. The over 85 category skews this back to a lot closer to 1 : 1, I assume this is due to there being a lot more over 85 women than men in the country.

    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/epidemiologyofcovid-19inirelandweeklyreports/


  • Advertisement
  • #6202
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    marno21 wrote: »
    453 swabs at 2.68%. Nice and stable.

    Difficult to compare week to week due to Easter. But it’s still a good result.

    Like you say difficult to compare

    Slightly more swabs than last week but more testing

    Nice and stable as you say

    https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1379799381545775110


  • #6203
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,286 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1382338951181176833


  • #6204
    Tullogher WRLD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5 ✭Tullogher WRLD


    Not intentionally trying to be pedantic just saw a few posters discussing “virus” versus “disease”. It would not be correct to say that a virus is the same as a disease. Viruses are not diseases in the sense that every virus will automatically mean disease in a person, plant or animal. There are millions of viruses, fewer than 7000 have been described in detail and (as of 2012) 219 species are known to be able to infect humans. Viruses by definition are infectious agents that replicate only inside the living cells of an organism. Viruses that have been discovered and characterised have been identified on the basis of the disease they cause, i.e. SARS-CoV-2 causing Covid-19. To summarise what I’m trying to say, it’s wrong to say that a virus is a disease, more so viruses can cause diseases. Obviously viruses can cause severe harm. Not trying to be pedantic just trying to help.

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427559/
    “Virus Taxonomy: 2019 Release” - talk.ictvonline.org
    cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/virus


    Wash your hands, keep your distance, wear a mask and stay safe out there.


  • #6205
    Tokyo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,655 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    External Association wrote: »
    I enjoy laughing at your posts too Bertie. Regardless of the thread you like to get in first. Someday you'll say something funny, by accident :)

    Mod: External Association - based on this and other posts, I'm finding it hard to believe you're not trying to get a rise out of people, i.e. low level trolling. Rein it in or I'll remove your access here.


  • #6206
    PTH2009
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,718 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    Eod100 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1382338951181176833

    I'd that good or bad news regarding further reopenings ?


  • #6207
    wadacrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,172 ✭✭✭wadacrack


    PTH2009 wrote: »
    I'd that good or bad news regarding further reopenings ?

    Would be good news


  • #6208
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tullogher WRLD wrote: »
    Not intentionally trying to be pedantic just saw a few posters discussing “virus” versus “disease”. It would not be correct to say that a virus is the same as a disease. Viruses are not diseases in the sense that every virus will automatically mean disease in a person, plant or animal. There are millions of viruses, fewer than 7000 have been described in detail and (as of 2012) 219 species are known to be able to infect humans. Viruses by definition are infectious agents that replicate only inside the living cells of an organism. Viruses that have been discovered and characterised have been identified on the basis of the disease they cause, i.e. SARS-CoV-2 causing Covid-19. To summarise what I’m trying to say, it’s wrong to say that a virus is a disease, more so viruses can cause diseases. Obviously viruses can cause severe harm. Not trying to be pedantic just trying to help.

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427559/
    “Virus Taxonomy: 2019 Release” - talk.ictvonline.org
    cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/virus


    Wash your hands, keep your distance, wear a mask and stay safe out there.

    Pass this onto Philip Nolan, Ronan Glynn, and the other vectors of misinformation and peddlers of fear.

    Anyone going around the place talking about "The Disease", when in fact they should be referring to viral spread, should stop with this fashionable nonsense and stick to the facts.

    When Ronan Glynn takes to the airwaves and talks about how, "...the disease doesn't care about the number of social contacts", it is a flat out falsehood and totally misleading. Just as his misleading statements about how B117 variant is "effectively a new virus".

    Words matter - and how they are used creates an impression.

    Ronan Glynn and Philip Nolan's borderline obsession with referring to "the disease", know full well this is inaccurate use of language, and it is merely a fashionable saying that has caught on among a small but highly irritating number of the population.


  • #6209
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Pass this onto Philip Nolan, Ronan Glynn, and the other vectors of misinformation and peddlers of fear.

    Anyone going around the place talking about "The Disease", when in fact they should be referring to viral spread, should stop with this fashionable nonsense and stick to the facts.

    When Ronan Glynn takes to the airwaves and talks about how, "...the disease doesn't care about the number of social contacts", it is a flat out falsehood and totally misleading. Just as his misleading statements about how B117 variant is "effectively a new virus".

    Words matter - and how they are used creates an impression.

    Ronan Glynn and Philip Nolan's borderline obsession with referring to "the disease", know full well this is inaccurate use of language, and it is merely a fashionable saying that has caught on among a small but highly irritating number of the population.

    The name of the disease is COVID-19.

    The name of the virus is SARS-CoV-2.

    So when we are talking about COVID-19, we are talking about a disease.

    This is all facts. Are you trying to say that COVID-19 is not a disease?


  • #6210
    accensi0n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,993 ✭✭✭accensi0n


    Just heard on the radio there (Think it was Stephen Donnelly) stating that the plan is "to vaccinate 80% of the country by the summer"

    I thought the target was 80% of adults by the end of June?

    Was it changed to be 80% of the country by the start of June?
    Don't see it mentioned on rte.ie. Maybe he just misspoke.


  • Advertisement
  • #6211
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Faugheen wrote: »
    The name of the disease is COVID-19.

    The name of the virus is SARS-CoV-2.

    So when we are talking about COVID-19, we are talking about a disease.

    This is all facts. Are you trying to say that COVID-19 is not a disease?

    One of the major features of COVID-19, as with influenza and many other ailments, is ARDS - acute respiratory distress syndrome, and the concomitant effects this has on organ failure. This isn't new - it has been around for as long as medicine itself.

    ARDS does not spread. To say, therefore, that "...the disease (COVID-19) is spreading", is false - because ARDS does not spread. It is the effect that a small number of patients happen to experience when exposed to viral replication.

    The virus spreads.

    Upwards of 20 percent of people infected exhibit no symptoms whatsoever. Are you now saying they have a "disease"?

    Of course not.

    Enough with this arrant nonsense.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement