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 XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

13823833853873881580

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yes, it's the confusion that's most annoying. Massive case numbers and deaths in countries with masks everywhere vs low case numbers and few deaths in countries with no masks (Norway in particular). And yet 99.9% of people in that mask thread swear by them. I don't get it. How can huge case numbers in mask countries versus hardly any cases in maskless countries be ignored?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 265 ✭✭deeperlearning


    The Irish Independent has got an attack of the vapours because there are now 43 ICU beds here in Ireland occupied by patients with covid.

    Alabama, with a very similar population of 4.9 million, has 689 ICU beds filled with covid patients.


    If only we could get the Irish Independent to move to Alabama. Its alamist headlines would serve a far more useful purpose there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    No, no new studies, it's always been known that surgical or cloth masks don't do do much to stop viruses. Here is cidrap director Michael osterholm saying as much last week. It might make you feel safer to have something over your nose and mouth, but if you really want to protect yourself it should be n95

    "You know I wish we could get rid of the term masking because, in fact, it implies that anything you put in front of your face works, and if I could just add a nuance to that which hopefully doesn't add more confusion is we know today that many of the face cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out," Osterholm said."





  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I honestly think we continuously underestimate cultural differences in terms of how people socialise and interact.

    For example, some countries are just more much more gregarious and use public spaces and events much more than others and others just aren’t. I’ve lived in a few European countries and there are huge differences in that regard.

    Ireland, Britain, some of the Benelux, definitely Spain, Portugal, Italy etc are all highly focused on things like bars, eating out, live music, and big public connected regular outings.

    Some other countries are a more more focused on inviting people home and that’s where it’s spreading in France for example.

    There are also differences in climate. In somewhere like Ireland but also much of the northwest of Europe it’s too wet and cold to just have terrace dining and drinking most of the time. It will be challenging beyond September and indoors will fill up.

    There are also travel patterns of travel connecting some countries much more than others, which is why you’ll see things happen on the U.K., Ireland, Spain, Portugal and France in quite rapidly connected sweeps, much more so than say an outbreak in the U.K. leading to one in Norway or Germany.

    There are also aspects of societies you can’t change as they’re deeply cultural and there are limits to how long people will be able to just not interact.

    I’m honestly at the stage that I don’t know what the outcome of this is. The vaccines are a massive step forward, but they’re not likely to end it, only dampen its impact. It’s a disease that has hit upon our fundamental need to be social and live in communities and that’s why the infection chain is difficult to break.

    The only solutions I can see to this are going to have to be technical and medical : develop a next generation of better vaccines, find effective antivirals etc, as we’re not going to be able to keep social and extreme hygiene measures in place forever and we’re also not looking like we’re going to be able to achieve natural herd immunity anytime soon.

    We’re also not doing enough about ventilation and air filtration. It’s expensive, but relative to a lockdown it’s money very well spent. We could be lashing in the HEPA filters and serious air quality monitoring on a big scale into classrooms, bars, restaurants etc but we’re not because we are a political culture that is reactive, often lacking in any engineering or technical prowess and frequently penny pinching in all the wrong areas.

    We should be using widespread, cheap antigen testing but we are clearly caught up in some medico legal deer in headlights that tests must be utterly perfect or not done. I’m sure that’s at the core of the anti-antigen thing here.

    It just seems to me like 1950s to 2019 was the golden age of an expectation of a developed world that was largely free of any dangerous, highly communicable diseases. SARS-CoV-2 has driven a bus through that utopia most of us grew up in and is incredibly frustrating and depressing to realise that’s our reality now.

    This is how life was before the 1950s and 60s and what’s worse is we’re taking things like the magical ability of antibiotics to control and cure common illnesses for granted and wasting those too and making little effort to find or develop new ones. So there’s plenty more potential for bubbles of certainty to burst in the years ahead



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 730 ✭✭✭gral6


    Prof Nolan was deeply concerned with rising cases today again. He's posted numerous number of graphs on his twitter today again. I wonder if someone reads it at all.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭irishguy1983


    Again I haven’t a clue…Many, many things don’t add up…Many stats contradict one another if you follow me…I am not pro mask or anti mask - I’ll just go with the flow….I’d say it will be months/years before the experts have this one figured out and can agree on everything….Many of the experts disagree and your average joe soap (ie myself) really don’t have the answers….BUT yeah stuff doesn’t add up….



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Jaysus, that's depressing. The thing is nearly over, very few are dying, once your vaccinated it's going to be fine. Some small number will still get sick, some even smaller number will still die but such is life.

    Everyone I know is essentially getting back to normal, meeting up, going out, holidaying, going to sporting events etc.

    This isn't the end of the world.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭irishguy1983


    I hear ya but 22% isn’t exactly huge considering the way they are living and we are living…Full crowds, nightclubs, no restrictions, etc and only 22%….Doesn’t make sense but I suppose not much makes sense with this whole virus :)



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That’s the point though. It wasn’t the end of the world in the 1900 - 1950s era either, but a lot of people got sick and died and it was just how life was. There was a higher risk and lower expectations.

    It’s possible we are going to end up with a somewhat increased risk, certainly less risk than with say polio etc, as this pandemic becomes normalised and managed rather than just permanently ended but there’ll be increased risk.

    When the high risk is over and we’re into managed low risk, that’s where we’ll be at the getting on with it stage.

    We can’t go to zero risk, certainly not unless we get revised vaccines or very effective antivirals etc

    We’ll know whether we are at the level that it’s just a minor background risk in a few weeks, as the almost full pop vaccine (over 12 anyway) fully beds in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,282 ✭✭✭brickster69


    "if you get on the wrong train, get off at the nearest station, the longer it takes you to get off, the more expensive the return trip will be."



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Apothic_Red


    Had a look at Nolan's Twitter, Boards seems to be a different universe. Load calling to pull the schools going back. For every open up merchant there's a Helen Lovejoy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 265 ✭✭deeperlearning


    As usual, a very small but very vocal minority of teachers will appear on Twitter demanding that schools not go back.


    Plus ça change.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Just had a look at his Twitter page. He writes: "Vaccines are not perfectly effective: we will need to help them by taking simple hygiene measures to prevent infection."


    I really don't see those masks ever going. People keep saying that they definitely will, but I don't see any evidence that backs that up. I see loads of evidence that they'll never go, however. Remember Holohan said before that the vaccines would merely complement the current measures.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,249 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    If only we had as many ICU beds as Alabama . We could only wish for 689 ICU beds here



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,282 ✭✭✭brickster69


    "if you get on the wrong train, get off at the nearest station, the longer it takes you to get off, the more expensive the return trip will be."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    @Gortanna

    Yes, it's the confusion that's most annoying. Massive case numbers and deaths in countries with masks everywhere vs low case numbers and few deaths in countries with no masks (Norway in particular). And yet 99.9% of people in that mask thread swear by them. I don't get it. How can huge case numbers in mask countries versus hardly any cases in maskless countries be ignored?

    That thread is hardcore. I only go in there in my most ardent moments, scary territory.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 435 ✭✭godzilla1989



    Covering the HSE failings with his tweets.

    If vaccine's don't slow down infections enough hospitals here will be under pressure in due time even with vaccines that are 99% effective at preventing hospilisations, which tells you how bad our hospital capacity is.

    2,000 cases a day = 20 vaccinated a day in hospital

    We should be able to cope with much more than that, 10,000 cases and 100 vaccinated in hospital a day shouldn't be an issue but our hospitals are rubbish.

    UK are averaging 750 hospilisations a day out of 30,000 case a day average, so vaccines and not vaccinated hospilisation rate is hovering at about about 97.5% effective all in and they are managing fine, could we manage 50 hospilisations a day?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 730 ✭✭✭gral6


    We can not manage that. Only lockdown and cancellation of planned surgeries are our way out of it. Sorry, not a way out. Just kicking the can down the road...



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,917 Mod ✭✭✭✭shesty


    If I remember that article correctly, Alabama has over 1000 ICU beds.1 state of the US has that.Now look...I am well aware of the shortcomings of the American health care system and the huge costs.But we are embarassing in comparison, especially at this point. 18 months into this and we have made no real attempt to significantly improve our ICU system with the longer term in mind. The longer this goes on, the more incomprehensible it all becomes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,410 ✭✭✭mcburns07


    They’re already gone in quite a few countries in Europe. We’ll be slow to the party as usual but eventually we’ll be rid of them too.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,425 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Our 7 day average of cases is 1805 and 7 day hospital admissions are 32.

    Accounting for a week lag from case to admission, it means 1411 cases result in 32 admissions.

    So 10000 cases a day would result in 226 admissions. There's no way a health service can function with those kind of admissions. At least use accurate figures to make your point.


    Some UK hospitals have cancelled elective care, so not all are managing fine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 435 ✭✭godzilla1989


    I agree

    It's crazy to think 50 hospilisations day out of a population of 5,000,000 is not managable, of those 50, 10 would be ICU admissions.

    It's an absolute disgrace that we got such a good vaccine and they are amazing to be honest, 99% effective at preventing severe illness on it's own is amazing, never mind slowing transmission/slowing infection and we won't cope.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 435 ✭✭godzilla1989


    Those figures are real world, I used vaccinated only figure of 99% effective eg 100 out of 10,000

    Using your figures 226 admissions a day from 10,000 cases is a 98% effective vaccination program in preventing serious illness

    That's a brilliant vaccine program, don't you agree? and we won't cope with those admissions?

    We can't stop transmission anymore, people have to live and meetup, cases are gonna rise, the virus want's to live and so do we.

    Vaccine's can do no more now, time for the governments to step up hospital capacity



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,425 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    I'm not talking about the vaccine figures. I was simply stating that your calculation of how many hospital admissions we would expect from 10000 daily cases is off. You can't work out the vaccine efficiency unless you know how many cases are in what age group and what the number of vaccinated people testing positive is etc...


    And no, I don't believe 226 daily admissions is any way sustainable. That's 7 times our current rate. I'd love to know after 2 weeks of those daily admissions what the total in hospital would be, let alone the ICU figures.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 435 ✭✭godzilla1989


    Do you know by any chance what the CHR ( case hospilisation rate ) in the 2nd wave in OCT/NOV was when we had 1,000 cases a day?

    Seemed to be about 6% vs 2% now?

    We had about 300 in hospital in Nov vs 233 now in August

    We peaked at 400 in 2nd wave, this wave looks like it will be similar



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 435 ✭✭godzilla1989


    If the vaccine is 99% at preventing hospilisation and nearly everyone gets it then the 10,000 daily cases turing into 100 hospital admissions a day is accurate.

    It's 98% now with 1,800,000 million left to vaccinate,, so 99% looks correct imo



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Just my city, with a population of around a million people has 730 icu beds and over 5000 beds. We've had multiple surges at this stage and the hospitals have never been overwhelmed



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,425 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    The peak (7 day average) of cases was 1175 and hospitalization was 25, which doesn't seem right?

    The positivity rate was similar also, 7% back then, I think it's maybe 9% now?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,425 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    I don't think it's as straight forward as that. Without a vaccine (let's just say a placebo), only say 10% were hospitalized, therefore the placebo is 90% effective?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 435 ✭✭godzilla1989


    That's exactly it though, it is that simple

    In the 2nd wave in Oct/Nov we had a 1,000 cases a day and 60-70 admissions a day with no vaccines, a CHR of 6% or so which is 94% for placebo

    Today thanks to your figure we have 22 admissions for the same 1,000 cases, a CHR of 2%, which 98% effective for a high vaccinated/low vaccinated population

    Vacccines are amazing if they can prevent infection as well as hospilisations.

    Trial data showed 95% efficacy at preventing infection and 99% effective at preventing populations

    So if 10,000 people get the vaccine, 10,000/95%/99% = 5 go to hospital

    In placebo those 10,000 people = 10,000/0%/94% = 600 go to hospital

    Basically if vaccines stop being effective at stoping infections we are in big trouble as 99% preventing hospilisations on it's own is not enough.

    If it goes down to say 50%

    10,000/50%/99% = 50 go to hospital.

    The difference between 50% efficacious vs 95% efficacious is 50 vs 5 going to hospital, hence NPHET really wanting lower transmission even with 80% of adults fully vaccinated



Advertisement