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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Austria hits panic button.

11012141516

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 547 ✭✭✭shillyshilly


    technically it does... but not in the black and white way you are interpreting it..

    will you have person to person transmission who have been vaccinated... of course.... if I sat in a room full of measles patients, even though I've had MMR, I still have a 2 in 5 chance of getting sick with it....

    vaccine reduces viral load, it reduces transmissibility, which in turn stops transmission (it will always, like any virus, transmit to some, but the key point is that it doesn't have the free for all to transmit to all)



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,650 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    I think the bigger question is what exactly is your point?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭growleaves




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭charlie_says


    Perhaps the people who don't want a vaccine might not want to tolerate taking a mediocre medicine or maybe even a society that forces it upon them?


    I wonder what might put more people in hospital in the end? Ever think about that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,526 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Covid will put more in hospital. and in the grave as well



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,588 ✭✭✭Working class heroes


    Racism is now hiding behind the cloak of Community activism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    You're wasting your time and energy.

    If you presented HSE published figures that were being updated daily, you'd likely be met with two "arguments":

    1) George Soros and Bill Gates are behind the fake HSE numbers

    2) and anyway, the daily pulished numbers are only a snapshot in time. Probably released at 5pm. They don't prove what the figures were at 4:59pm or 4:58pm or 4:57pm



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Eh, no they're not 😄 Many have spoken out against the potential dangers and side effects they're seeing in their patients. They are then immediately ostracized and de-platformed.

    You probably only listen to the mainstream media, and hence only see one side of the narrative. Both sides of this should be presented in the mainstream (as with anything else). That, unfortunately, is not the case. Red flag.



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Again, this isn't really describing what the figures are saying. Just saying "unvaccinated" as if they were all equally at risk isn't reflected what's being experienced.

    For instance, nearly half of the unvaccinated ending up in ICU are not Irish born. Non-natives make up less than 20% of national population. So what's the deal? Is there some way in which non-natives are not being reached by the campaign?

    Now, probably lots of reasons why people don't want to be caught in public saying "a lot of the problem with unvaccinated in ICU is the non-native population". I suppose we might wonder then why we're, apparently, so willing to demonise everyone who hasn't been vaccinated, just because we don't want to focus on the problem.

    And I think folk should bear in mind that other countries looking at mandatory vaccination seem to have lower vaccination rates. It would be interesting to hear what benefit Austria would expect if they got 90% of their population vaccinated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    What can you not understand?

    The vaccine efficacy is less for those with underlying conditions.

    That is why the immunocompromised received their boosters already.

    We appear to have two main categories of people in ICU currently:

    1) Those vaccinated but who were not fully protected due to underlying health issues and conditions

    2) Unvaccinated who would not have ended up in ICU if they chosen to get their vaccine.


    You want to add 2 plus 2 and come up with 7. That's up to you. Nobody ever claimed the vaccine offered 100% immunity. That doesn't mean it is not stupid to refuse one. In the same way, a condom will not give 100% protection against STDs. That in itself isn't sufficient reason not to wear one when you're banging some random strange young wan you met round the back of the chipper on the way home from the local nightclub.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    The consistent message coming from meical experts both here and abroad was twofola. Vaccine would reduce the levels of transmission and more impotantly reduce the severity of disease.

    The general consensus now, with more data, is that the effect on transmission was not as good as hoped for, but vaccine are guarding against severe disease. There are very few vaccinated healthy individuals in ICU compared with the same cohort of unvaccinated.

    This is a new disease, treatments and vaccines will develop and improve over time. That is how medical science progresses.



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    What I don't understand is how you haven't looked at the figures.

    The two factors that best describe the cohort getting into ICU are these:

    80% have underlying conditions

    75% are aged over 45

    But folk prefer, apparently, to concentrate on the vaccinated vs unvaccinated question.

    Now, you'd think if people were concentrating on that aspect, they'd be seeking to understand it. They'd be asking "why, apparently, are older folk, and folk with underlying conditions, still turning up in ICU unvaccinated." Sure, they'd notice that 43 unvaccinated people aged under 45 were admitted to ICU. But they'd they'd quickly notice that double that number turned up from the over 45 age categories.

    And then if someone added "you know, half of the unvaccinated people in ICU are non-natives", they'd say "oh, so its not just a simple matter of healthy young Irish people needing to get vaccinated, then".

    Is that really so hard to understand?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,498 ✭✭✭Harika


    A silver lining for Ireland and the difference to Austria. Ireland has relatively few deaths thanks to the vaccination rate. Cases are high but people are not dying at a rate like see here:

    Statistics are really dangerous right now as too many people interpret those with tunnel vision.

    To add to above post. In Vienna the districts with the lowest vaccinated are those with the highest people from immigration background. Something to tackle



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Man, I don't know how you are still confused. The unvaccinated people have a choice. They make a conscious choice that ends up in them unnecessarily draining resources that could be put towards helping someone else. They are leeches and scroungers happy to sit up on the backs of others.

    Your figures say nothing to support whatever you are rambling on about. They prove nothing. Vaccinated people with underlying conditions are more likely to end up in ICU that vaccinated people with no underlying conditions. Unvaccinated people with underlying conditions are more likely to end up in ICU than unvaccinated people with no underlying conditions.

    And unvaccinated people are more likely to end up in ICU than vaccinated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    hmmm........you'd almost swear that there is a pattern to those numbers?????


    But, then again, I suspect that you got them from "mainstream media" ..... publishing those nice picture is how they get you



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    But I'm not confused. I'm just noticing, again, that you're fixated with one aspect of the figures (which are not "my" figures, but CSO figures.)

    Can I suggest you just reflect a little.

    And maybe start by reflected on the rush behind your last sentence "And unvaccinated people are more likely to end up in ICU that unvaccinated."

    I suspect we know what you meant to say - and we all make typos. But, seriously, policy can't be driven by despair.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    That's what happens anyway when your hospital is overrun....people are left to die in favour of other people.

    If you are in hospital with COVID you are sick, there is no "less sick" its all just a matter of time, if there is no O2 left on the ward then a bunch of those people are going to end up in ICU.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan


    I never said anything if the sort let alone think it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    I had fixed the typo. However the main logic is sound. You have no logic to your argument.

    If a person has underlying conditions, they are more likely to end up in ICU compared to if they did not have those conditions. Can you not understand that? Is it not something that you would expect?

    There are people with underlying conditions who caught covid and would have ended up in ICU if they had not been vaccinated but the vaccine saved them. And there will be unvaccinated people in ICU with underlying health conditions but who would not have been there had they taken their vaccine.

    Yet you see a figure telling you that 80% in ICU have underlying conditions and you think that proves something about the vaccine. It doesn't. It is a Facebook argument.


    The antivaxxers seem to be driven by a despair that there is nothing people can do to help themselves. It is quite silly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Well in a hospital situation you are more likely to be exposed to COVID, so being unvaccinated would impact your prognosis (not due to your original issue, but due to your likely COVID complications)



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Again, there's too much tunnel vision in this. And as for the "anti-vaxxer" nonsense, I've a skinful of Pfizer. I'm just realistic about where it leaves us.

    It's not just that someone is more likely to end up in ICU with underlying conditions. It's that entry to ICU is overwhelmingly about having underlying conditions.

    And other things. Like being a non-native, apparently.

    Making the fixation with mass vaccination of people who aren't likely to end up in ICU look like despair.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    You're still not making any sense. The fact that most in ICU have underlying conditions is irrelevant to the point that some of those are unvaccinated, and had they got vaccinated, some of those would not have ended up in ICU. You appear to be some mental block in making that connection. So it was wholly preventable for them to end up there.

    Then there are 20% who don't have an underlying condition. I don't have the figures on how they are distribution. Are they 20 from the 50 vaccinated, or 20 from the 50 unvaccinated, or spread across them? It is likely, given the science on vaccination, that the vast majority of that 20% are the unvaccinated. Because the vaccine is very effective in those that do not have underlying conditions.


    And again, if you are unvaccianted, you will be more likely to catch it and more likely to spread it. When the hospitals become overwhelmed, you have to slow down the spread. Hence you need the vaccine for people who are not likely to end up in ICU



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    I just hope you're not a Russian troll farm.

    You contradict yourself when you say "wholly preventable". You admit yourself that folk with underlying conditions can reduce, but not eliminate, their risk. That's just to (hopefully) alert you to the need to reconsider the absolute statements you are making.

    To put some perspective on it, that CSO publication identifies 250 cases in ICU. Only 39 didn't have an underlying condition. Absolutely, let's assume none of them were vaccinated. Let's also notice that half of them (call it 19) were probably non-native, and that disproportionality suggests there's some extra factor to the be understood.

    So that leaves you with, maybe, 20 cases where you'd (maybe) think a planned expansion of vaccination to folk not in an "exposed" group will make a blind bit of difference.

    Now, I can utterly understand that if you're running the Mater ICU you'd want the whole country vaccinated for the sake of just maybe having 230 people in ICUs across the country instead of 250. It just doesn't make much sense from any other perspective.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Your "logic" has no basis.

    You appear to be assuming that out of the >50% in ICU that are unvaccinated, the vaccine would only have helped those with underlying issues and could not have helped those with no underlying issues.

    Let me put it another way. I can either use logic myself, or I can listen to those that actually work in the field and manage the provision of services, and come to the same conclusion. Or I can blindly believe the pseudo-babble illogical facebook ramblings of a random anonymous internet poster to come to the opposite conclusion.


    I do not contradict myself at all. I state that of the unvaccinated people who end up in ICU, some of them would not have ended up there had they been vaccinated. So their being there was indeed wholly preventable. Plenty of people with underlying conditions get covid and don't end up in ICU. "Underlying condition" could be high blood pressure or obesity or diabetes.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,498 ✭✭✭Harika


    Austria news are hilarious

    - No early end of lockdown

    - Overstretched public services

    - Intensive care overwhelmed till Christmas

    - Great Ski opening 3rd of December!



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    I'm looking for that elusive point of agreement.

    I can agree that, if you just want to follow published statements without comprehension, there's no need for discussion at all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,330 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    You see anyone who doesn't agree with your fringe opinion as a scrounger or a facebook degenerate.

    With this you have painted yourself as the most illogical person in the thread, if not outright emotion fueled. Emotion has no place in science I'm afraid, no matter how much you want it to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Being vaccinated significantly reduces the impact of getting COVID, I presume you can agree to that much?

    People with underlying conditions will still significantly reduce any impact from COVID if they are vaccinated. Still agree?


    for Sept & Oct half of the ICU admissions were unvaccinated. The unvaccinated people in ICU are ~10 years younger than the vaccinated people lying beside them. 33% of the unvaccinated people in ICU had no underlying conditions. 97% of the vaccinated did have an underlying condition.


    But you still think being vaccinated would have no impact on the numbers? Your 20 person reduction is based on something other than the facts I'm afraid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,330 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    That article takes into account September and October and the author even admits this was a quiet period for the health system. You know people can be admitted to ICU as a precautionary measure? i.e if your oxygen levels are slightly below a range you can be sent to ICU as a precaution and then released the day after?

    So far in this thread I've seen data snapshots from April-November and Sep-Oct, with no graph of figures in sight to establish any remnants of a trend. They are great for throwing the graphs and trends in your face when cases are on the rise but anything else they couldn't be more selective about what they show us.

    For Ireland to follow Austria's lead (and it's coming) and mandate vaccines with the current figures presented would be a disgrace, an embarrassment even. A sure sign they haven't a clue.

    I personally don't think Austria will force people to get it in the end. I think they are just playing a smart psychological game at the moment



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    "Emotion has no place in science"

    Were you not the fella with the conspiracy theories? Vaccines being part of a plan to make people magnetic? 🤣



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    I don't think it would materially alter things, no. As I've said exhaustively at this stage, there's a couple of elephants in the figures that people keep ignoring.

    Can I give a little example of how "expert" advice needs to be examined?

    "A Professor of Anaesthesia and Consultant in Critical Care at Beaumont Hospital has said previously healthy people aged in their 30s are dying each week with Covid-19."

    That's got to be a problem, yeah? Except

    If you look at "Table 2: Weekly Profile of COVID-19 Confirmed Deaths" in the official CSO statistics, they haven't recorded one single death in the 25 - 44 age bracket (or under 44, for that matter), in a table showing weekly deaths since 13 August. None, never mind if they were "previously healthy" or not.

    It is literally bull. From, apparently, a "Professor of Anaesthesia and Consultant in Critical Care".

    Make up your own minds, and you are welcome to your opinion. I've made up mine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,928 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Italy the latest country to encourage the unvaccinated to get vaccinated.

    Italy considers 'super green pass' and new rules that could see restrictions on unvaccinated

    Politicians in Italy are considering new Covid measures that could see restrictions on unvaccinated people.

    Prime minister Mario Draghi’s government is today discussing the details of a “super green pass” for the vaccinated, reports Bloomberg.

    The measures, which are being debated today, would reportedly only permit those with proof of vaccination to get into venues including cinemas and theatres. But it is understood tthe rules would still allow unvaccinated people to go to workplaces after testing negative.

    Governments across Europe are considering new restrictions as cases surge across the continent. Meanwhile, Austria is bringing back a full lockdown.

    Italy has also reduced the time people must wait before getting a booster dose of the vaccine from six months to five.

    It comes after last month Italy introduced a digital “green pass”, required for all workers, prompting protests.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/nov/24/covid-news-live-south-korea-reports-record-daily-cases-us-to-require-vaccination-proof-at-all-border-crossings



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭Wolf359f




  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Good spot. I should have linked this, which as I said gives a table with the weekly deaths back to August:

    As you'll see from Table 2: Weekly Profile of COVID-19 Confirmed Deaths, not a single case. Not a sign of the hordes of healthy people in the 30s struck down in their prime between 13 August 2021 and 12 November 2021.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    And here we are again with people not reading the footnotes.

    3 '..' Indicates a cell number < 5 or a cell number < 5 can be identified

    So at a minimum it's 8 deaths under 44 or a maximum of 32 deaths.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,498 ✭✭✭Harika


    Not Austria but as close as you can get. A infographic only the smartest 10% of people will understand



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭bloopy


    Your link seems to show quite a large drop in percentage of total cases in unvaccinated between 8 October and 12 November (table a).

    Unless I am reading it wrong?



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Here we are again with people not seeing the wood for the trees. There have been less than 60 deaths of people aged under 44 since they started counting. And obviously includes people in those age categories with underlying conditions.

    But if you want to believe this is consistent with healthy 30 year olds dying every week - that's the contention - then there's no role for reason in this.

    I didn't notice - but, yes, that seems to be what it's saying. Putting it the other way, 51% of Covid cases in 10 Sept were vaccinated, vs 88% in 12 November.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,141 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    You stated "As you'll see from Table 2: Weekly Profile of COVID-19 Confirmed Deaths, not a single case" and when it was pointed out that you didn't understand the table you don't have the good grace to admit that you were wrong, and instead just moved the goalposts on to speculating about underlying conditions.

    It's like you're looking for evidence to justify your biases.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    It seems to be the path some are taking. When people try to explain the ~5% unvaccinated are putting a disproportionate strain on the health service, they seem to be shifting the focus on to the unvaccinated with underlying health issues.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭bloopy


    Will be interesting to see if that is relected in hospitalisation and icu admissions.

    Assuming a two week delay, we should see any changes popping up from the this week on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    I think you are losing the thread.

    Do you see basis for the statement that "previously healthy people aged in their 30s are dying each week with Covid-19"?

    This isn't moving the goalpost. It's reminding you where it is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,330 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Nice little post mortem on the discussion, thanks for this. So to conclude, you don't see the benefit in looking at the data but the poster's value system or morals don't meet your standards. Very scientific indeed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    88/100 ICU admissions have underlying conditions regardless of vaccination status.

    ~50/100 ICU admissions are not vaccinated. Based upon Sept/Oct reports (most recent data)

    Agreed so far?

    While it is possible that all 50/100 that are vaccinated in ICU have underlying conditions, that leaves 38/50 in ICU who are unvaccinated with underlying conditions. Or if you like to put it, 76% of all unvaccinated in ICU have underlying conditions.

    Why are there so many unvaccinated folks with underlying conditions, when they are the people who would most benefit from a vaccine? Is it because they cannot have the vaccine? What are the reasons?

    Those blaming the 6% unvaccinated in the population for 50% of all ICU admissions when it is demonstrable that they are responsible really for 12% of all ICU is a dishonest argument.

    Try and find out about the unvaccinated with underlying conditions and understand why?

    Then unload all you want on the other 12%.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    A doctor claimed people in the 30's were dying each week. The OP claimed he was lying and nobody since August under presented proof which they assumed would prove the doctor wrong. However the link they supplied, did indeed show there was people under 45 dying since August. Proving themselves incorrect.

    Now they are deflecting away from it instead of putting their hands up and admitting they were incorrect.

    I don't care what the discussion was about, I just hate when people use incorrect data to prove something and when it's pointed out to them, they don't change their opinion or they just ignore it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,141 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    @Danno wrote

    Why are there so many unvaccinated folks with underlying conditions, when they are the people who would most benefit from a vaccine? Is it because they cannot have the vaccine? What are the reasons?

    I don't necessarily agree with your wider analysis, and I'm not blaming anyone, but of the two vaccine-refuseniks I know personally, both are (I think) past state retirement age and probably have some kind of underlying condition, since most people of that age have something going on heathwise, even if they are relatively fit and active. They're also Irish, not that it particularly matters, but I think it's more likely that the older unvaxxed are predominantly Irish given migration patterns. It is relevant to motivations though, since they don't have the same "soviets screwed us" baggage. Neither of them have even occasional contact with the health service, they are both proud of this. One takes the pragmatic view that if it aint broke don't fix it, and the other is a anti-everything lunatic. I hope neither get covid but if they do I hope they don't end up in hospital.

    Anyway, anecdotes are not data.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    My god. I don't think I've ever seen such utter ignorance and scutter being presented as some kind of logic.


    I'm going to try one more time, but I know that I'll be wasting my time. Lets suppose there are 100 people with diabetes. Which is an underlying condition. 94 of these get vaccinated. 6 don't.

    At the end of 1 year we look at how those the 100 got on. 8 have ended up in ICU. 4 of these were vaccinated. 4 were not. So we have a 50:50 split of who went to ICU.

    These example numbers show that a vaccinated person is 16 times (4.17% vs 66.7% )more likely to end up in ICU than an unvaccinated one. Most people will see this as obvious incontrovertible evidence that all of the 100 should have been vaccinated.

    What you and your scientifically. mathematically, and logically, illiterate buddies on here would conclude (possibly after copying and pasting from a facebook rant) is that vaccination status was irrelevant because 100% of the people who ended up in ICU had an underlying condition 🙄


    But that's it. I don't have time to be trying to explain, to certain types of posters, logic that is really only one step above the ability to count.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Ignorance and scutter? You're hypothesising about a situation that might happen after a year, whereas my argument and some others on here is with the ACTUAL data we have, right here, right now in late 2021.

    And you have the nerve to call me and some others illiterate.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    There are scientifically, mathematically, and logically, illiterate posts on this thread. That is just the truth. What you wrote was indeed scutter.

    You can work through through my example for other scenarios. I made it as simple as possible so try to understand it as it is first. If you want to knock yourself out, you can even adjust it so that there were 2/4/6/8/10/12 people in ICU from the 100. Just keep the ratios of 94:6 and 50:50. You will see that the relative ratio between the groups is still 16. There is nothing magical about me choosing "8" to end up in ICU. It is mathematically the same once the two other ratios remain as above.

    Or you can argue with me why vaccination status is irrelevant because 100% who ended up in ICU had an underlying condition. That's really what you want to conclude isn't it?



Advertisement