Covid19 Part XVII-24,841 in ROI (1,639 deaths) 4,679 in NI (518 deaths)(28/05)Read OP

Lemonzero wrote: »

If 90% of deaths are in the elderly,why are the under 70s in lockdown as well.?Should we not be just protecting that element in society and ensuring their safety but not restricting everyone else?

Pseudonym121 wrote: »

This is hilariously true. I have regularly seen people in shops with no masks well within two metres of others with no masks but once I appear with my mask on it is like the seas parting as they scurry to be 3 or even 4 metres from me. It is as though they think the mask is a sign of infection or something.

It just goes to show you how irrational people are about all of this.


Lemonzero,

Because there’s a balancing act between economic activity, number of infections, the capacity of the health service to cope ( when it gets overwhelmed then the case fatality rate increases significantly ) etc.

As of 2019 approximately 4.2 million Irish nationals are under 65. Let’s be optimistic and assume a 0.75% death rate with 70% infection rate and round that to 1 in 200 die. Well, that’s 21,000 people under 65 dying over the next few months to year.

At present we have roughly 31,000 people dying every year of whom roughly 6,000 are under 65. So, you’d push the mortality over the next year (assuming ONLY people under 65 died with COVID ) with these optimistic assumptions to 52,000 in total of whom 27,000 would be under 65 years of age.

CSO reference for mortality by age as of 2014: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-1916/1916irl/bmd/deaths/

Obviously you’d get a much larger increase than that because over 65s would die at even greater rate... but as I said let’s be optimistic.

So assume a 0.5% chance of dieing if you catch COVID and are under 65 AND assume that once you’ve caught it you have:
A) perfect immunity ( highly unlikely ) and
no long-term sequelae ( highly unlikely )
C) a health service which doesn’t get overwhelmed ( not possible with 21,000 deaths of under 65s)

And you just need to answer the question of whether or not 21,000 additional deaths of under 65s over the next few months to a year is a price worth paying for living unrestricted lives for the next 12 months. And remember 21,000 is based on a lot of rosy assumptions.


So, you can have no restrictions so long as you’re willing to pay the price in excess mortality under 65. Individually it is a low risk option for any single person but losing that many young people in a year accompanied by the multiples of that number of dead over 65 would fracture the social cohesion of the country and greatly impact economic activity.... I think the economic impact would be even worse than what we’ll experience vs lockdown and the comparison people are making of lockdown vs business as normal is false....

But people on both sides of this debate here ( it’ll all be grand vs the world is ending ) don’t seem to be interested in what the facts and statistics actually tell us. They’re only interested in selectively abstracting those facts and figures which can be twisted to support what they’ve already decided the plan should be/outcome will be. The facts and statistics show that continuing as normal with perfect isolation of those over 65 would likely result in about 20,000 dead in the under 65 age group and a large cohort of survivors with long-term renal, cardiac and pulmonary issues.

It is a political and social decision whether that’s a price worth paying.

Pseudonym121 wrote: »

@silverharp

Yeah i decided to delete it because I realised it’d just be nit-picked to death so best not to engage at all. To be fair though my assumptions were on the optimistic side - which shows even optimistically carrying on as normal carries a large death toll to under 65s.

In any case i’ll leave you all to it

Sam Russell wrote: »

If everyone - yes everyone - stayed at home and did not mix with anyone outside their household, and anyone showing symptoms was tested and isolated and treated, then after two gestation periods for the virus, it would be gone and we could all return to normal.

Unfortunately, essential workers and others need to mix so not possible, but we have done well so far. Keep up the 'Stay at Home' and 'social distance' protocols, and more important - WASH YOU HANDS and cough discretely.

Getting the R0 figure as close to zero is the objective. When it is zero we have won. Unfortunately, there will always some who cannot avoid acting the maggot.

Masks should be mandatory in public - even a scarf across the face will help.

eagle eye wrote: »

What do you think happens when we have our airports open again? British and Americans and others see we are doing well and get out of the mess that is their own country and over here for a holiday.
How many of them will bring the virus with them?

CruelSummer wrote: »

This is not true, we cannot get the R0 to 0, and it was never the objective to. Covid wards are closing in hospitals, the death rate is only 0.25% in Germany, 0.8% in New York, how can you justify keeping the lockdown going under these circumstances?
Why would Dr Tony Hoolihan use unscientifically proven link to Kawasaki disease to Covid to further his agenda and why does he continue to promote lockdown? He dismissed actual real evidence related to children and Covid this week..
Any investigative journalist worth their salt should be investigating members of NPHET to see what if any agenda's they may have. Are they working in their best interests or ours?

CruelSummer wrote: »

This kind of article boils my blood - why would we reimpose restrictions based on queues at garden centres? What kind of incompetent leaders do we have here? Why on earth are we not looking at our European neighbours and reopening now, including schools. Empty hospital wards, low rates of infection, it's a farce. There has been no spike in cases in any of the EU countries which will be fully re-opened before we can even travel over 20km.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fears-garden-centres-and-hardware-stores-face-shopper-frenzy-as-taoiseach-warns-restrictions-could-be-reversed-39209867.html

And don't get me started on Dr Tony claiming we need to be 'worried' about the inflammatory condition affecting children. It's been around for years and the organisation for Kawasaki disease in the U.K. have reported less cases of it this year not more. No proven link to Covid, yet he'll use that.
What about all the evidence pointing to the fact we've unfairly treated children during this a locked them up for months needlessly, and continue to do so, including a HIQA report this week saying they're not major transmitters - why aren't you using that evidence Dr Tony??

Or the fact they keep inflating our death numbers, using people who are dying already or who have other conditions to scaremonger and keep us all towing the line. Anyone under 55 should be out and about and back to normality, that's what the Science and figures are actually saying. Why aren't we using that?

ek motor wrote: »

Do you realise the gravity of a highly transmissable virus with a 'death rate' (IFR) of 0.8% ? It is more infectious than influenza, and much more deadly, not to mention we don't have a clue about the long term health effects, which judging by some early reports are not very good at all in some cases.