Why is it so complicated to daily find out the ages of those who passed?

NoBread · 21-10-2020 12:24pm

timmyntc wrote: »

And what about us lucky people in 20-40 range, working, and with no social outlet because everything has been shut. No sports, no gym, no socialising, no pubs/restaurants. But we dont go to school to see our mates. Most of the economy depends on us working and paying tax, and yet we get all our privileges taken from us for it.

I'm one of those - and I'm happy to make sacrifices for about 2 years in the hope that the long term benefits will be there.
My basis for that reasoning is on the Spanish Flu data, which is our best histroy lesson to cope with this.
If it extends beyond that, then we have to do something else, as this will likely mean that Covid is different in a new way.
I'm not saying it's easy, but I can still buy food (no rations like war times), I can still have video chats with the parents and let the kids do the same, and we have plenty of entertainment sources in the house and space outside to get excercise. It's not that easy for everybody I know, but I think we need to pay some price in order to do the best for everyone, all things considered.
5 years time will tell some of what we got right or wrong, for others we'll never know. You can't live a period twice two different ways to see which fares out better unfortunately!

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Completely selfish of course, and a total lack of understanding of the mechanics of life.

No one is suggesting the life of an elderly person is as worthy as a child's life.
Thankfully the decision isn't a child's live versus an old person's life. It's a society's restricted movement versus vulnerable people's health and lives, and healthcare system coping mechanisms.

FintanMcluskey · 21-10-2020 12:35pm

Beasty wrote: »

Would have thought it was quite straightforward. Providing an age and in particular adding underlying conditions could easily identify an individual. Would you really like to find out someone you are close to has died from the daily HPSC stats?

That’s a strange attitude.

How is giving someone’s age and underlying conditions going to identify them?

Why does media broadcasts publish names in road deaths, often with pictures taken from social media accounts of the victims, and also macabre pictures of the wreckages of the vehicles involved?

21-10-2020 12:36pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

78% of deaths are over 75.

The median age of death is in the late 80s according to Dr Glynn.

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Completely selfish of course, and a total lack of understanding of the mechanics of life.

Children are not dying of Covid19.

Protecting elderly people does add any risk to any child's life.

They might miss out on a few play dates and a few birthday parties, - but like I said earlier, they probably won't even remember much about this when they are older - say 70. It will be a blip in their lives.

But apparently worth letting old people die for, in your view.

21-10-2020 12:37pm

Now I really am out.

With a few more added to my ignore list.

Some people have no shame.

DaSilva · 21-10-2020 12:57pm

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Ok let's say we do it it your way. Widespread community transmission. Jo is tested and now has to isolate. Mary's son has picked it up and now she has to isolate. Who is looking after the vulnerable when it's running through the community and carers have to isolate?

My mam works in a maternity hospital, say she picks it up in your scenario but she's getting tested every day so she finds out quickly. I mean she's frontline medical staff in her 60's, so it's not great for her if she gets it, but it's worse if she brings it home to my sister, who is higher risk. So where does she go then? We've had to actually have these conversations in my family.

To some of us, this isn't all hypotheticals.

I'm absolutely sick of the way things are, but I wouldn't trade someone else's life to improve the short-term quality of mine.

How is this "my way", I was simply arguing that covid being in the community doesn't guarantee it gets to the vulnerable and that there are ways of preventing vulnerable people getting infected that don't depend on the infection not being present in the community. I'm not for a second suggesting we can throw all caution to the wind and simply test care workers and that's the problem solved.

Deleted User wrote: »

Children are not dying of Covid19.

Protecting elderly people does add any risk to any child's life.

They might miss out on a few play dates and a few birthday parties, - but like I said earlier, they probably won't even remember much about this when they are older - say 70. It will be a blip in their lives.

But apparently worth letting old people die for, in your view.

Don't present this complicated situation as this false dilemma between letting young people party and old people dying. It's not a good way to discuss things, you can't just pretend people who have different views on how we should handle this situation as being uncompassionate and happy to let old people die. Some people just have the view that a more nuanced approach could allow lesser restrictions on less vulnerable people while providing safety for the vulnerable.

StupidLikeAFox · 21-10-2020 12:58pm

Whelo79 wrote: »

Because they don't want us knowing that they are all 70+ and had underlying conditions. They want us afraid, they want us thinking that you, I, our brother, mother, sister, father could all drop dead tonorrow if we catch it tomorrow. Rule by fear.

Talk about scare mongering! What does this even mean? If the government could wave a magic wand tomorrow, open up the economy and have everything back to normal they would do so in a heartbeat and would much prefer that outcome than some vague attempt to "rule by fear" - whatever the hell that means.

Nermal · 21-10-2020 1:00pm

Beasty wrote: »

How many in the country are, say, 98?

450, in 2016. Probably more now.

https://statbank.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=E3003&PLanguage=0

KennisWhale · 21-10-2020 1:54pm

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Talk about scare mongering! What does this even mean? If the government could wave a magic wand tomorrow, open up the economy and have everything back to normal they would do so in a heartbeat and would much prefer that outcome than some vague attempt to "rule by fear" - whatever the hell that means.

You know what it means? People of minimal risk to society getting terrified hearing about the numbers, worrying they might contract it and getting fits of rage seeing people not following the OTT guidance. That is ruling by fear.

facehugger99 · 21-10-2020 2:08pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

78% of deaths are over 75.

The median age of death is in the late 80s according to Dr Glynn.

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Completely selfish of course, and a total lack of understanding of the mechanics of life.

The irony of course, is that it is the children of today that are having their future's taken away from them with the current response to Covid.

Debt burden, unemployment, cuts to vital services are what they have to look forward to.

Not that today's politicians will have to worry about any of that.

facehugger99 · 21-10-2020 2:10pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s a strange attitude.

How is giving someone’s age and underlying conditions going to identify them?

Why does media broadcasts publish names in road deaths, often with pictures taken from social media accounts of the victims, and also macabre pictures of the wreckages of the vehicles involved?

I can just see Dr. Tony announcing that the death today was an 88 year old suffering from colon cancer.

Jaysus, that was Tommy from down the road.

StupidLikeAFox · 21-10-2020 2:24pm

KennisWhale wrote: »

You know what it means? People of minimal risk to society getting terrified hearing about the numbers, worrying they might contract it and getting fits of rage seeing people not following the OTT guidance. That is ruling by fear.

But the implication is that "they want us to be afraid" - it makes no sense who "they" are and why they want everyone to be afraid

timeToLive · 21-10-2020 2:38pm

L'prof wrote: »

Nothing should be given daily if you ask me. Weekly would suffice, even monthly. It’s just feeding into everybody’s anxieties

I think your issue might be with the reporting and not with the stats.

KennisWhale · 21-10-2020 2:38pm

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

But the implication is that "they want us to be afraid" - it makes no sense who "they" are and why they want everyone to be afraid

The message being given by the government, advocated for by NPHET, coordinated by their advisors and delivered via the media. This is the "they" and the "fear" is the irrational hysteria and sense of doom about covid which does not align with any data set regarding its harmfulness.

21-10-2020 2:42pm

DaSilva wrote: »

you can't just pretend people who have different views on how we should handle this situation as being uncompassionate and happy to let old people die.

I don't have to pretend anything. I only wish I was.

There are plenty right across this forum who are openly saying as much, if it meant restrictions were lifted and they could go back to their pre-March lives.

Its disgusting.

Maxpfizer · 21-10-2020 2:57pm

DaSilva wrote: »

Can't say for today, but from the last two reports (Page 11):
Change from midnight 14th to midnight 17th

65-74: 2
75-85: 4
85+: 5

What troubles me about those numbers is that if we had figured out early on exactly how those people had contracted the virus we might have done a better job of saving others.

Figuring out how to effectively protect citizens over the age of 65 would have seen us cutting the total number of deaths significantly.

I mean, if you managed to cut the death toll for those above 65 in half then you pretty much cut our total death toll in half.

We've had over 7 months now and still don't seem to be any better off in terms of being able to protect those specifically vulnerable groups.

To the point where the answer is just "shut everything down".

So we open up early December and then just say to people that they can do household visits to elderly relatives with no problems over the xmas and new year period?

The fact that we've known specifically who is most vulnerable all this time and have utterly failed to do anything about it is a poor reflection on the government and society as a whole. Not sure you can lay the blame completely at the feet of the general public when basically no attempt has been made to properly inform them.

Protect the over 65s effectively and you can bring that death rate right down. How were we not able to do this?

Wibbs · 21-10-2020 3:51pm

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Protect the over 65s effectively and you can bring that death rate right down. How were we not able to do this?

It depends on the over 65's too M. Those otherwise in good health living independent lives in their own homes are much easier to protect and can protect themselves more easily than those living in care homes, or in need of daily care visits at home. The latter have way higher contact with others coming in, plus once any bug gets a hold in a shared accommodation keeping it under control is like trying to hold back the tide. Plus many such homes can be under staffed or have more underqualified staff than they should have. Well more and better qualified staff eats into profits so...

Zebra3 · 21-10-2020 6:15pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So what are they gaining by this "rule by fear"?
Everyone going to work, a thriving economy and no talk of deaths would be infinitely better for any government.

It's political cowardice.

No politician has the balls to stand up and say this is not what we thought it originally was and in the context of the number of people dying in the state, the number is not high in anyway and that we never shut down to protect those lives lost during flu outbreaks.

It will take a lot of manipulation with the media's backing before any politician will do that with the calls of granny killer being aimed at those who want us to get on with living.

Somehow covid deaths and related health issues are the only thing that counts in the state.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-vs/vitalstatisticsfirstquarter2019/#:~:text=There%20were%208%2C618%20deaths%20in,points%20from%20quarter%201%202018.

Q1 2019

8,618 deaths over 90 days.

That's 95.75 deaths on average per day.

Can't recall any outcry about those deaths.

ShineOn7 · 21-10-2020 6:37pm

Anyone with an eye for data/able to decipher the Chinese Algebra of the HSPC site find the ages of yesterday's mortalities?

I think there's a day or two delay of when they publish them versus when they're announced

ShineOn7 · 21-10-2020 6:55pm

timmyntc wrote: »

What world do you live in where current 18 year olds are living at home until their late 30s/early 40s?

I dare say, unfortunately, this is very common in some Dublin working class areas

They simply can't afford to move out

DaSilva · 21-10-2020 7:29pm

From last two:

Difference between "notified in Ireland up to midnight 17/10/2020" and "notified in Ireland up to midnight 18/10/2020"

65-74: 2
75-84: 7
85+: 5

Ficheall · 21-10-2020 7:31pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

8,618 deaths over 90 days.

That's 95.75 deaths on average per day.

Can't recall any outcry about those deaths.

Which of those deaths would you have a plan to prevent?

46 Long · 21-10-2020 7:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They asked Glynn about this already and he said he didn’t want to give out the information because it might send out the wrong message.

He also said median age of deaths was late 80s.

"It is my experience that when the people ask questions that are not in their own best interest, they should simply be told to keep their minds on their labour – and to leave matters of the state to the state. We seal off the city. No one leaves. And cut the phone lines. Contain the spread of misinformation. That is how you keep the people from undermining the fruits of their own labor."

Pete_Cavan · 21-10-2020 7:41pm

Maxpfizer wrote: »

What troubles me about those numbers is that if we had figured out early on exactly how those people had contracted the virus we might have done a better job of saving others.

Figuring out how to effectively protect citizens over the age of 65 would have seen us cutting the total number of deaths significantly.

I mean, if you managed to cut the death toll for those above 65 in half then you pretty much cut our total death toll in half.

We've had over 7 months now and still don't seem to be any better off in terms of being able to protect those specifically vulnerable groups.

To the point where the answer is just "shut everything down".

So we open up early December and then just say to people that they can do household visits to elderly relatives with no problems over the xmas and new year period?

The fact that we've known specifically who is most vulnerable all this time and have utterly failed to do anything about it is a poor reflection on the government and society as a whole. Not sure you can lay the blame completely at the feet of the general public when basically no attempt has been made to properly inform them.

Protect the over 65s effectively and you can bring that death rate right down. How were we not able to do this?

Yes putting more resources into protecting the most vulnerable would likely be more successful than the current policy of telling most people to stay at home. Unfortunately anything which impinges (or is perceived to impinge) on the elderly is highly emotive and provokes a lot of people, even when it ultimately is for the benefit of those elderly people. Its not that we can't protect the over 65s, its that doing so is unpalatable for many.

I think the message being put out by government and emotional blackmail on social media doesn't help. I saw a poster in another thread earlier suggest that schools should be closed as kids are infecting Granny. The only solution is to keep them away from Granny. Closing schools would still see the kids infect Granny and there are lots of other places where the kids could pick it up, and they are going to be in those places if not in school.

ShineOn7 · 21-10-2020 11:19pm

DaSilva wrote: »

From last two:

Difference between "notified in Ireland up to midnight 17/10/2020" and "notified in Ireland up to midnight 18/10/2020"

65-74: 2
75-84: 7
85+: 5

Thanks Da Silva

So these are from upto Sunday at midnight?

milli milli · 22-10-2020 10:32am

During the bad days of the pandemic, they would show names & pictures of the people who died before the 6pm news.
What struck me was that a small but noticeable percentage was of people under 60.
Still it was very sad to see these people, regardless of age, losing their lives. I actually had to stop watching this as these were the faces behind the numbers, someone’s parent, much loved grandparent, companion, etc, etc. I just thought of all the grieving families and found it upsetting to be honest.

Anyway apart from all that, even if the deaths are weighted toward the older age of the scale, and most people (outside of elders and medically vulnerable) feel it won’t really affect them, there is a game of Russian roulette to be played with the chance of Long Covid.
It’s not a game I’d have any desire to play nor would want any loved one (or anyone in general) to risk. There are varying percentages of Covid cases that develop into Long Covid from different sources but it still seems fairly significant.

So instead of dissecting death demographics, there are other things to consider too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/long-haulers-covid-19-recognition-support-groups-symptoms/615382/

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1234814

ShineOn7 · 22-10-2020 6:12pm

milli milli wrote: »

During the bad days of the pandemic, they would show names & pictures of the people who died before the 6pm news.

On the Irish news?

I don't remember that

ShineOn7 · 22-10-2020 6:46pm

Laura on Reddit Ireland (she's spot on with data every time)

60 deaths so far in October, 24 of which were in nursing homes

Zebra3 · 22-10-2020 9:09pm

Ficheall wrote: »

Which of those deaths would you have a plan to prevent?

All the road deaths.

Remove all vehicles from the road.

Problem solved.

Or do those lives not count?

ShineOn7 · 22-10-2020 10:14pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

All the road deaths.

Remove all vehicles from the road.

Problem solved.

Or do those lives not count?

Sweet suffering Jaysus

7 months into a once in a century pandemic and people are still comparing stats to automobile accidents

Zebra3 · 22-10-2020 10:21pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Sweet suffering Jaysus

7 months into a once in a century pandemic and people are still comparing stats to automobile accidents

I was asked a question and I answered it.

Problem solved.

We're a few months from a pandemic into a casedemic, but there's still people who have a hierarchy of deaths.

Sweet suffering Jaysus indeed.....

Why is it so complicated to daily find out the ages of those who passed?

Comments