Coronavirus Pandemic Information- Local and Worldwide

endainoz

Jjameson wrote: »

Restrictions need to be directly targeting areas like this.
Schools are staying open because children are now recognised as not being the enormous vectors of transmission they were thought to be in the beginning. Strong healthy young people are going to have to be let carry on living in tandem with protecting the vulnerable. Lock downs will not create any immunity in the populace that will bring the circuit breaks needed in the long term.

So what do you suggest? Lock up old people?

Morris Moss

endainoz wrote: »

So what do you suggest? Lock up old people?

How about this for a mad suggestion, let people themselves make up their own minds on what they want to do.

Jjameson

endainoz wrote: »

So what do you suggest? Lock up old people?

Not lock them up but keep them as far away from physical contact and shared air of the population as practically possible. let advise level 5 restrictions for anyone vulnerable that can’t fight the virus.. more Ppe and testing of care workers and and frontline staff and anyone else who has to come in contact with them. This is where the conversation needs to be.
The lockdown in the start was about this being an indiscriminate killer. It has been proven NOT
to be a discriminate killer.
This is never going to be got back into a bottle and no amount of nationwide restrictions are going to eradicate it. So a steady rate of infection of fit healthy young people is important to make any real progress when there’s no vaccine in sight.

endainoz

Morris Moss wrote: »

How about this for a mad suggestion, let people themselves make up their own minds on what they want to do.

Because that went so well in the UK at the beginning.

endainoz

Jjameson wrote: »

Not lock them up but keep them as far away from physical contact and shared air of the population as practically possible. let advise level 5 restrictions for anyone vulnerable that can’t fight the virus.. more Ppe and testing of care workers and and frontline staff and anyone else who has to come in contact with them. This is where the conversation needs to be.
The lockdown in the start was about this being an indiscriminate killer. It has been proven NOT
to be a discriminate killer.
This is never going to be got back into a bottle and no amount of nationwide restrictions are going to eradicate it. So a steady rate of infection of fit healthy young people is important to make any real progress when there’s no vaccine in sight.

So lock them up essentially is what your saying, they are staying away as it is anyway. If it's not as widespread in the community then. If it's runs rampant in younger people that are less at risk then they might as well stay locked up for the rest of their days.

It came close to being in the bottle when cases got to single figures in the summer. Why did this happen? Because of restrictions obviously. No gatherings meant no spread, it's not that difficult to comprehend.

greysides

There's a debate that's similar to this discussion going on in the UK at the moment.

https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-and-politicians-split-over-how-to-tackle-rising-covid-infections-as-northern-leaders-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597

Jjameson

endainoz wrote: »

So lock them up essentially is what your saying, they are staying away as it is anyway. If it's not as widespread in the community then. If it's runs rampant in younger people that are less at risk then they might as well stay locked up for the rest of their days.

It came close to being in the bottle when cases got to single figures in the summer. Why did this happen? Because of restrictions obviously. No gatherings meant no spread, it's not that difficult to comprehend.

“Close to” never bulled a cow. I’ve no problem comprehending the concepts do strategy up to now but I disagree with it.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/scientists-and-politicians-split-over-how-to-tackle-rising-covid-infections-as-northern-leaders-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597

greysides

Jjameson wrote: »

“Close to” never bulled a cow. I’ve no problem comprehending the concepts do strategy up to now but I disagree with it.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/scientists-and-politicians-split-over-how-to-tackle-rising-covid-infections-as-northern-leaders-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597

SNAP!

Jjameson

greysides wrote: »

SNAP!

Will I dig out TRUMP card from google now!?😂

endainoz

Jjameson wrote: »

“Close to” never bulled a cow. I’ve no problem comprehending the concepts do strategy up to now but I disagree with it.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/scientists-and-politicians-split-over-how-to-tackle-rising-covid-infections-as-northern-leaders-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597

Going by the atrocious record they have in dealing with this virus, following what the uk are doing would be idiotic.

odyssey06

Jjameson wrote: »

Not lock them up but keep them as far away from physical contact and shared air of the population as practically possible. let advise level 5 restrictions for anyone vulnerable that can’t fight the virus.. more Ppe and testing of care workers and and frontline staff and anyone else who has to come in contact with them. This is where the conversation needs to be.
The lockdown in the start was about this being an indiscriminate killer. It has been proven NOT
to be a discriminate killer.
This is never going to be got back into a bottle and no amount of nationwide restrictions are going to eradicate it. So a steady rate of infection of fit healthy young people is important to make any real progress when there’s no vaccine in sight.

The lockdown was to prevent the health service from being overwhelmed, I never heard 'indiscriminate' that being cited as one of the reasons. Regardless, Adults of all ages have ended up in ICU with this, even those without pre-existing conditions. The lockdown was about ensuring the hospitala and ICU capacity is there to treat those who can be saved, and reducing the risk of transmission to those who would not survive it.

At this stage, we have no definite idea of how long immunity lasts for, whether the virus will mutate per season like cold and flu. To suggest herd immunity in the absence of that certainity is completely irresponsible. It suggests anyone advocating it has absolutely zero real concern for the vulnerable.

Then when we consider the practicalities of what shielding the most vulnerable would entail... it is fantasy stuff.
For the starters, how many people are we talking about when we talk about the vulnerable (and those they live with) ?

If the virus is rampant in the community, the vulnerable will be exposed to it. They don't live in a sterile bubble. They need care, typically more care, as they have conditions.
They have to go out for essential business too, medical appointments etc.
What are about care home staff who have kids in school, or spouses working in offices? Do we sack them?
So where would care home staff live? Do we conscrpt them?
What about vulnerable people with kids in school?
What about multi-generational households?

I haven't heard any practicable way of protecting the vulnerable while letting the virus rip through society to achieve herd immunity.

Jjameson

odyssey06 wrote: »

The lockdown was to prevent the health service from being overwhelmed, I never heard 'indiscriminate' that being cited as one of the reasons. Regardless, Adults of all ages have ended up in ICU with this, even those without pre-existing conditions. The lockdown was about ensuring the hospitala and ICU capacity is there to treat those who can be saved, and reducing the risk of transmission to those who would not survive it.

At this stage, we have no definite idea of how long immunity lasts for, whether the virus will mutate per season like cold and flu. To suggest herd immunity in the absence of that certainity is completely irresponsible. It suggests anyone advocating it has absolutely zero real concern for the vulnerable.

Then when we consider the practicalities of what shielding the most vulnerable would entail... it is fantasy stuff.
For the starters, how many people are we talking about when we talk about the vulnerable (and those they live with) ?

If the virus is rampant in the community, the vulnerable will be exposed to it. They don't live in a sterile bubble. They need care, typically more care, as they have conditions.
They have to go out for essential business too, medical appointments etc.
What are about care home staff who have kids in school, or spouses working in offices? Do we sack them?
So where would care home staff live? Do we conscrpt them?
What about vulnerable people with kids in school?
What about multi-generational households?

I haven't heard any practicable way of protecting the vulnerable while letting the virus rip through society to achieve herd immunity.

I haven’t heard the idea discussed. Vulnerable people living with others require their children and whoever else they come in contact with to adopt whatever measure are necessary and that doesn’t change if it’s a complete lockdown or not.
No “ripping” through society proposed either. A steady rate among young healthy people within their normal range of exposure.

orm0nd

confirmed case here locally to day,

teenager attending second level college,

kerryjack

Not far from a lock down I think

Water John

The analysis of the effect of L3 is to be in 3 weeks, unless things take a bad turn.

Buford T. Justice XIX

For perspective, the case profile for the last number of months.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

The analysis of the effect of L3 is to be in 3 weeks, unless things take a bad turn.

I'd say it'll go pear shaped before figures come out. Holohan already saying the situation is looking much worse today than how it was when the letter was written.

Say my name

Right I think most of us have accepted Covid 19 can test positive in a human then test negative and then test positive again.
Question : is the second time always a reinfection from someone else or can it come back from that person again from the first time and worse, if so infect other people again?

(Just thinking along the lines of cattle viruses and how they operate).

Buford T. Justice XIX

Say my name wrote: »

Right I think most of us have accepted Covid 19 can test positive in a human then test negative and then test positive again.
Question : is the second time always a reinfection from someone else or can it come back from that person again from the first time and worse, if so infect other people again?

(Just thinking along the lines of cattle viruses and how they operate).

I think the current thinking seems to be along the lines of measles and shingles, a latent infection in a number of cases that can reoccur if triggered.

It's still very early days yet in discovering the ins and outs of this and the severity of the damage to body organs. It'll be years yet before the actuarial figures can be compiled.

greysides

The justification for some of the precautions.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-survives-9-hours-on-skin.html

_Brian

greysides wrote: »

The justification for some of the precautions.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-survives-9-hours-on-skin.html

Interesting article on same site.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-survives-9-hours-on-skin.html

Not one animal at the market tested positive as would have been expected. They rather think it was the site of a “superspreader event” amd the leap from animal to humans occurs elsewhere. I’ve read this a number of times, another site I read expected the leap to humans occurring at a farm where wild animals are collected and bred for sale at these markets

_Brian

Say my name wrote: »

Right I think most of us have accepted Covid 19 can test positive in a human then test negative and then test positive again.
Question : is the second time always a reinfection from someone else or can it come back from that person again from the first time and worse, if so infect other people again?

(Just thinking along the lines of cattle viruses and how they operate).

It’s not clear is the answer.
Having a clear answer to something like this requires a large sample size with standardised procedures of testing and monitoring. It’s being worked on but it’s really important not to jump to the wrong answer with a small data set or worse a guess.

NcdJd

_Brian wrote: »

It’s not clear is the answer.
Having a clear answer to something like this requires a large sample size with standardised procedures of testing and monitoring. It’s being worked on but it’s really important not to jump to the wrong answer with a small data set or worse a guess.

Listening to professor Luke O'Neil on the Pat Kenny show. He said that there is a study just done which found that Covid19 actually attacks the T Cells therefore your immune system could be damaged from it.

He also said that that report calling for herd immunity was written by people who are not immunologists but rather epidemiologists and there is not enough data at the moment available to immunologists to determine if herd immunity is even plausible with this virus.

yosemitesam1

NcdJd wrote: »

Listening to professor Luke O'Neil on the Pat Kenny show. He said that there is a study just done which found that Covid19 actually attacks the T Cells therefore your immune system could be damaged from it.

He also said that that report calling for herd immunity was written by people who are not immunologists but rather epidemiologists and there is not enough data at the moment available to immunologists to determine if herd immunity is even plausible with this virus.

Is there any data out there to suggest that this strain is so vastly different to all the other main human and animal coronaviruses that follow similar patterns to eachother?
Waiting for definitive data costs lives and takes a lot of time

_Brian

NcdJd wrote: »

Listening to professor Luke O'Neil on the Pat Kenny show. He said that there is a study just done which found that Covid19 actually attacks the T Cells therefore your immune system could be damaged from it.

He also said that that report calling for herd immunity was written by people who are not immunologists but rather epidemiologists and there is not enough data at the moment available to immunologists to determine if herd immunity is even plausible with this virus.

This is the crux of the problem at the moment.

People without the correct knowledge and experience giving advice, and worse governments actually listening.

_Brian

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Is there any data out there to suggest that this strain is so vastly different to all the other main human and animal coronaviruses that follow similar patterns to eachother?
Waiting for definitive data costs lives and takes a lot of time

Define “vastly different”

I’ve seen research that says Covid19 lives four to five times longer on skin that the cold or flu that people are so keen to compare it to. If that’s the case that fact alone makes it vastly different and much more hard to beat.

Add to that the emerging data that it’s leaving longer lasting damage than other “similar” virus and one gets the picture that it’s definite a bigger issue.

Mooooo

_Brian wrote: »

Interesting article on same site.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-survives-9-hours-on-skin.html

Not one animal at the market tested positive as would have been expected. They rather think it was the site of a “superspreader event” amd the leap from animal to humans occurs elsewhere. I’ve read this a number of times, another site I read expected the leap to humans occurring at a farm where wild animals are collected and bred for sale at these markets

I think with the Spanish flu, it was thought to trace back to a man who had dealt with poultry, whom ended up developing it but went on to work giving dinners to soldiers in camps that was the intital outbreak.

NcdJd

_Brian wrote: »

This is the crux of the problem at the moment.

People without the correct knowledge and experience giving advice, and worse governments actually listening.

You must have been listening to Jimi Hendrix there ha.

_Brian

Mooooo wrote: »

I think with the Spanish flu, it was thought to trace back to a man who had dealt with poultry, whom ended up developing it but went on to work giving dinners to soldiers in camps that was the intital outbreak.

I doubt there will ever be concrete “proof” on the origin of this virus.

It’s desperately coincidental that there is a virus lab not far off the wet market. There have been reported incidents of The original Sars virus being accidentally released from labs. Yet we also know that farming wild and domestic animals in close quarters with humans is a real entry point for these zootonic diseases.

I’m probably 50/50 on its origin at this stage, but more interested in its control. As human populations increase and increase its to be expected that we will see more and more infectious virus circulate. We need to learn how to identify threats, prepare for and deal with them efficiently.

blue5000

Indo says christmas is could be cancelled:( wouldn't like to be working in the retail/hospitality sector.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/