Coronavirus Pandemic Information- Local and Worldwide

yosemitesam1

gozunda wrote: »

it might be good to stick to Covid deaths tbh.

Thats the significant issue here and managing those and stopping infection rates rising to stop our hospital resources being overun.

This is the problem, too much focus on one metric, the most important focus should be on total all cause mortality.
Otherwise we can be in a position of higher mortality rates just in order to minimise covid numbers which is the totally opposite reason we implemented restrictions

gozunda

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

This is the problem, too much focus on one metric, the most important focus should be on total all cause mortality.
Otherwise we can be in a position of higher mortality rates just in order to minimise covid numbers which is the totally opposite reason we implemented restrictions

I dont agree tbh. But I'll leave that there.

paddysdream

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

This is the problem, too much focus on one metric, the most important focus should be on total all cause mortality.
Otherwise we can be in a position of higher mortality rates just in order to minimise covid numbers which is the totally opposite reason we implemented restrictions

Agree with this.People will die and we should try to prevent that but the idea that a death from one cause is more or less important than another is foolish.
Does it matter if someone dies from cancer ,covid,stroke, pnuemonia etc etc ?

Its the proportionality of the response that puzzles me to be honest.Think though that at this stage many have decided that the risks are a wee bit overstated.Not from an"overwhelming the health service " point of view but rather from a personal health point of view.

Reading covid forum on here is like looking at a different world.Nobody I know is taking it all as serious as many on there with " haven't seen my family since March" "only leave the house for essential shopping" keep within 5km of home at all times "
Maybe its me but find it hard to square all that with what I see every day around here.

paddysdream

_Brian wrote: »

Agreed.
I said temporary in a previous post.

As for it being the last throw of the dice. Really that’s down to joe public. Work we fall
Back to L2 or L3 or whatever. People can’t just go back to their usual pre covid behaviour, drinking and slobbering all over each other. If that happens we will be back in L5 by March/April. But that can be avoided.

But if its temporary then why back to level 5 next Spring?Is it sustainable to keep bringing back in restrictions ad infinitum?

When do you actually see normality returning ie no masks ,everything back open ,hospitals running as normal,no hand sanitisers inside every door ?

paddysdream

gozunda wrote: »

it might be good to stick to Covid deaths (and infection rates) tbh.

Thats the significant issue here and managing those and stopping infection rates rising to stop our hospital resources being overun.

You cannot take covid deaths on a stand alone basis.We have been told since March that its all to flatten the curve and keep the hospitals from being overrun but after giving them(HSE) 8 months of quiet hospitals and a health system probably under less pressure than at any time in the past 30 years what have they come up with to actually cope with things?

Has the Belgian system collapsed as of 5th November deadline?

gozunda

paddysdream wrote: »

You cannot take covid deaths on a stand alone basis.We have been told since March that its all to flatten the curve and keep the hospitals from being overrun but after giving them(HSE) 8 months of quiet hospitals and a health system probably under less pressure than at any time in the past 30 years what have they come up with to actually cope with things?

Has the Belgian system collapsed as of 5th November deadline?

If we're dealing with this Pandemic- then yes we can. And no its not solely about 'deaths'.

And the curve here was indeed flattened and hospital resources have been improved.

But yes infection rate is up and hospitals here are reporting increasing pressure on those resources.

As for Belgium?. I believe that was what 'could' potentially have happened as hospital resources were being severely stretched beyond intensive care capacity etc.

For the moment they appear to be coping. Good for them.

As the number of Covid-19 patients admitted to hospital has started to decrease, the pressure on intensive care units continues to rise and the number of deaths has gone up sharply according to Sciensano’s latest figures on Friday.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/139423/covid-19-patients-in-belgian-hospitals-stabilise-deaths-continue-to-rise-intensive-care-icu-ventilator-infections-coronavirus-sciensano/

Btw as for a large number of posts in the Covid Forum - it appears to be inhabited by a considerable number of the tin hat variety tbf.;)

yosemitesam1

gozunda wrote: »

If we're dealing with this Pandemic- then yes we can. And no its not solely about 'deaths'.

And the curve here was indeed flattened and hospital resources have been improved.

But yes infection rate is up and hospitals here are reporting increasing pressure on those resources.

As for Belgium?. I believe that was what 'could' potentially have happened as hospital resources were being severely stretched beyond intensive care capacity etc.

For the moment they appear to be coping. Good for them.




https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/139423/covid-19-patients-in-belgian-hospitals-stabilise-deaths-continue-to-rise-intensive-care-icu-ventilator-infections-coronavirus-sciensano/

Btw as for a large number of posts in the Covid Forum - it appears to be inhabited by a considerable number of the tin hat variety tbf.;)

I think you're coming at this from a different POV.
When saying total deaths are the most important metric of comparison. That is relating to medium to long-term strategy. I'm not saying that positive tests results aren't important in the short term.

paddysdream

Well then taking covid deaths on a stand alone basis is it not all a wee bit overblown?
The curve was flattened but the message seems to be its the general populations fault if cases rise but its restrictions thought up by NPHET if numbers fall.

An issue I have with all this is the idea that its somehow everyone's fault if they get covid.

As for Belgium it was stated that their health system would collapse,not that it might.Paper never refuses ink and all that.
Look how all this covid stuff left the headlines once the US elections and Leo V came round.

yosemitesam1

paddysdream wrote: »

Well then taking covid deaths on a stand alone basis is it not all a wee bit overblown?
The curve was flattened but the message seems to be its the general populations fault if cases rise but its restrictions thought up by NPHET if numbers fall.

An issue I have with all this is the idea that its somehow everyone's fault if they get covid.

As for Belgium it was stated that their health system would collapse,not that it might.Paper never refuses ink and all that.
Look how all this covid stuff left the headlines once the US elections and Leo V came round.

I think what is happening is that when the experts run their models, they come out with a wide range of results from the health service coping fine to total meltdown.
Then they throw away most of the the results as unrealistic and keep the results where the pressure on health services is severe to catastrophic because they say to themselves "look what happened in Italy".
When really what happened in Italy was far more complex than covid hitting and they would generate very similar results had a standard flu been responded to in the way covid had

gozunda

paddysdream wrote: »

Well then taking covid deaths on a stand alone basis is it not all a wee bit overblown?
The curve was flattened but the message seems to be its the general populations fault if cases rise but its restrictions thought up by NPHET if numbers fall.

An issue I have with all this is the idea that its somehow everyone's fault if they get covid.

As for Belgium it was stated that their health system would collapse,not that it might.Paper never refuses ink and all that.
Look how all this covid stuff left the headlines once the US elections and Leo V came round.

Nope. Not possible to separate the two imo. I dont see that it's is being blamed on all and sundry. I think the evidence atm is the highest rate of spread is amongst some groups of younger adults. With the risk if spreading to more vulnerable groups.

Thankfully that seems to be now decreasing

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/significant-decrease-in-covid-19-among-young-people-1030784.html

Re. Belgium. This is the first headline I pulled from a Google search on Belgium+hospitals +covid

Coronavirus: Belgian hospitals could reach ICU limit in 2 weeks as country tops incidence charts

https://www.euronews.com/2020/10/26/coronavirus-belgian-hospitals-could-reach-limit-within-15-days

But as you said paper and ink etc ..

paddysdream

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Not possible to separate the two imo. I dont see that it's is being blamed on all and sundry. I think the evidence atm is the highest rate of spread is amongst some groups of younger adults. With the risk if spreading to more vulnerable groups.

Thankfully that seems to be now decreasing

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/significant-decrease-in-covid-19-among-young-people-1030784.html

Re. Belgium. This is the first headline I pulled from a Google search on Belgium+hospitals +covid



https://www.euronews.com/2020/10/26/coronavirus-belgian-hospitals-could-reach-limit-within-15-days

But as you said paper and ink etc ..

As I said it was in the link posted a few days ago.No could ,might etc but would collapse.
Its all the hype really.Complete End Of Days stuff

selectamatic

paddysdream wrote: »

As I said it was in the link posted a few days ago.No could ,might etc but would collapse.
Its all the hype really.Complete End Of Days stuff

But they completely locked down over a week ago and extended school holidays to keep them closed too. They took action when it was needed albeit they left it quite late.

Water John

I think we have found out at this stage, that provided we maintain a sensible lifestyle approach (Level 2/3) we can limit Covid. So washing hands, keeping distance and wearing masks combined with limiting social indoor interactions, we keep the disease under control.
Those actions shouldn't cripple either our economic or social lives.

Base price

I remember listening to the Pat Kenny show in June/July. I think it was Luke O'Neill but I stand corrected - he said at the time that we will go through another two waves of high Covid infections. One was in Oct/Nov and the other was Feb/Mar 2021.

_Brian

Base price wrote: »

I remember listening to the Pat Kenny show in June/July. I think it was Luke O'Neill but I stand corrected - he said at the time that we will go through another two waves of high Covid infections. One was in Oct/Nov and the other was Feb/Mar 2021.

The Feb/Mar one could be avoided or at least minimised if we get people behaving. Problem was there was a total disregard for the recommendations and the virus spread like wildfire, particularly through parties and celebrations around GAA where alcohol threw out all common sense.

Around Ballinagh in Cavan they had a celebration where the cup was filled with drink and passed round players and friends, as a result the area suffered the highest infection rates in Europe for a few weeks and a number of infections were brought home where elderly/at riskrelations died as a result.

alps

Ban alcohol and we can pull through this comfy, and everyone can go back to work...(serving soft drinks and coffees)

Water John

Great news on the Pfizer vaccine. They are claiming 90% efficacy 7 days after the second dose.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/09/covid-19-vaccine-candidate-effective-pfizer-biontech

NcdJd

Some info about the Danish strain from the mink farms.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/05/spread-of-mutated-coronavirus-in-danish-mink-hits-all-the-scary-buttons-but-fears-may-be-overblown/

yosemitesam1

Water John wrote: »

Great news on the Pfizer vaccine. They are claiming 90% efficacy 7 days after the second dose.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/09/covid-19-vaccine-candidate-effective-pfizer-biontech

AFAIK the participants aren't tested regularly for covid, so the trial is setup to see if mild covid symptoms are reduced.
The two big questions are can they stop asymptomatic infections and will they also stop severe cases/death?

_Brian

Water John wrote: »

Great news on the Pfizer vaccine. They are claiming 90% efficacy 7 days after the second dose.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/09/covid-19-vaccine-candidate-effective-pfizer-biontech

It’s great news.
90% is much higher than would have been expected.

Decent vaccines are the rout away from lockdowns and back to reasonable freedoms again.

jaymla627

_Brian wrote: »

It’s great news.
90% is much higher than would have been expected.

Decent vaccines are the rout away from lockdowns and back to reasonable freedoms again.

It's a bit wishy washy how their doing the testing to be honest , if they had taken a control group of say a 1000 young healthy people given them the vaccine along with a nice chunk of cash as danger money and then exposed the entire group to the virus you'd have a definitive answer on the effectiveness of the vaccine straight away, their method of relying on community transmission without actually knowing if vaccinated volunteers have even come into contact with the virus and the vaccine has worked is patchy at best

_Brian

jaymla627 wrote: »

It's a bit wishy washy how their doing the testing to be honest , if they had taken a control group of say a 1000 young healthy people given them the vaccine along with a nice chunk of cash as danger money and then exposed the entire group to the virus you'd have a definitive answer on the effectiveness of the virus straight away, their method of relying on community transmission without actually knowing if vaccinated volunteers have even come into contact with the virus and the vaccine has worked is patchy at best

I’ll stick with the scientists interpretation.
If they are saying it’s good and working well I’ll take that.

We’re not going to get a 100% vaccine produced quickly. What we need is an effective vaccine soon, and they can work on perfecting it as we go on.

jaymla627

_Brian wrote: »

I’ll stick with the scientists interpretation.
If they are saying it’s good and working well I’ll take that.

We’re not going to get a 100% vaccine produced quickly. What we need is an effective vaccine soon, and they can work on perfecting it as we go on.

The scientists would much rather do the above kind of testing but the ceo's and shareholders much rather what was done as it paints a great picture leads to rocketing share prices and orders for billions of doses of their "ground breaking" vaccine, either way even if the vaccine turns out to be only slightly effective the placebo effect alone will mean economies will be opened back up and covid will be lived with as part of everyday much like the flu, so it's a win win either way

_Brian

jaymla627 wrote: »

The scientists would much rather do the above kind of testing but the ceo's and shareholders much rather what was done as it paints a great picture leads to rocketing share prices and orders for billions of doses of their "ground breaking" vaccine, either way even if the vaccine turns out to be only slightly effective the placebo effect alone will mean economies will be opened back up and covid will be lived with as part of everyday much like the flu, so it's a win win either way

Red ally it’s NEPHET advice I’ll be watching.
If they have researched the results of trials and say it’s good to go then we should be fine.

We don’t need 100% coverage. 80-90% would be enough to suppress the virus into such small pockets that it would be insignificant. It would find it harder and harder to get viable hosts.

odyssey06

jaymla627 wrote: »

The scientists would much rather do the above kind of testing but the ceo's and shareholders much rather what was done as it paints a great picture leads to rocketing share prices and orders for billions of doses of their "ground breaking" vaccine, either way even if the vaccine turns out to be only slightly effective the placebo effect alone will mean economies will be opened back up and covid will be lived with as part of everyday much like the flu, so it's a win win either way

Really, you think the only reason 'challenge trials' to deliberately expose people to the virus like the one described in this article haven't been run is because of shareholder profit motive?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02821-4

Come off it.

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

Red ally it’s NEPHET advice I’ll be watching.
If they have researched the results of trials and say it’s good to go then we should be fine.

We don’t need 100% coverage. 80-90% would be enough to suppress the virus into such small pockets that it would be insignificant. It would find it harder and harder to get viable hosts.

It won't be known if asymptomatic infections still occur until it is rolled out.
It also won't be known what effect the vaccine will make on severe cases.

It is worth noting that circa 80% of cases are asymptomatic to barely noticeable symptoms with no vaccine

jaymla627

odyssey06 wrote: »

Really, you think the only reason 'challenge trials' to deliberately expose people to the virus like the one described in this article haven't been run is because of shareholder profit motive?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02821-4

Come off it.

Xi Jiping would have zero issue running these challenge trials for any pharmaceutical company wanting test cases to be fair you wouldn't even have to test any european our Americans that might be revolted at the idea , having factual concrete evidence the vaccine is actually 90% effective, would be alot more humane, then mass vaccinating a large % of the worlds population to find out the vaccine dosent actually work

_Brian

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

It won't be known if asymptomatic infections still occur until it is rolled out.
It also won't be known what effect the vaccine will make on severe cases.

It is worth noting that circa 80% of cases are asymptomatic to barely noticeable symptoms with no vaccine

Yea.

Thing is not just internet pundits think of that sort of stuff. The likes of Nephet will be on top of this. If they say it’s suitable and will allow us lower restrictions then that’s good.

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

Yea.

Thing is not just internet pundits think of that sort of stuff. The likes of Nephet will be on top of this. If they say it’s suitable and will allow us lower restrictions then that’s good.

It will be interesting to see if that is the way things will actually go.
I wouldn't be surprised if the government's plan is hold out until a vaccine, whether effective or not. Then say we tried our best if it does go tits up. Big pharma gets their payday and no-one can say that the government didn't try even if by trying they caused more deaths and massive economic hardship

yosemitesam1

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/pfizers-ceo-dumps-60-his-stock-covid-vaccine-announcement