Galway COVID-19, local news and discussion

inisboffin

I know of two kids tested in the last week. Both neg whew.

The criteria for 'close contacts' in schools is nuts. The goalposts have been moved essentially, so of course someone with no close contact in a school must have gotten it somewhere hence 'community transmission'.

Anyone interested in casually observing this on a much more massive level vs just listening to a few of us prattle on, google that 'alerting parents of outbreaks' group and go on there. I'm on there for work reasons and it's an eye opener.

Schools are absolutely a hotbed for transmission. I don't know why it's being shusshed. (well I do, obvs, for economic reasons).

Not a conspiracy theorist here but does not inspire confidence when the goalposts have moved. Look in that group to see some examples.

Nobody wants schools closed, unless we have to. Same for all workplaces.

gordongekko

kippy wrote: »

So tell us, what exactly are you saying or does being obtuse go with the territory?

It's very clear. As a portion of the population elderly people are over tested and therefore have a higher percentage of cases while school ages children as a percentage of population are under tested so have a lower level of cases.

Mrs OBumble

gordongekko wrote: »

It's very clear. As a portion of the population elderly people are over tested and therefore have a higher percentage of cases while school ages children as a percentage of population are under tested so have a lower level of DETECTED cases.

added a word that might help ....

_Whimsical_

inisboffin wrote: »

I know of two kids tested in the last week. Both neg whew.

The criteria for 'close contacts' in schools is nuts. The goalposts have been moved essentially, so of course someone with no close contact in a school must have gotten it somewhere hence 'community transmission'.

Anyone interested in casually observing this on a much more massive level vs just listening to a few of us prattle on, google that 'alerting parents of outbreaks' group and go on there. I'm on there for work reasons and it's an eye opener.

Schools are absolutely a hotbed for transmission. I don't know why it's being shusshed. (well I do, obvs, for economic reasons).

Not a conspiracy theorist here but does not inspire confidence when the goalposts have moved. Look in that group to see some examples.

Nobody wants schools closed, unless we have to. Same for all workplaces.

I looked through the facebook reports for the 8 days ending Nov 12th. Looks like around 75 cases over Connaught, Munster and Ulster and around 119 in Leinster so around 200 for the entire island. The school going population in the republic is estimated at around 939000, not including preschool. It's almost 347000 in NI.
200 out of almost 1.3 million seems surprisingly little to me.

Opening of schools is sadly bigger than an economic priority. During the lockdown reports of child abuse and reports to necessary services fell dramatically. There are some quite worrying studies, it is not anecdotal. There are reports from teachers unions in the UK that some children returned in Sept to primary school no longer toilet trained and wearing nappies, their basic skill set worryingly diminished, things noted were them no longer able to eat with a knife,fork and spoon and their vocabulary had shrunk, that's aside from educational losses.
All those things point towards a serious issue with neglect and child safety. We saw an increase in domestic violence during that time which was terrible, but adults can at least get help if needed and recognise dangerous behaviour, children cannot. I feel if we have to prioritize school openings if we can at all now.

kippy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

When schools are open, school-bus-drivers, teachers, SNAs, caretakers and school secretaries are at work, and in close contact with a minimum of dozens of people each day. Parents are mingling at school gates. Cherubs are taking bugs home, and facilitating household transmission.

At least funerals are one off events. Schools are meeting 5 days/week.

So you are blaming schools and kids for the lack of movement in numbers for the past number of days......without any evidence whatsoever.

kippy

gordongekko wrote: »

It's very clear. As a portion of the population elderly people are over tested and therefore have a higher percentage of cases while school ages children as a percentage of population are under tested so have a lower level of cases.

Have you stats to back this up?

Storm 10

gordongekko wrote: »

It's very clear. As a portion of the population elderly people are over tested and therefore have a higher percentage of cases while school ages children as a percentage of population are under tested so have a lower level of cases.

Funny that I know a good number of elderly and not one of them has been tested

saabsaab

Aren't the nursing homes residents and staff tested often?

zell12

17/11
15 new cases in Galway


edit:removed national figures

gordongekko

kippy wrote: »

Have you stats to back this up?

You quoted stats first . 125% of people surveyed know random numbers quoted by people are only that.

kippy

gordongekko wrote: »

You quoted stats first . 125% of people surveyed know random numbers quoted by people are only that.

So you've no stats to back it up. Sound.

kippy

zell12 wrote: »

17/11
15 new cases in Galway
"As of 2pm on Tuesday there are 272 COVID-19 patients hospitalised in Galway, of which 34 are in the ICU. 14 people have been hospitalised in the past 24 hours."

272 sounds high, assume is for the last 9 months

It's a typo. Should be nationally I think based on other media outlets.

gordongekko

kippy wrote: »

So you've no stats to back it up. Sound.

No you've no stats to back up your claim.

Storm 10

Storm 10 wrote: »

9 cases in Galway not 15

That's yesterday, today is 15.

Storm 10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's yesterday, today is 15.

Not too bad staying a bit stable hope it stays down

_Whimsical_

17 today.


News seems to be that the decrease in cases has now stalled. Up until this week we were experiencing a decrease of around 200-300 a day, now we are experiencing a decrease of only 8.

Clusters in households gone from 493 last week to over 940 this week!

When Nephet suggested this lock down they forecasted that a 3 wk restriction of level 5 and us then opening up would result in 1000 cases by mid December. That's now what we are on track for if we drop the ball at this point. It would be a terrible shame.

gadarnol

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

17 today.


News seems to be that the decrease in cases has now stalled. Up until this week we were experiencing a decrease of around 200-300 a day, now we are experiencing a decrease of only 8.

Clusters in households gone from 493 last week to over 940 this week!

When Nephet suggested this lock down they forecasted that a 3 wk restriction of level 5 and us then opening up would result in 1000 cases by mid December. That's now what we are on track for if we drop the ball at this point. It would be a terrible shame.

The mixed messages around L5 are to blame and failure to deal with Donegal border travel. Look at IBEC today attacking NPHET. Looks like reopening in two weeks and back to crisis by end January. It’s our fault though!

Mrs OBumble

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

....

Clusters in households gone from 493 last week to over 940 this week!

..... if we drop the ball at this point. It would be a terrible shame.

"We".

What happened 1-2 weeks ago which might have led to a massive increase in "household" contacts and thus cases.

Storm 10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

"We".

What happened 1-2 weeks ago which might have led to a massive increase in "household" contacts and thus cases.

They said Halloween was probably the reason

Bobeagleburger

The country doing great considering the amount of people at work and schools tbh.

_Whimsical_

6 wrote: »

The country doing great considering the amount of people at work and schools tbh.

People are really suffering in order for us to do well though, through job losses, not seeing family, etc and it's going to hammer our public finances, we will all pay hard for this in some way down the line. We have two weeks left to really make it worthwhile, so we can give our people and our economy a chance to recoup some losses over December. Unfortunately it's not time to congratulate ourselves yet, it's time to demand a little more, the more the effort the more the reward.

Storm 10

Doing great today 5 cases let's keep it going

Bobeagleburger

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

People are really suffering in order for us to do well though, through job losses, not seeing family, etc and it's going to hammer our public finances, we will all pay hard for this in some way down the line. We have two weeks left to really make it worthwhile, so we can give our people and our economy a chance to recoup some losses over December. Unfortunately it's not time to congratulate ourselves yet, it's time to demand a little more, the more the effort the more the reward.

Agree with most of this, but it's a hard balancing act. Open up more and numbers and deaths go up.

Job losses will be inevitable but a lot people are being paid to sit at home. The correct decision. This money is going bank into the system anyway. Money is cheap at the moment to borrow. Personally I won't be getting too worked out up about public finances, completely out of our control.

Hard to knows what businesses will open. Retail and perhaps restaurants. Pubs must be at risk of staying shut imo.

_Whimsical_

6 wrote: »

Agree with most of this, but it's a hard balancing act. Open up more and numbers and deaths go up.

Job losses will be inevitable but a lot people are being paid to sit at home. The correct decision. This money is going bank into the system anyway. Money is cheap at the moment to borrow. Personally I won't be getting too worked out up about public finances, completely out of our control.

Hard to knows what businesses will open. Retail and perhaps restaurants. Pubs must be at risk of staying shut imo.

Well this 6 weeks has cost us an estimated 1.5 billion that could've been spent on health or social provision, infrastructure, the list of things we desperately needed goes on. Ensuring that level of expenditure yields results and doesn't need to be repeated is in our hands. I think there's far too little emphasis placed on that, that this costs, that while it's essential we will all be burned long term in paying it back and missing out on services we need. We should actually be much more intollerant of people who break the rules during a period like this because we are all paying for it.

kippy

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Well this 6 weeks has cost us an estimated 1.5 billion that could've been spent on health or social provision, infrastructure, the list of things we desperately needed goes on. Ensuring that level of expenditure yields results and doesn't need to be repeated is in our hands. I think there's far too little emphasis placed on that, that this costs, that while it's essential we will all be burned long term in paying it back and missing out on services we need. We should actually be much more intollerant of people who break the rules during a period like this because we are all paying for it.

Well, ya can't be too intollerant of them at the same time........

gordongekko

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Well this 6 weeks has cost us an estimated 1.5 billion that could've been spent on health or social provision, infrastructure, the list of things we desperately needed goes on. Ensuring that level of expenditure yields results and doesn't need to be repeated is in our hands. I think there's far too little emphasis placed on that, that this costs, that while it's essential we will all be burned long term in paying it back and missing out on services we need. We should actually be much more intollerant of people who break the rules during a period like this because we are all paying for it.

1 billion costs about 55000 a year in interest so it's hardly an overbearing cost on society and well worth the expense if it saves some loved ones lives

_Whimsical_

.

gordongekko wrote: »

1 billion costs about 55000 a year in interest so it's hardly an overbearing cost on society and well worth the expense if it saves some loved ones lives

Well it's not a cost of 55k, it's 1.5 billion that we would not otherwise have spent, so that's 1.5 bn whatever way you look at it. It's an awful lot. I am very grateful we did it, I agree its important and worth it, but it is necessary because of behaviour that aided proliferation of a virus. Now it won't yield the results we hoped for because of poor behaviour again. Nephet have said that we could have stayed at level 2 successfully if everyone had played by the rules.

kippy wrote: »

Well, ya can't be too intollerant of them at the same time........

Oh yes, I wouldn't suggest going full scale China on it or anything, but I just think there should be more societal sense of it being unacceptable to break the rules right now, even among friends, that poor behaviour comes at a price to everyone.

gordongekko

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

.



Well it's not a cost of 55k, it's 1.5 billion that we would not otherwise have spent, so that's 1.5 bn whatever way you look at it. It's an awful lot. I am very grateful we did it, I agree its important and worth it, but it is necessary because of behaviour that aided proliferation of a virus. Now it won't yield the results we hoped for because of poor behaviour again./QUOTE]

Well that's not exactly true. During the first lockdown we saw a reduction of 87% of cases. Right now in this shorter less strict lockdown we are down over 60% in cases. We have probably yielded as much as can be done during the period. It's probably the stated target that was incorrect and not realistic.

Mrs OBumble

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

it's time to demand a little more, the more the effort the more the reward.

What little more do you have in mind? Wearing masks in the house, as well as in shops? Outlawing bedroom sharing?



Or addressing the elephant in the room that is groups of twenty to thirty 16-18 year olds sharing a small room (distancing practically impossible) for six hours each day in secondary schools all over the country.

I get that primary schools and even special schools are very important, but applying the same rule to older non-impaired teens is just madness. They could go to 50% on-line so easily with quite a major risk reduction.

_Whimsical_

gordongekko wrote: »

Well that's not exactly true. During the first lockdown we saw a reduction of 87% of cases. Right now in this shorter less strict lockdown we are down over 60% in cases. We have probably yielded as much as can be done during the period. It's probably the stated target that was incorrect and not realistic.

We were well on track for it even last week, there shouldn't have been a need to factor in the possibility that cases would rise again mid way through, that we'd go from household outbreaks in the region of 400 to over 900 in a week. R number has now jumped from .6 last week to between .7 and .9 this week. This was all avoidable. We need to grasp the fact that we are responsible.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What little more do you have in mind? Wearing masks in the house, as well as in shops? Outlawing bedroom sharing?

Yes, just that. And beheading of non compliers

I was more thinking more of more employers allowing people work from home. Also people really reducing their contacts for the next ten days. Just overall more mindfulness of restrictions and what's at stake.
They have said that contact tracers are reporting people having more contacts this week than in the weeks proceeding it. They also said at the conference they're hearing of quite a few people going to work with Covid symptoms in the last 2 weeks in the belief they'll be grand etc.
The r number has bounced from .06 last wk to somewhere between .7 and .9 this week.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Or addressing the elephant in the room that is groups of twenty to thirty 16-18 year olds sharing a small room (distancing practically impossible) for six hours each day in secondary schools all over the country.

I get that primary schools and even special schools are very important, but applying the same rule to older non-impaired teens is just madness. They could go to 50% on-line so easily with quite a major risk reduction.

I agree, it would help, online should be an easy option for kids in that age bracket.
However we were experiencing dramatic falling numbers before people increased contacts even when all schools were open. Right now age demographics of increased cases are most likely 30s-40s reporting increase in contacts, they are not school kids.