Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CoVid-19 Part VII - 169 cases ROI (2 deaths) 45 in NI (as of 15 March) *Read OP*
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Not meaning to cause outrrage or argument or anything but just looking a bit objectively at the figures...it is the people over 50 who die in MUCH greater numbers. Over 50 = 0.5%, over 60 = 3 %, over 70 = 10% and growing after that to very high amounts.
This is the cohort very much in a higher risk category. That does not mean younger people won't be very sick, it might be so, I do not know.
There are also the immuno compromised who should be regarded as similar to the over 50's and older cohort.
Here we have closed schools, going for isolation of the vectors. This does not protect the most vulnerable groups - that depends on people themselves to be protecting the older demographic and the immuno-compromised. That is not dependable.
In the UK they are talking seriously now of isolating the group with the highest mortality rate. (In weeks, I don't know why...immediately would be the answer.)
If we restricted movement of the at risk groups and helped them out with food deliveries, shopping, meds etc, plus online connection via face time etc, then the virus would spread through the population that could weather it and it MIGHT build enough immunity so that at risk groups would not be meeting it every time they left their homes in a few months.
It would mean the economy could continue at least somewhat, and social welfare provision would be more affordable than a complete shutdown.
I don't know. Anyone else think this might work? Thought? I am happy to be contradicted, though it would not be pleasant to be called some sort of a monster (thanks).
If we just look at death rates here then the problem is if it spreads through younger population, what percentage will need ICU treatment anyway? The hospital system will still get overwhelmed. Did I see stats from France or Italy where 50% of ICU patients are under 50/60?
I agree that older people should be isolated as much as is possible but so should the rest of the population- think of all the younger carers/staff working in nursing homes/hospitals etc. We know this virus is highly contagious so isolating one part of the population just won't work.
Also by your own graph there the mortality for 50-59 is 1%, not 0.5%.
The other problem here is we don't know what sort of longterm damage this virus is causing? Certainly some evidence that its leaving lasting damage, severe in some cases.
The UK are being extremely reckless and we need to cut all transport between there and Ireland. An all Island solution would be the ideal situation here.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Not meaning to cause outrrage or argument or anything but just looking a bit objectively at the figures...it is the people over 50 who die in MUCH greater numbers. Over 50 = 0.5%, over 60 = 3 %, over 70 = 10% and growing after that to very high amounts.
This is the cohort very much in a higher risk category. That does not mean younger people won't be very sick, it might be so, I do not know.
There are also the immuno compromised who should be regarded as similar to the over 50's and older cohort.
Here we have closed schools, going for isolation of the vectors. This does not protect the most vulnerable groups - that depends on people themselves to be protecting the older demographic and the immuno-compromised. That is not dependable.
In the UK they are talking seriously now of isolating the group with the highest mortality rate. (In weeks, I don't know why...immediately would be the answer.)
If we restricted movement of the at risk groups and helped them out with food deliveries, shopping, meds etc, plus online connection via face time etc, then the virus would spread through the population that could weather it and it MIGHT build enough immunity so that at risk groups would not be meeting it every time they left their homes in a few months.
It would mean the economy could continue at least somewhat, and social welfare provision would be more affordable than a complete shutdown.
I don't know. Anyone else think this might work? Thought? I am happy to be contradicted, though it would not be pleasant to be called some sort of a monster (thanks).
While I dont agree fully with what you say, it is nice to see a well thought out point and not just rumour spreading and scare mongering
I am in an at risk category, (2 type 1 diabetics in the house) so how do we isolate just us. Does this mean my whole family must go into isolation and remain indoors. I can imagine my kids looking out the window at the neighbourhood kids all out playing while they have to stay in lockdown. Who would do my wifes job, they would get someone with no high risk contacts in to fill the position and then she would be out of a job. My job could be similar but I am able to work from home for now. If the schools reopened then would my kids miss out and fall behind on their education?
I personally believe that we have to fight this as a whole or else it will not be taken seriously enough.
My personal theory is that if everyone takes a reasonable level of care to not pass on or contract the virus from the 4 people closest to them, i.e. in front, behind, to the left and to the right we should be able to stop the spread of this. Fight this battle on a micro level, in your own 2 meter circle. Let the WHO and governments do their thing but we are all the frontline here and it is up to us.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement