CoVid19 Part XII - 4,604 in ROI (137 deaths) 998 in NI (56 deaths)(04/04) **Read OP**

caveat emptor

caveat emptor wrote: »

Seems US has taken goods in a third party country on grounds they are US property because they are manufactured by a us company (3m). Wonder what possible consequences if they deploy similar measures.

Our gov will defo appease them. Better get orders in now.

Uk might start taking paracetamol made in Waterford.
We all know about the ventilators made here.


https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1246399767174950917?s=21

silverharp wrote: »

France cancelled orders going to the NHS in Britain from French factories. Unless the US engage in high seas piracy they are just doing what other countries are or would do

You clearly didn't read the article but I'll indulge you. I'm not aware of any country seizing goods in a different country where they have no jurisdiction to do so. Whatever about if it is in their country.

So no other country has done this or as you like to put "would" do this. Because it is illegal.

As 3M is an American-owned company, the US was able to 'confiscate' the shipment of special FFP2 and FFP3 masks which were on their way to healthcare workers battling the COVID-19 outbreak in Berlin.

The masks had been delivered from 3M's factory in Shanghai and were due to be reloaded in Bangkok and flown to Germany.

But instead, the masks were intercepted at Bangkok Airport and instead went to the US.

'We consider that an act of modern piracy,' Berlin's interior minister Andreas Geisel blasted.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8186041/An-act-modern-day-piracy-Germany-France-accuse-seizing-shipments-medical-masks.html

is_that_so

Going Demented wrote: »

Absolutely useless with figures. Are we doing good or doing bad. When i look at deaths per million I think we are doing bad but then i live in hope we are doing good?

I keep it simple and just go with the change in the daily rates for us and the (approximate) ICU numbers. Others are keen to discuss all of the numbers, their significance and their veracity. I think we're going the right way, more good than bad IMO.

An Ciarraioch

Going Demented wrote: »

Absolutely useless with figures. Are we doing good or doing bad. When i look at deaths per million I think we are doing bad but then i live in hope we are doing good?

The worry is, given what we know about clusters, that a large proportion of deaths may be occurring in nursing homes, and so the social isolation and cocooning measures will have minimal impact on the daily figures - France has said that its recent spike in fatalities is largely attributable to the same reason.

bekker

Drumpot wrote: »

I had a discussion with a friend who is a teacher. He was saying they could just keep students couple meters apart.

I’m not sure that’s wise. Exams are not life or death, just a necessity within the system we have constructed. If one child dies or many children get infected from a cluster that can be traced back to exams, this will show up the negligence in having exams.

I sort of find it odd that these are considered relevant or so important to be had. Colleges will have to wait. Systems will have to just put up and change to prioritize the health of children who should not be put in harms way to facilitate an education system.

Plenty of reports that this virus can be more contagious then a few feet. It just feels that some authorities still don’t get it. I can understand them trying to work it out but not insisting on exams because the system demands it.

To many the Leaving Cert is a matter of life and death, for the vast majority it determines the ultimate course of their lifetime income potential.

That in turn influences their general state of health, their access to better medical treatment, and their ultimate lifespan.

Dropping points, or providing free passes to university courses will simply devalue qualifications for that entry cohort.

If at all possible the exams should go ahead, it is not beyond our ability to organise relative same environments for them.

is_that_so

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The worry is, given what we know about clusters, that a large proportion of deaths may be occurring in nursing homes, and so the social isolation and cocooning measures will have minimal impact on the daily figures - France has said that its recent spike in fatalities is largely attributable to the same reason.

I think it was said during the week that the cluster sizes are at about 5 here.

YFlyer

Drumpot wrote: »

In a weird way it might be better if there are hundreds of thousands infected and our icu and deaths level off over the coming weeks. Thus would mean CFR is much lower then anticipated and that we may have way more immune then we thought.

Best scenario appears to be that this has been more contagious then thought and most of us have it or had it. The deaths and sick are still horrible to see but it would certainly put a more reassuring context on the numbers. I hazzard a disappointing guess that this is not the case when you look at nuts figures in Italy/Spain.

Need to get those tests that check for antibodies. I had a temp of 39oC for a day couple of days weeks ago and didn’t think much of it. But for all I know my whole family had it and are immune.

Yes the facility rate be lower than predicted.

Drumpot

bekker wrote: »

To many the Leaving Cert is a matter of life and death, for the vast majority it determines the ultimate course of their lifetime income potential.

That in turn influences their general state of health, their access to better medical treatment, and their ultimate lifespan.

Dropping points, or providing free passes to university courses will simply devalue qualifications for that entry cohort.

If at all possible the exams should go ahead, it is not beyond our ability to organise relative same environments for them.

To many the exams are not life or death so they shouldn’t be forced to sit exams at the expense of their safety. And the exams shouldn’t be a matter of life or death for a child, but that’s a completely different point, that’s a mental health issue created by bad parenting or bad/warped values as far as I am concerned. If a child considers the exams that important , that’s a mental health issue in itself, not the fact that the exams won’t happen. A school exam shouldn’t be life not death or that improtant to a child.

What is a relative safe environment? It’s grand to say it, but how does that look in reality? We can’t even protect our healthcare workers , how do we do that with children?

When schools are reopened I suppose it will just be a case that exams will be allowed to happen. But I don’t think exams should happen before that because if schools aren’t safe to open , then by default exam halls are not safe environments for students.

Bannasidhe

cloudatlas wrote: »

She’s right areas of high unemployment less access to health insurance and health care.

Now, now.
Let's not get into fact checking or any of that nonsense when a ":rolleyes:" is available.

Achasanai

is_that_so wrote: »

Personally would put it in category of tone deaf. People are getting sick and dying everywhere. In the middle of a pandemic is not the right time The reason there are issues for her to "highlight" is the overall US response to this. She can come back to it afterwards.

Little point in coming back to it after the crisis if the damage is already done. She is arguing that the crisis is disproportionately impacting on black America (due to economic factors as well as access to good medical care). 'Politicking', for lack of a better - or correct - term can be beneficial and can focus on areas that might help to mitigate this crisis.


It's the same with highlighting areas that our government have fallen down. It's not necessarily negative for the sake of it (although of course it will be in some instances) but shining a spotlight on these areas might in the future lessen their tendency to repeat.

jill_valentine

is_that_so wrote: »

Personally would put it in category of tone deaf. People are getting sick and dying everywhere. In the middle of a pandemic is not the right time The reason there are issues for her to "highlight" is the overall US response to this. She can come back to it afterwards.

Some people are getting more sick than others, and there are reasons for that, which is rather the point.

Environmental, economic and political factors have compounded for generations, putting black people at higher risk of chronic conditions that leave lungs weak and immune systems vulnerable: asthma, heart disease, hypertension and diabetes. In Milwaukee, simply being black means your life expectancy is 14 years shorter, on average, than someone white.

As of Friday morning, African Americans made up almost half of Milwaukee County’s 945 cases and 81% of its 27 deaths in a county whose population is 26% black.

https://www.propublica.org/article/early-data-shows-african-americans-have-contracted-and-died-of-coronavirus-at-an-alarming-rate/amp

That is not a coincidence or an interesting bit of trivia to mention in a pub when this is all over, that is a major epidemiological circumstance, and it can't be All Lives Mattered away. Getting to grips with this virus will mean facing up to the factors that leave people vulnerable to it.

Achasanai

speckle wrote: »

we had problems sourcing it from 2015. we started giving it in the 1950s. we stopped the booster circe 1995.

I think the benefit is that most older people - who would be at most risk now - have it, although if as you say it was only started in the 1950s that might not apply. I read something about 'learned immunity', but not sure if that applies to this vaccine.

voluntary

BluePlanet wrote: »

I don't think there is any one particular reason why the Italy and Spain death rates are so high.
I believe it's a combination of:
-High percentage of old people.
-Lots of smokers (not even vapes, just ol fashioned cigarettes and cigars).
-Poor air quality in cities (too many cars with those nasty diesel engines).

Thay talked about this during the WHO briefing yesterday, and the reasons given were:

- age profile of the society
- overloaded healthcare system, doctors fatigue etc
- weak and mild cases not being tested, the numbers of confirmed cases do not represent the real numbers of infected people.

speckle

wadacrack wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1246135176461254657

are movies theatres in china the equivalent of pubs here for socialising
?

caveat emptor

is_that_so wrote: »

I think it was said during the week that the cluster sizes are at about 5 here.

Is that for it to meet a definition of a cluster? i.e >5 = a cluster?

Frightening to think of all the nursing homes. As of Wednesday there were 40 clusters in nursing homes throughout the country. That's a serious amount of nursing homes.

That's 5 X 40 = 200 cases minimum and god know's maximum.

Kivaro

BluePlanet wrote: »

I don't think there is any one particular reason why the Italy and Spain death rates are so high.
I believe it's a combination of:
-High percentage of old people.
-Lots of smokers (not even vapes, just ol fashioned cigarettes and cigars).
-Poor air quality in cities (too many cars with those nasty diesel engines).

And the high density of population in certain areas is a huge factor.

owlbethere

caveat emptor wrote: »

Is that for it to meet a definition of a cluster? i.e >5 = a cluster?

Frightening to think of all the nursing homes. As of Wednesday there were 66 clusters in nursing homes throughout the country. That's a serious amount of nursing homes.

That's 5 X 66 = 330 cases minimum and god know's maximum.

I thought there were 29 clusters in nursing homes.

tobefrank321

hotmail.com wrote: »

The London Times is hinting that the British cabinet is considering the herd immunity policy again. They believe the damage to the economy, effects of a lockdown (domestic violence, mental health etc) outweigh the possibility of a huge loss of life.

If they can cocoon the elderly and vulnerable as well as NHS workers effectively for the 3 or 4 months it would take for herd immunity there's nothing wrong with it, although it would have to be a slow spread and even then you'd expect a lot of deaths and icu admissions.

Theres no hope of a vaccine for at least 12 months so at some stage countries will have to make big decisions. And if we can't be bothered restricting people coming from the UK then we're in the same boat as them.

caveat emptor

owlbethere wrote: »

I thought there were 29 clusters in nursing homes.

I read it wrong. There are 40 now. I updated. Sorry

stephenjmcd

caveat emptor wrote: »

Is that for it to meet a definition of a cluster? i.e >5 = a cluster?

Frightening to think of all the nursing homes. As of Wednesday there were 66 clusters in nursing homes throughout the country. That's a serious amount of nursing homes.

That's 5 X 66 = 330 cases minimum and god know's maximum.

According to the Health Protection Surveillance Centre, a cluster is three or more cases in an institution within a 72-hour period.

they said last week that the average cluster size in ireland is generally 4 or 5 people.

Stheno

caveat emptor wrote: »

Is that for it to meet a definition of a cluster? i.e >5 = a cluster?

Frightening to think of all the nursing homes. As of Wednesday there were 40 clusters in nursing homes throughout the country. That's a serious amount of nursing homes.

That's 5 X 40 = 200 cases minimum and god know's maximum.

3 linked cases is the minimum definition for a cluster

BluePlanet

Drumpot wrote: »

The smokers thing is an interesting variable. I recall Dr Aylward stating that in their initial work in China they didn’t single out smoking as a major factor explaining deaths. Seems very difficult to believe that a virus that creates severe rhespiratory issues Would not be more risky for smokers.

I would also wonder if spain and Italy are more huggy, kissy or touchy communities. That would lead to virus spreading much quicker.

I agree with the part about huggy, kissy.
But that accounts only for infection rate and not death rate.

Drumpot

BluePlanet wrote: »

I agree with the part about huggy, kissy.
But that accounts only for infection rate and not death rate.

True but by default if there’s a higher rate of infected in a country this should equally be reflected in higher percentage in ICU and dieing.

Part of the strategy with flattening the curve is to reduce infection rates for this very reason. More infected at the one time equals more deaths as the system is over run.

owlbethere

tobefrank321 wrote: »

If they can cocoon the elderly and vulnerable as well as NHS workers effectively for the 3 or 4 months it would take for herd immunity there's nothing wrong with it, although it would have to be a slow spread and even then you'd expect a lot of deaths and icu admissions.

Theres no hope of a vaccine for at least 12 months so at some stage countries will have to make big decisions. And if we can't be bothered restricting people coming from the UK then we're in the same boat as them.

Thats going to be disastrous. To some degree some elders and vulnerable can be cocooned away but it's not the answer. There was a doctor talking to ch4 saying a lot of his patients are 50s and under and some without underlying conditions. It's not going to work.

bekker

Drumpot wrote: »

To many the exams are not life or death so they shouldn’t be forced to sit exams at the expense of their safety. And the exams shouldn’t be a matter of life or death for a child, but that’s a completely different point, that’s a mental health issue created by bad parenting or bad/warped values as far as I am concerned. If a child considers the exams that important , that’s a mental health issue in itself, not the fact that the exams won’t happen. A school exam shouldn’t be life not death or that improtant to a child.

What is a relative safe environment? It’s grand to say it, but how does that look in reality? We can’t even protect our healthcare workers , how do we do that with children?

When schools are reopened I suppose it will just be a case that exams will be allowed to happen. But I don’t think exams should happen before that because if schools aren’t safe to open , then by default exam halls are not safe environments for students.

Risk is inseparable from existence.

No one is forced to sit exams, many don't. But if you chose not to then you cannot complain of the consequences of loosing out on the potential benefits.

In the context of my post parental influences are an irrelevancy, as is your attitude towards exams per se.

Your final point is not supported by the facts :-
Primary ~560k, post-primary ~370k, total ~930k. Certificated examinations JC 65k, LC 60k total 125k, so about 14%.

spookwoman

holy f*ck
By including the nursing home data, France now has a total of 82,165 confirmed or suspected cases.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-toll/french-coronavirus-cases-jump-above-chinas-after-including-nursing-home-tally-idUSKBN21L3BG

TOMs WIFE

podgeandrodge wrote: »

More articles suggesting the supermarket is quite risky. What are people's thoughts in terms of why we are not hearing about their staff falling ill so?

all about the mane wrote: »

It is strange. There is no doubt they are the riskiest places now purely down to traffic.

Staff in supermarkets more aware of distancing themselves and practicing hand washing than their customers?

cameramonkey

Part of the reason ICU's are not overloaded at the moment is because many of those that are dying or critically ill are not being moved to hospitals for critical care. It is difficult to figure out how many of the positive cases are in OAP homes. 40 rest homes are infected with at least 3 cases per home but I suppose there are many more infected in most of these homes.. I presume the tests for those establishments are seen as a priority. I think we will have an increase in deaths soon as more patients in OAP homes succumb to the virus.

Naggdefy

It's easy to feel removed from the frail people in nursing homes if you don't have a loved one in them.

This poem comes to mind though..

'Remember stranger, as you pass by,
As you are now, so once was I.
As I am now you soon will be,
Prepare yourself for eternity. (to follow me.)'

caveat emptor

spookwoman wrote: »

holy f*ck
By including the nursing home data, France now has a total of 82,165 confirmed or suspected cases.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-toll/french-coronavirus-cases-jump-above-chinas-after-including-nursing-home-tally-idUSKBN21L3BG

Dear god.

only a +44% difference in cases and 61% increase in deaths!


Why can't countries count?

cameramonkey

Naggdefy wrote: »

It's easy to feel removed from the frail people in nursing homes if you don't have a loved one in them.

This poem comes to mind though..

'Remember stranger, as you pass by,
As you are now, so once was I.
As I am now you soon will be,
Prepare yourself for eternity. (to follow me.)'

Charming.

spookwoman

caveat emptor wrote: »

Dear god.

only a +44% difference in cases and 61% increase in deaths!


Why can't countries count?

called massaging the numbers.

Hector Savage

Whats the story with most irish patients in ICU being under 65?
Are more young people infected in general in IReland ?

Drumpot

bekker wrote: »

Risk is inseparable from existence.

No one is forced to sit exams, many don't. But if you chose not to then you cannot complain of the consequences of loosing out on the potential benefits.

In the context of my post parental influences are an irrelevancy, as is your attitude towards exams per se.

Your final point is not supported by the facts :-
Primary ~560k, post-primary ~370k, total ~930k. Certificated examinations JC 65k, LC 60k total 125k, so about 14%.

Risk is inseparable from life but how does that have any meaning in this topic? So we Put children at risk for school exams because that’s just life?

You didn’t address anything I said and are deflecting from the main point. If a child thinks a school exam is life or death, that’s a mental health issue that should be addressed regardless of the exams or their outcomes.

If you can’t ensure child’s safety at an exam and schools won’t open for child safety, it’s irresponsible to have exams because that’s the way the system works in a normal school period. This is not a normal time and as such alternative options should be offered or considered. To suggest otherwise is head in the sand stuff.

spookwoman

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1246440600704090112?s=20

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1246442042311532547?s=20

iguana

BluePlanet wrote: »

I agree with the part about huggy, kissy.
But that accounts only for infection rate and not death rate.

It might is the viral load at acquisition theory has validity? Getting infected because someone coughs 3m away from you and an imperceptible spec of their saliva lands on your face would possibly lead to a lower initial viral load than someone kissing your face three times?

Hobgoblin11

Drumpot wrote: »

Germany has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Not just that, they have vast resources and testing capacity that few countries can match. They also very quickly stopped medical resources leaving the country as Switzerland found out. I think it’s very difficult to work out how any country is handling this in comparison to others.

at the end of the day the mortality rate of this disease will be similar in countries whose health systems are similar

iamwhoiam

cameramonkey wrote: »

Part of the reason ICU's are not overloaded at the moment is because many of those that are dying or critically ill are not being moved to hospitals for critical care. It is difficult to figure out how many of the positive cases are in OAP homes. 40 rest homes are infected with at least 3 cases per home but I suppose there are many more infected in most of these homes.. I presume the tests for those establishments are seen as a priority. I think we will have an increase in deaths soon as more patients in OAP homes succumb to the virus.

Also to factor in is the fact that many in nursing homes have signed a Do not resuscitate form and many a No heroic intervention at end of life . So if infected and very ill the nurses in the nursing homes are excellent at easing their path and wil do so rather than move them into unfamiliar hospitals

Wibbs

Drumpot wrote: »

The smokers thing is an interesting variable. I recall Dr Aylward stating that in their initial work in China they didn’t single out smoking as a major factor explaining deaths. Seems very difficult to believe that a virus that creates severe rhespiratory issues Would not be more risky for smokers.

Well the Chinese stats on the smoking aspect are interesting. It seems to show that smokers(and ex smokers) are more likely to end up in serious condition than non smokers, but not by that much, and they seem to be less likely to catch it in the first place, or suffer milder symptoms so they stay out of the hospital cases entirely.

IIRC it was something like 13% of smokers ended up in hospital of all cases, serious or critical, yet the background rate of smoking in Chinese men particularly among the 40-70 age bracket which are most represented in the Covid hospital admissions is over 50%. If smoking was an obvious risk factors(and you'd expect that) one might understandably also expect that they'd be over represented, not under represented. High blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and diabetes show much higher percentages as risk factors. Never mind that smokers are more likely to have them as comorbidities in the first place. It's an odd one.

In one sample in the UK one factor leapt out and that was BMI. Now it was a small sample of 30 patients IIRC but only one single case was underweight, a few normal weight and the rest obese or morbidly obese. Then again like smoking obesity will bring comorbidities in its wake. Total musing aside: but could that be a factor in why men are more likely to get into critical condition? Men are more likely to carry excess weight in belly fat, women in hip and thigh fat. The former would affect breathing more? Sleep apnoea is much more common in the overweight and more common in men, so maybe?

I would also wonder if spain and Italy are more huggy, kissy or touchy communities. That would lead to virus spreading much quicker.

Could well be a part of it, but I'd say it's more down to higher living densities in shared housing. Ireland is very different to most of Europe in that regard.

Another thing that’s been surprising has been the supposed lower numbers in India and third world or poorer countries. Is that due to testing limits or something else? I think WHO said that some third world countries may lack the resources to manage this but have better experience with outbreaks (like Ebola) so may be able to handle them better.

Or they have lower age demographics. If a much smaller proportion of your population live to 70, then you've just removed a large chunk of those who would be most affected by this virus. Northern Italy have some of the oldest demographics in the world. Ditto for many parts of Spain. IIRC Madrid is the city with the highest life expectancy in Europe.

devnull

caveat emptor wrote: »

Dear god.

only a +44% difference in cases and 61% increase in deaths!


Why can't countries count?

Same is going on in UK, deaths in prison, nursing homes, care homes, hospices and residential settings are not being counted in statistics, only those in hospital.

caveat emptor

iguana wrote: »

It might is the viral load at acquisition theory has validity? Getting infected because someone coughs 3m away from you and an imperceptible spec of their saliva lands on your face would possibly lead to a lower initial viral load than someone kissing your face three times?

Viral load definitely needs to be understood more. I've heard of cases from lots of countries and now here where the initial illness is flu like with fever and chills etc even gastro in some cases. This is followed by a day of feeling better before a drastic deterioration in breathing ending in hospital care. Viewer description is advised for the squeamish hereafter.....

I find that very strange. Maybe it's just how the illness progresses. I've read about the faecal oral route for transmission but what about during the illness. i.e is it possible that a negative feedback loop of infection could occur when using the toilet.

https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1230955028661317632

Horrific to think about but there you go.

BanditLuke

Hector Savage wrote: »

Whats the story with most irish patients in ICU being under 65?
Are more young people infected in general in IReland ?

No. It seems to be a common misconception of this virus that it is only killing old people. I posted a video yesterday of a doctor from Wales saying the vast majority of people in the hospital ICU are 55 and under.

BanditLuke

devnull wrote: »

Same is going on in UK, deaths in prison, nursing homes, care homes, hospices and residential settings are not being counted in statistics, only those in hospital.

Is this happening in Ireland?

CIARAN_BOYLE

devnull wrote: »

Same is going on in UK, deaths in prison, nursing homes, care homes, hospices and residential settings are not being counted in statistics, only those in hospital.

Scotland had a high figure yesterday or the other day because it included a backlog of deaths. Did the rest of the UK not change too?

Corkgirl20

BanditLuke wrote: »

Is this happening in Ireland?

We definitely include nursing home statistics anyway and I presume at home too etc.

bekker

Drumpot wrote: »

Risk is inseparable from life but how does that have any meaning in this topic? So we Put children at risk for school exams because that’s just life?

You didn’t address anything I said and are deflecting from the main point. If a child thinks a school exam is life or death, that’s a mental health issue that should be addressed regardless of the exams or their outcomes.

If you can’t ensure child’s safety at an exam and schools won’t open for child safety, it’s irresponsible to have exams because that’s the way the system works in a normal school period. This is not a normal time and as such alternative options should be offered or considered. To suggest otherwise is head in the sand stuff.

Please read and try to understand my origin post and discern the context of 'life and death', absolutely nothing to do with children's perceptions.

As risk is an integral part of life, it follows that all decisions of necessity involve balancing risks.

Organising a 'safe' environment for 125k is simpler to organise than doing so for 960k, plus 835k are not even exposed to any perceived risk.

Way off COVID-19, so that's it as far as I'm concerned.

Jim_Hodge

Hector Savage wrote: »

Whats the story with most irish patients in ICU being under 65?
Are more young people infected in general in IReland ?

Infection rates by age here ; https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/summary/

Keep in mind that many older people are not admitted to ICU as they may not benefit from it or their families decide against aggressive intervention for their loved ones at this stage of their lives or ongoing illness.

facehugger99

Hector Savage wrote: »

Whats the story with most irish patients in ICU being under 65?
Are more young people infected in general in IReland ?

They're being ultra-cautious with ICU admissions as they have spare capacity at the moment.

Doubt most of the current cases would require ICU admission if there was an actual surge in cases.

EmmetSpiceland

BanditLuke wrote: »

No. It seems to be a common misconception of this virus that it is only killing old people. I posted a video yesterday of a doctor from Wales saying the vast majority of people in the hospital ICU are 55 and under.

Isn’t the average age of the deceased victims around 80, so far?

No one was ever arguing that young people weren’t “getting” the virus, they just have a much better chance of fighting it.

devnull

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Scotland had a high figure yesterday or the other day because it included a backlog of deaths. Did the rest of the UK not change too?

The official death metric released by the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK is measured by deaths of those in hospital. The British Government are not reporting on overall deaths, despite saying they would.

Today's official updates on death numbers was
As of 5pm on 3 April, of those hospitalised in the UK who tested positive for coronavirus, 4,313 have sadly died.

As well, what some of you may have missed, is the way testing is being reported has changed as well, they are now reporting number of tests rather than the number of people tested, which makes the figures look better than they otherwise would.

For example, on 3rd April, only 6,500 people were tested, despite the headline figure of tests being almost 11,000. This is something to watch out for, since originally the Government were talking about targets based on numbers of people, now they are talking about number of tests.

owlbethere

spookwoman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1246440600704090112?s=20

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1246442042311532547?s=20

Nursing home staff to have their temperatures checked


First of all, staff as carers should be checking their own temperatures every morning before work anyways. They should be, even if it's not in a written policy. If there's any temperature, then they shouldn't be going into work in case they have the virus. Wouldn't be any harm implementing the policy anyways but I do see a few issues.

1) not every one has a temperature as Claire Byrne shows
2) if a staff member has other issues like maybe period pain, they may take an ibuprofen and that would alter a temperature reading.

Not a very great policy to rely on.