Covid19 Part XVI- 21,983 in ROI (1,339 deaths) 3,881 in NI (404 deaths)(05/05)Read OP

Bsharp

Xertz wrote: »

BSharp:

On Ireland topping the respiratory death league table:

Often wondered if that’s is down to air quality. If you look at the PurpleAir.com monitors that people install, and which are being used for some research in UCC, the quality of air in many Irish towns and cities in winter is really, really bad in winter due to coal and other solid fuel smoke.

We continue to do very little about it and the comparison with peer countries it really is very bad.

It definitely can't help. As per my other response there could be multiple reasons, and some could be interrelated to some degree.

growleaves

I think you have got me mixed up with someone or you are projecting.

I wasn't saying that you personally had said these things (apologies if I gave that impression) but simply on this forum as a whole we've had every kind of worst-case-scenario prediction.

The makers of these predictions never seem to acknowledge their wrongness ('blown forecasts' isn't word-play, the original models that influenced governments were falsifiable models and their truth or falsity is significant), moderate their pessimism, take scientific evidence into account that doesn't tend to despair or reflect at all.

wadacrack

https://twitter.com/antonioregalado/status/1252230613148540929

joeguevara

I was just listening to music and You tube and Pat Short came on with this song ‘cash crisis’. Honestly if he changed it to Corona Crisis, it’s the exact same as how I spend my weeks.

https://youtu.be/DwcmAe12QKY

growleaves

Do you think the models might have changed due the restrictions put in place?

The models contained numbers which included restrictions in the original prognostications.

FVP3

Tippex wrote: »

Did you miss the part where the poster aid they are in korea.
A bit of a trip to get from Korea to Croker just to have a test.

The guy I was replying to isnt in Korea.

FVP3

growleaves wrote: »

The models contained numbers which included restrictions in the original prognostications.

No they didnt, not the millions of cases. Or course not.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

I wasn't saying that you personally had said these things (apologies if I gave that impression) but simply on this forum as a whole we've had every kind of worst-case-scenario prediction.

The makers of these predictions never seem to acknowledge their wrongness ('blown forecasts' isn't word-play, the original models that influenced governments were falsifiable models and their truth or falsity is significant), moderate their pessimism, take scientific evidence into account that doesn't tend to despair or reflect at all.

Models change when facts change and a model with life proceeding as normal compared to one where 90% of interactions are restricted will be very different. Do you disagree?

growleaves

Don't let facts get in way of your downplaying.

How is it downplaying? There is not yet proof of immunity. Therefore what? What are we to assume from this lack of evidence? That there won't be immunity? Why we should we assume that? And people who don't assume that but calmly wait for the facts are downplaying?

techdiver

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone presenting to hospital with suspected Covid 19 or severe respiratory symptoms will be tested. Anyone calling their GP with Temp and respiratory symptoms will be tested. Anyone contract traced to a confirmed case will be tested.

The part in bold is not true.

Having symptoms is not enough to qualify for a test. You need the symptoms plus either be in a high risk group or have come into contact with a confirmed case.

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/testing.html

You can phone your GP to be assessed for a test in any of these situations.

If you are in a priority group and have:

fever and a cough, or
fever and shortness of breath (breathing difficulties)

Kermit.de.frog

wadacrack wrote: »

https://twitter.com/antonioregalado/status/1252230613148540929

The slowdown in spread as a direct result of the measures/lock down in that study is eye opening.

Shows the difficulty of the situation with trying to lift restrictions.

eddie73

Irish Aris wrote: »

Some good points in this post.
I would question though closing the border. I think tourism in Iceland is quite heavy and brings a lot of money in the country.
I am a bit surprised on how quickly things escalated in Singapore. Granted, living conditions are quite different than Europe, still though it makes you wonder. I am a bit reluctant to benchmark us against them. I'd rather we do so with a European country we have more common characteristics. I think how things will go for countries like Austria and Denmark will give us a better idea.

Austria or Denmark would be much more accurate, but in terms of a post lockdown society, who obeyed it to the letter of the law, Singapore is a very good case study. Their quarantine was very strict and adhered to. They go back out. Then the spike happens.

If they kept their borders closed, they would have probably had much better results.

But they are one of the biggest airports in the world. Also, the biggest port in the world as far as I know.

How do you shut down this sort of facility without shutting down your economy?

Economically, we cant shut down our borders unless people are satisfied to have no incomes or a vastly reduced income for the next 18 months. How many people crying out for lockdown would cry as loudly 6 weeks into a time when welfare is slashed to weekly food stamps or wages taxed at 85%?

What role would the banks play in all of this? The fact that we own them seems to have little or no bearing into their operations. They implement policy without heed.

They would play an enormous part in all of this if Ireland were to try a quarantine that was meaningful rather than token.

Not going to happen though. I would guess the next 2 months will pan out as follows...

3rd May, lockdown softens. After a week, the rates of infection sky rocket. Lockdown re introduced.
21 May, lockdown softens but with massive restrictions that are enforced by the Gardai. Infection rates remain steady and high, until the virus decides to stop spreading on its own terms rather than ours.

This probably is not going to be pretty. I wonder could we have done it any differently?

Cheltenham, Italian rugby supporters, skiing holidays that weren't cancelled.
Ports allowing cars in from the uk during the lockdown. People not obeying social distancing directives.

That would have helped. Only marginally.

We should have done what New Zealand did rather than to try and spin a facade of measures when the horse clearly had bolted.

Even then, we face more challenges than New Zealand due to the economic fragility that we were facing before covid 19. Brexit and the austerity measures post 2008 (the bailout).

We have a long road ahead of us.

tobefrank321

techdiver wrote: »

The part in bold is not true.

Having symptoms is not enough to qualify for a test. You need the symptoms plus either be in a high risk group or have come into contact with a confirmed case.

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/testing.html

Correct.

Which means they have no clue what the number of community cases are at the moment, and are guessing or extrapolating from hospital admissions.

When they lift restrictions they will have to widen the eligibility to include community transmission, otherwise they will miss a lot of cases. But it still stands that the vast majority of community cases will not end up in hospital, a fair proportion, up to 40% will have no symptoms, and if we can isolate and cocoon people in vulnerable categories while also maintaining social distancing controls in workplaces, shops and restaurants, then hospital admissions should be manageable.

caveat emptor

growleaves wrote: »

How is it downplaying? There is not yet proof of immunity. Therefore what? What are we to assume from this lack of evidence? That there won't be immunity? Why we should we assume that? And people who don't assume that but calmly wait for the facts are downplaying?

The downplaying I'm referring to is your quote "when it is obviously only a coronavirus (however severe)" or something along those lines.

I've never heard anyone say something so weird. It's evolved from "it's just a flu."

Look at the Spanish approach. First it was China overreacting, then it was Italy, no Spain. Do you not realise that over a quarter of our cases are Health care workers and has been for weeks. They are not adequately protect to deal with "only a coronavirus"

https://twitter.com/CGTNOfficial/status/1252230538200408067?s=20

ek motor

Evidence of severe lung damage in six divers who contracted Covid-19, none of whom required hospitalization.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-Coronavirus-Lungeschaden-Forschung-Uniklinik-Innsbruck-6708e11e-28dc-4843-a760-e7f926ace61c.html&usg=ALkJrhicIZhmuTKOBYnuLrSoWLJoo66WYg

These cases were considered to have 'recovered' according to the article

growleaves

No they didnt, not the millions of cases. Or course not.

No. It was hundreds of thousands in the US alone with restrictions, millions without.

The acceptance of the models was accompanied in the media with rubbishing of more moderate predictions and explanations - such as the report from Oxford University's disease specialist labs.

So people who now rubbish any sort of moderate conclusion, or call it pie-in-the-sky optimism, ought to have this pointed out to them. There is no reason for any rational person to always take worst-case-scenarios as the go-to assumption.

spookwoman

2 confirmed deaths in critical care and 1 suspected day before yesterday. Our critical care cases are staying steady

Cork Boy 53

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The slowdown in spread as a direct result of the measures/lock down in that study is eye opening.

Shows the difficulty of the situation with trying to lift restrictions.

Yes and on the flip side how easily a surge in the spread of the virus could occur if restrictions are lifted too soon or if people ignore them.

growleaves

The downplaying I'm referring to is your quote "when it is obviously only a coronavirus (however severe)" or something along those lines.

I've never heard anyone say something so weird. It's evolved from "it's just a flu."

Okay I see where you're coming from. My point was about the nature of the disease, not the severity. There's no conclusive evidence (yet) to believe it is something more than a respiratory disease. The assumption that it is shouldn't be treated as if it were a fact.

Kermit.de.frog

The Telegraph in the UK is reporting that on top of a big spike in excess deaths in the UK connected with COVID-19 there are also thousands in that excess that are yet unexplained which leads to the opinion that deaths in England and Wales are much higher than has been put out to the public so far in official figures.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/real-uk-coronavirus-death-toll-risk/

Hamsterchops

Saw one reference to Covid-20 in the previous Coronavirus thread, hopefully it won't spread

Gynoid

ek motor wrote: »

Evidence of severe lung damage in six divers who contracted Covid-19, none of whom required hospitalization.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-Coronavirus-Lungeschaden-Forschung-Uniklinik-Innsbruck-6708e11e-28dc-4843-a760-e7f926ace61c.html&usg=ALkJrhicIZhmuTKOBYnuLrSoWLJoo66WYg

These cases were considered to have 'recovered' according to the article

Jesus. See that sh1t right there is why we must be abundantly cautious. Damn.

Kermit.de.frog

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Saw one reference to Covid-20 in the previous Coronavirus thread, hopefully it won't spread

Nah, it's just the Ugandans taking on Covid-20 :pac:

FVP3

growleaves wrote: »

No. It was hundreds of thousands in the US alone with restrictions, millions without.

The acceptance of the models was accompanied in the media with rubbishing of more moderate predictions and explanations - such as the report from Oxford University's disease specialist labs.

So people who now rubbish any sort of moderate conclusion, or call it pie-in-the-sky optimism, ought to have this pointed out to them. There is no reason for any rational person to always take worst-case-scenarios as the go-to assumption.

The restrictions have worked better than expected ( good news) but of course this disease would have infected millions without any restrictions. Thats the nature of a novel virus.

As regarding the supposedly low cases in the US, models cant be exact on these type of restrictions as they had never been tried before. In any case politicians could hardly take the risk, given the difference in time between cause and effect of the restrictions. Nevertheless we can probably open up a bit now with some degree of confidence that we can beat it down again, if it starts to increase exponentially.

Drumpot

ek motor wrote: »

Evidence of severe lung damage in six divers who contracted Covid-19, none of whom required hospitalization.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-Coronavirus-Lungeschaden-Forschung-Uniklinik-Innsbruck-6708e11e-28dc-4843-a760-e7f926ace61c.html&usg=ALkJrhicIZhmuTKOBYnuLrSoWLJoo66WYg

These cases were considered to have 'recovered' according to the article

This isn’t the first time I’ve read or heard something like this.

I actually know somebody who got it bad, recovered but had to go back to hospital last week. That said, I think it’s the kind of thing we won’t really understand completely until months or years of research, particularly when it comes to long term effects left behind. Different people have different reactions for different reasons. Genetics and underlying conditions prob represent most of these factors. Why can some people smoke all their lives and be fine and others who live healthy lives die of lung cancer?

There’s a lot about this virus that we simply don’t fully understand. Makes a mockery of countries or leaders of countries who think they can control this or experiment on a mass scale with their populations.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

No. It was hundreds of thousands in the US alone with restrictions, millions without.

The acceptance of the models was accompanied in the media with rubbishing of more moderate predictions and explanations - such as the report from Oxford University's disease specialist labs.

So people who now rubbish any sort of moderate conclusion, or call it pie-in-the-sky optimism, ought to have this pointed out to them. There is no reason for any rational person to always take worst-case-scenarios as the go-to assumption.

the lowest fatality rate of any study is 0.37% which would result in 10,000 deaths in Ireland if 60% of the population were to contact the illness. These studies were in small populations and had a high degree of uncertainty. The much touted German numbers from a couple of weeks ago were been used by some as evidence that high testing showed a low fatality rate. Germany is now over 3% and no one talks about the German model anymore. When all is said and done fatalities will likely end at somewhere between 0.5% and 1% of those who contracted the disease. Either way that's a lot of lives lost.This is a moderate conclusion.

CruelSummer

Gynoid wrote: »

The death rate is not the only or maybe even main problem. The contagion or infection rate is a problem. Flu affects about 15% of people. If this affects far more it would gave a higher death rate even if it had the exact same case fatality rate as flu. Which so far it does not look to be that low.
Plus side effects of a bad dose are as yet not researched enough. I hear words like pleurisy, pneumonia, sepsis, clotting, etc and that is among the cohort who do okay out of a bad dose. Then there are effects on organs from inflammation that are only beginning to be understood. Those are all pretty serious things. Plus immunity is so far uncertain. Imagine getting it, being knackered and shook by the so called mild dose, but doing okay, shaking it off and then getting the shagging thing again!
There is just such limited scientific research on this as it is a NOVEL virus. Novel means completely new! It is a pain in the hole that so many people are so blasè about something we know so damn little about yet.

I agree with your point re flu contagion rates and this being a novel virus. I agree also that we needed to shut down when we did, great move to stem the spread and stop people getting sick all at once. It has saved our hospital systems from becoming overwhelmed.
However I had mild symptoms of Covid 19 but I was tested too late when I'd recovered & tested negative. I am not part of the current numbers, even though I am almost certain I had it. I am otherwise fit and healthy and have made a complete recovery. I would like to get back to work, I haven't travelled anywhere or broken any lockdown restrictions...so if it was that easy for me to pick it up, how many more are out there like me? I think the current infection rates are grossly underestimated.
The only way long term to protect vulnerable members of society is to keep the wheels turning in the economy and provide funding and structures. Not to mention the severe adverse affects these restrictions are having on society as a whole across the board.
I am not comfortable waiting for a rushed vaccine and leaving ourselves at the mercy of whatever company wants to make Billions while we all become poor in the process due to a collapsed economy. The current lockdown is unsustainable and the death rate does not warrant these kind of measures long term.

caveat emptor

growleaves wrote: »

Okay I see where you're coming from. My point was about the nature of the disease, not the severity. There's no conclusive evidence (yet) to believe it is something more than a respiratory disease. The assumption that it is shouldn't be treated as if it were a fact.

Ok very well. I don't agree with you that there is no conclusive evidence to believe it is something more that a respiratory disease. I believe there is a lot of evidence to date that shows that.

I do agree that the picture is incomplete and will change. Erring on the side of caution is warranted. This study is from 3 days ago.

In biopsy or autopsy studies, pulmonary pathology for both early6 and late phase7 COVID-19 patients showed diffuse alveolar damage with the formation of hyaline membranes, mononuclear cells, and macrophages infiltrating air spaces, and a diffuse thickening of the alveolar wall. Viral particles were observed in the bronchial and type 2 alveolar epithelial cells by electron microscopy.8, 9 In addition, spleen atrophy, hilar lymph node necrosis, focal haemorrhage in the kidney, enlarged liver with inflammatory cell infiltration, oedema, and scattered degeneration of the neurons in the brain were present in some patients

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30920-X/fulltext

Poor_old_gill

Wombatman wrote: »

We will probably be looking at something like the Uk plan......

Cinemas reopen? Weddings?

Jeez I dont know - Weddings usually have 200 people in a moderate sized function room.

Surely that couldnt happen as soon as June

ek motor

Drumpot wrote: »

This isn’t the first time I’ve read or heard something like this.

I actually know somebody who got it bad, recovered but had to go back to hospital last week. That said, I think it’s the kind of thing we won’t really understand completely until months or years of research, particularly when it comes to long term effects left behind. Different people have different reactions for different reasons. Genetics and underlying conditions prob represent most of these factors. Why can some people smoke all their lives and be fine and others who live healthy lives die of lung cancer?

There’s a lot about this virus that we simply don’t fully understand. Makes a mockery of countries or leaders of countries who think they can control this or experiment on a mass scale with their populations.

Sorry to hear that person had to go back to hospital, do you know why he/she had to go back ?