Covid 19 Part XXI-27,908 in ROI (1,777 deaths) 6,647 in NI (559 deaths)(22/08)Read OP

polesheep

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The only way we can get back to any semblance of normality is if people avail of tests when they’re sick. Test negative and get on with your life without others having to worry that you’re carrying something. Not really sure why you’re arguing against it.

But for how long can you get on with your life before you're back again for another test? For example, if you have sinus issues they can become inflamed every few weeks over a period of a few months.

ACitizenErased

polesheep wrote: »

But for how long can you get on with your life before you're back again for another test? For example, if you have sinus issues they can become inflamed every few weeks over a period of a few months.

Back for another 30 second test with results within 36hrs?

Ficheall

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Back for another 30 second test with results within 36hrs?

It seems pretty invasive, tbf - especially for a kid. I haven't had the test done, so can't comment for sure, but..

polesheep

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Back for another 30 second test with results within 36hrs?

So tested every two weeks or so for a period of months with a known issue? Are you being serious? What is needed is to get back to the early conditions for a test via the GP.

ACitizenErased

polesheep wrote: »

So tested every two weeks or so for a period of months with a known issue? Are you being serious? What is needed is to get back to the early conditions for a test via the GP.

Why would you get tested every two weeks? You’re just taking me out of context now.

seanb85

Ficheall wrote: »

It seems pretty invasive, tbf - especially for a kid. I haven't had the test done, so can't comment for sure, but..

If you go for an STI check they'll put a swab up your flute, people (even kids) should be able to handle a swab up the nose.

polesheep

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Why would you get tested every two weeks? You’re just taking me out of context now.

If I get tested today and it's negative and my sinuses settle down in a few days and then a week or so later they flare up again then, according to what you said, I should go for another test. That's how sinusitis can be, especially in the winter months.

ACitizenErased

polesheep wrote: »

If I get tested today and it's negative and my sinuses settle down in a few days and then a week or so later they flare up again then, according to what you said, I should go for another test. That's how sinusitis can be, especially in the winter months.

You should get tested when you get sick. If you have the exact same symptoms two weeks later then there’s zero reason to get retested.

polesheep

seanb85 wrote: »

If you go for an STI check they'll put a swab up your flute, people (even kids) should be able to handle a swab up the nose.

You sound like you would put kids through sheep dip if you thought it would keep you safer.

s1ippy

It's absolutely fine, the media really over exaggerated how bad it is. I picked my nose once as a child and hurt myself, that was way more painful than the swabs. The throat one you hardly even feel it if they do it properly (which they probably will, because they do a tonne of them). Don't be worrying about it, medical procedures are an unpleasant part of life but the idea that you'd avoid them because of this is terrible.

Ficheall

seanb85 wrote: »

If you go for an STI check they'll put a swab up your flute, people (even kids) should be able to handle a swab up the nose.

Do you go for an STI check when you've a stuffed nose?

ACitizenErased

Ficheall wrote: »

Do you go for an STI check when you've a stuffed nose?

polesheep

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You should get tested when you get sick. If you have the exact same symptoms two weeks later then there’s zero reason to get retested.

That's the point that was being made. Children go from sniffle to sniffle in their early years while their immune system is developing.

ACitizenErased

polesheep wrote: »

That's the point that was being made. Children go from sniffle to sniffle in their early years while their immune system is developing.

And they should be tested at the first instance, which others are denying.

owlbethere

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-or-just-a-common-cold-what-to-do-when-your-child-gets-sick-this-winter-140727


Australia is at the end of their winter and I suppose they experienced what many people will be experiencing in the coming weeks with going back to school. I found this online. A written piece from Australia. The advice if there's any cold symptoms is to stay at home.

seanb85

Ficheall wrote: »

Do you go for an STI check when you've a stuffed nose?

Depends on where my nose was

ACitizenErased

seanb85 wrote: »

Depends on where my nose was

I laughed... ffs

polesheep

ACitizenErased wrote: »

And they should be tested at the first instance, which others are denying.

There really isn't a first instance. If you have a few children you will always have one of them with a sniffle. It really needs to back to the early criteria through a GP.

gmisk

Did I just hear NI reported 74 cases today? Yikes!

seanb85

polesheep wrote: »

You sound like you would put kids through sheep dip if you thought it would keep you safer.

Kids are tougher than some on here would like to believe. They get plenty of vaccines that hurt more than a quick swab.

caveat emptor

Very positive news about t-cells and immunity.

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1294266337473093632?s=20

polesheep

seanb85 wrote: »

Kids are tougher than some on here would like to believe. They get plenty of vaccines that hurt more than a quick swab.

That's not the point being made. The point is kids often have runny noses or similar as their immune system is developing.

What Username Guidelines

s1ippy wrote: »

Hi lads. I feel it in my fingers, I feel it in my toes. Should I get tested?

Covid is all around us, and so the deficit grooooows...

Ficheall

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Stuffed nose isn't really a symptom of STIs or Covid, was what I was getting at..

polesheep

caveat emptor wrote: »

Very positive news about t-cells and immunity.

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1294266337473093632?s=20

That could be massive and the reason why we are not seeing increasing hospitalisation.

ACitizenErased

32 year old has died in NI.
Additional 74 cases today. Way worse up there than down here at the moment. In population terms that would be 200 cases down here.

https://twitter.com/bbcnewsni/status/1294259003195887616?s=21

seanb85

polesheep wrote: »

That's not the point being made. The point is kids often have runny noses or similar as their immune system is developing.

Yep they do, infants have regular upper respiratory tract infections. The point is there is presently a new virus that commonly presents with the symptoms of an upper respiratory tract infection which is a significant danger to public health.

In these circumstances you apply the precautionary principle and don't just dismiss symptoms because you feel it's unlikely to be Covid 19.

ACitizenErased

polesheep wrote: »

That could be massive and the reason why we are not seeing increasing hospitalisation.

I find the lack of hospitalisations fascinating tbh, there’s definitely something else other than age at play

road_high

Did they die with it or of it? Huge difference

polesheep

seanb85 wrote: »

Yep they do, infants have regular upper respiratory tract infections. The point is there is presently a new virus that commonly presents with the symptoms of an upper respiratory tract infection which is a significant danger to public health.

In these circumstances you apply the precautionary principle and don't just dismiss symptoms because you feel it's unlikely to be Covid 19.

If you think most parents are going to bring infants and children for a test every time they have a sniffle you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Ficheall

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I find the lack of hospitalisations fascinating tbh, there’s definitely something else other than age at play

Well, when the whole thing kicked off they seemed to be sending everyone who tested positive to hospital, and now they just tell them to go home and self-isolate unless symptoms worsen

polesheep

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I find the lack of hospitalisations fascinating tbh, there’s definitely something else other than age at play

Well, yes, co-morbidity. But T-Cell immunity may be far more prevalent now than was previously supposed.

polesheep

Ficheall wrote: »

Well, when the whole thing kicked off they seemed to be sending everyone who tested positive to hospital, and now they just tell them to go home and self-isolate unless symptoms worsen

That's not true.

MerlinSouthDub

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I find the lack of hospitalisations fascinating tbh, there’s definitely something else other than age at play

I'm not so sure. The severity of Covid varies heavily with age. With the current age profile of new infections, you would expect a lower hospitalisation rate. Yes, the hospitalisation rate seems very low right now but there's a relatively small number of infections and I wouldn't draw any conclusions with the limited data

Ficheall

polesheep wrote: »

That's not true.

Is it not? Fair enough. I thought they were far more cagey initially, but I can't swear to it.

seanb85

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I find the lack of hospitalisations fascinating tbh, there’s definitely something else other than age at play

I think it's down to how many cases we were missing during the worst period, back then it was about 10 to 15% of confirmed cases that ended up in hospital. But its likely there were about 10 times the confirmed number. We are probably still missing some cases but nowhere near what it was a few months ago.

ACitizenErased

We see on the HSE update that there are a lot of same day/next day admissions & discharges.

mloc123

polesheep wrote: »

That's not true.

It kinda is true.. for the first 2-3 weeks everyone went into hospital

polesheep

Ficheall wrote: »

Is it not? Fair enough. I thought they were far more cagey initially, but I can't swear to it.

People who were admitted to hospital were very ill with it and often more at risk due to a comorbidity. I realise my reply was terse/rude, apologies.

Ficheall

polesheep wrote: »

I realise my reply was terse/rude, apologies.

You'd want to up your fecking game to register as rude in these threads :pac:

mloc123

ACitizenErased wrote: »

32 year old has died in NI.
Additional 74 cases today. Way worse up there than down here at the moment. In population terms that would be 200 cases down here.

https://twitter.com/bbcnewsni/status/1294259003195887616?s=21

Not surprised at all, we were in Newcastle (Down) about a month ago and it was a free for all... Pubs packed till 1am because they had beer gardens, no masks or 2m rule in cafes etc..

polesheep

mloc123 wrote: »

It kinda is true.. for the first 2-3 weeks everyone went into hospital

We weren't testing in the community. See Sean's post above for hospitalisation stats.

seanb85

polesheep wrote: »

We weren't testing in the community. See Sean's post above for hospitalisation stats.

They did hospitalise all our initial confirmed cases, including a family from Clare I think who were either asymptomatic or had mild symptoms. That was when the initial plan was to prevent an outbreak, once it was copped that we had uncontrolled community transmission this was abandoned.

MerlinSouthDub

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

I'm not so sure. The severity of Covid varies heavily with age. With the current age profile of new infections, you would expect a lower hospitalisation rate. Yes, the hospitalisation rate seems very low right now but there's a relatively small number of infections and I wouldn't draw any conclusions with the limited data

There might be a small sample here, but the same dynamics are evident in the UK, Germany and Spain. It’s been weeks of high infection numbers in those countries, but no corresponding lagged rise in hospital admissions

Turtwig

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I find the lack of hospitalisations fascinating tbh, there’s definitely something else other than age at play

I don't. The testing criteria was much more limited at the start. There was less disease awareness. We're testing much more now, finding more mild and symptomless cases in the first links of the transmission chain. Rather than finding cases only when they become more serious and very likely a result of sustained chains of transmission with possibly exposure to higher infective doses.

This could be lead time bias too. There does appear to be a six to eight week lag between a rise in cases and the rises in hospitalisation. That seems to be numeric behaviour of the virus almost everywhere when cases are consistently rising.

What Username Guidelines

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I find the lack of hospitalisations fascinating tbh, there’s definitely something else other than age at play

Yep, also fascinating. I've seen lots talk on twitter about it being 'over' but the rest of their timelines are conspiracy theories/brexit/racism. Though a few are questioning it that seem to be genuinely baffled and looking for answers as opposed to agenda-driven.

I wonder could it be two things:

1. The removal of 'super vectors' (like super spreaders). Basically you have a pool of potentials. In feb, it was at it's biggest, but we don't know how big the pool was/is. Nursing homes, nurses moving from home to home, doctors/nurses/healthcare workers in hospitals, lots and lots infected and spreading it. They mostly recover, or sadly succumb, and the pool has been reduced. Like the pool, we also don't know the true size of the reduction, but if the pool is 100 ppl and 25 are removed, it's not a matter of disease spread reducing by 25%, because the first to be removed are the more likely to get it, if that makes sense? So the spread reduces >25% Hence it could in fact be slowing down or no longer spreading as efficiently.

2. Testing - At the height of it, you had to have multiple specific symptoms and we missed lots of cases. Now we know more, like lots of asymptomatics, etc, there is no reason the same level of asymptomatics weren't around at the peak, plus more. Even now you could consider our testing limited - you either need symptoms to know you even need a test, or work in certain healthcare sectors at specific times (nursing home, 3 weeks ago) or work in a meat plant. Obviously we can't test everyone, but now we know there are far more cases out there because of the targeted testing. So this somewhat proves a much larger portion of susceptibles were removed from our pool in point 1 during March/April/May.

If our hospitalisation rate of known cases was about 13%(?) and now dropping heavily, it may prove the actual hospitalisation rate from All cases as opposed to known cases is far lower, and what we're seeing now is a more accurate %, but still not the real %.

Drumpot

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I find the lack of hospitalisations fascinating tbh, there’s definitely something else other than age at play

seanb85 wrote: »

I think it's down to how many cases we were missing during the worst period, back then it was about 10 to 15% of confirmed cases that ended up in hospital. But its likely there were about 10 times the confirmed number. We are probably still missing some cases but nowhere near what it was a few months ago.

There’s also a couple of other theories to consider:

- hospitals better equipped to deal and care for patients (not default to ventilator, we now more now)

- patients showing up earlier then back in March as more people are aware of symptoms and there was a bit of a negative “unclean” sense around being found to have COVID, peopel might of been reluctant to get help sooner.

- older population and more vulnerable are more cautious therefore less of them getting bad doses

- more cautious behaviors and mask wearing is leading to people getting less viral load when infected. Less viral load can mean by the time the virus is really taking hold in your body , it actually has built up some resistance (or something on these lines) which means you can get a less severe dose

- virus has mutated to be less lethal

I’ve said it before, but it’s disappointing that there are so many myths surrounding the virus that can be cleared up. Whether it’s recording of data or whatever , there is no political will among countries to do proper research to clear up things. There has to be enough data in 6 months of the virus to be more comprehensive on what works and what doesn’t work (Like schools for eg) yet it still Feels like we are fumbling around on some things. I don’t expect all the answers but it feels like there is data that can help everybody manage this better but nobody wants to correlate it and draw reasonably definitive conclusions.

MD1990

we may have the cure.

https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/1294280289397559298

Renjit

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Not sure how getting a free, less than 30 second test = hysteria

We have expert resident doctors in this thread who know their body well and quote a pre print paper to justify smoking to avoid covid

Renjit

MD1990 wrote: »

we may have the cure.

https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/1294280289397559298

Is it peer reviewed? This is dated May 2020.

Update: Strong objection to the believed treatment has been extended to The Source for Dr. Kovalchuk’s report.