Covid 19 Part XXII-30,360 in ROI(1,781 deaths) 8,035 in NI (568 deaths)(10/09)Read OP

Plumbthedepths

MD1990 wrote: »

Does anyone think the virus strength has waned?

What have you done?

brickster69

caveat emptor wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1297490954245615616?s=21

He does not even understand the meaning of a " fulsome apology " :eek:

is_that_so

brickster69 wrote: »

He does not even understand the meaning of a " fulsome apology " :eek:

Is that one that involves the word "resign"?!

bb1234567

MD1990 wrote: »

Does anyone think the virus strength has waned?

I know it has hitting younger people mostly now but hospital cases around Europe are not really increasing in any way like back in March.

Maybe though more older people are cocooning

Like obviously it appears that way at a very cursory glance .. but the exact same trend happened in the US and there was talk of the virus weakening and then the deaths rose to expected levels as occurred previously

BringBackMick

Jesus Jim OCallaghan on Radio 1 has just spoken sense!

I haven't heard a politician speak such common sense in yonks.

I am actually taken aback

seanb85

MD1990 wrote: »

Does anyone think the virus strength has waned?

I know it has hitting younger people mostly now but hospital cases around Europe are not really increasing in any way like back in March.

Maybe though more older people are cocooning

There are literally thousands of scientists across the world analysing samples and tracking mutations. Nothing scientific so far suggests the the virus has in any way weakened. The only significant mutation that I am aware of made it more infectious (but potentially more susceptible to a vaccine).

There will also be no hive mentality. If a mutation occurs that results in a weaker strain it will emerge at first in a certain geographic location, it will not suddenly weaken worldwide.

Micky 32

bb1234567 wrote: »

Like obviously it appears that way at a very cursory glance .. but the exact same trend happened in the US and there was talk of the virus weakening and then the deaths rose to expected levels as occurred previously

Also worth noting, deaths on their “second wave” never reached their daily 2500 like at the begining.

It seems that cases in the USA are dropping, good to see.

podgeandrodge

seanb85 wrote: »

There will also be no hive mentality. If a mutation occurs that results in a weaker strain it will emerge at first in a certain geographic location, it will not suddenly weaken worldwide.

Thanks for clearing that up Doc. I had read that there could be many mutations arising in many locations many of which may be weaker.

Plumbthedepths

BringBackMick wrote: »

Jesus Jim OCallaghan on Radio 1 has just spoken sense!

I haven't heard a politician speak such common sense in yonks.

I am actually taken aback

What did he say?

polesheep

seanb85 wrote: »

There are literally thousands of scientists across the world analysing samples and tracking mutations. Nothing scientific so far suggests the the virus has in any way weakened. The only significant mutation that I am aware of made it more infectious (but potentially more susceptible to a vaccine).

There will also be no hive mentality. If a mutation occurs that results in a weaker strain it will emerge at first in a certain geographic location, it will not suddenly weaken worldwide.

Yes, but it takes a long time to gather the data. It is likely that the effects will be seen before the proof.

polesheep

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up Doc. I had read that there could be many mutations arising in many locations many of which may be weaker.

Both of you are correct.

ACitizenErased

Was only in the news recently that the European strain was found in Malaysia - it’s more infectious but not necessarily as deadly

BringBackMick

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What did he say?

To look at the bigger picture about Phil Hogan and not shoot ourselves in the foot.

To look at the bigger picture with COVID and put out a clear message that we must live alongside COVID and not have kneejerk reactions every evening when the COVID case numbers are released and to have a clear roadmap and objectives.

Micky 32

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up Doc. I had read that there could be many mutations arising in many locations many of which may be weaker.

Aye, we have so many experts on here.

polesheep

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up Doc. I had read that there could be many mutations arising in many locations many of which may be weaker.

BringBackMick wrote: »

To look at the bigger picture about Phil Hogan and not shoot ourselves in the foot.

To look at the bigger picture with COVID and put out a clear message that we must live alongside COVID and not have kneejerk reactions every evening when the COVID case numbers are released and to have a clear roadmap and objectives.

I think we can expect to hear more comments such as this.

seanb85

Micky 32 wrote: »

Aye, we have so many experts on here.

Never claimed to be an expert, but there are lots of resources out there where the information can be found

https://nextstrain.org/narratives/ncov/sit-rep/2020-08-14

polesheep

BringBackMick wrote: »

To look at the bigger picture about Phil Hogan and not shoot ourselves in the foot.

To look at the bigger picture with COVID and put out a clear message that we must live alongside COVID and not have kneejerk reactions every evening when the COVID case numbers are released and to have a clear roadmap and objectives.

I wonder could we be seeing the beginning of a heave within FF?

is_that_so

polesheep wrote: »

I wonder could we be seeing the beginning of a heave within FF?

Not yet, in the second half of government.

Irish Times

Mass testing would allow us to fully reopen the economy
Get the whole population tested every two weeks, avail of the new saliva kits and invest in the science that allows for self-testing without the need for laboratory access

Chris Johns

Scientists rightly say say there is lots we don’t know about Covid-19. That doesn’t mean we know nothing or that we have learned nothing. For instance, something has changed between the first wave and the recent viral resurgence: fewer people are getting very sick, being admitted to hospital or dying.

We don’t know whether these better outcomes are permanent or why they have occurred. Leading causal candidate is the age-profile of people getting the disease: young people, typically, don’t get very sick.

Another factor seems to be “learning by doing” by the medics. Even if you get admitted to intensive care, recent research shows the chances of dying, in some countries, are reduced compared to last March and April - that’s a result across all age cohorts. Better treatment, including drugs, appears to help.

More speculatively, one or two scientists wonder whether the virus is mutating into something more benign. That’s a minority view, based on the observation that some viruses do become less lethal for good Darwinian reasons: pathogens don’t survive if they kill their hosts.

We know that some medics don’t like speculation. In response to the slightly better news, one prominent UK doctor was quoted saying he doesn’t want the ideas about young people, better healthcare or a possibly mutating virus to lull the public into a false sense of security.

Fair enough. We all need to be on our guard against reckless behaviour. Ireland’s 80-strong new members of the Dominic Cummings Other-People’s-Rules Club have provoked an understandable reaction. But there is a difference between sensible rules and moral high horses.

There is also a difference between information sharing and secrecy. Could it be that we won’t understand the science and therefore make bad decisions? Proper communication by experts to non-experts has an obvious role to play here. Do governments not want us to know that scientists disagree?

I have a suspicion that behind some of the scientific prognostications about how we should behave lies insufficient acknowledgement of the uncertainties and the alternatives. Lockdowns, whether local or national, will, it is true, suppress the virus but no economy, not even New Zealand, has been able to fully reopen in a completely sustained way. At least not without seeing the virus return.

One myth that I hope has been seen off is the idea that if we eliminate the virus completely via a four to six week total lockdown we can then go back to normal, at least economically.

One of the problems for behaviour, good or bad, occurs when we are denied access to the full scientific discussion. What is allowed into the public domain is a little data and a lot of instruction. The language from on high is often similar to that of a parent to a child. When the messages become confused - or even contradictory - and we know little about their scientific basis, it’s no wonder that many people decide to find out for themselves, possibly accessing fake news, and then make their own decisions. Good or bad.

Plenty of data suggests beaches, demonstrations and outdoor sport are not risky activities. They are not risk free, but just much less risky than indoor activities. The enclosed bar or house party afterwards represents a much higher risk. It makes more sense to share the science: tell us its OK to watch the game - appropriately distanced - but not to go to the party afterwards.

Our tendency to moralise, judge and curtain-twitch leads straight to lockdown. All kinds of behavioural restrictions are the only policies available to us. If they come at an economic cost then so be it. An important point, an important scientific truth, needs to be made here: one day, the money will run out.

There is more “free” money available to the government than we previously thought. We don’t know how much but it is not limitless. It would be a bad idea to try really hard to reach that limit. Shut down the economy again and we may well find it.

I cannot understand why there is not more scientific push for mass testing. Get the whole population tested every two weeks. Avail of the new saliva kits. Invest, massively, in the science that allows for self-testing without the need for laboratory access. Mass testing, with proper tracing and isolation, means more-or-less full economic reopening. At a fraction of the cost of lockdowns.

Mistakes have been made in many countries. In the UK, a hapless cabinet can be described as a collection of sandbags strategically placed to absorb the criticism heading towards Boris Johnson and Cummings. Years of austerity led to diminished state capacity to do anything.

A culture of secrecy contributes to systemic groupthink: too many careers have been built via agreeing with the boss. Socially well-connected amateurs run education quangos and public health agencies. Many countries have similar, overlapping pathologies.

Economics is about decision making under uncertainty. Good economic outcomes usually result when as much light as possible is shone at the uncertainty. And when people have enough information to make their own minds up - and to agree that public policy rules and recommendations make sense. Let’s see the full details of the scientific debate. Let’s do mass testing.

The above is probably many months/next year away. Like everything about this stupid virus

polesheep

is_that_so wrote: »

Not yet, in the second half of government.

I'm no fan of FF but I would rather see O'Callaghan in charge instead of Martin. I feel he would be a steadier hand as well as being more assured.

Plumbthedepths

BringBackMick wrote: »

To look at the bigger picture about Phil Hogan and not shoot ourselves in the foot.

To look at the bigger picture with COVID and put out a clear message that we must live alongside COVID and not have kneejerk reactions every evening when the COVID case numbers are released and to have a clear roadmap and objectives.

Two things Hogan is not to big to fail. He works for the EU not us.
To the second , yeah I agree .

JJayoo

Two camps

A) Elderly Grandparents/parents still alive , family member currently undergoing treatment. Family memy with condition that would put them at risk.
= Taking this serious because yano I'd rather not take the chance

No vunerable family members = risk doesn't I.pact me directly = this virus bullsh1t is seriously messing up my social life.

speckle

Deleted User wrote: »

The above is probably many months/next year away. Like everything about this stupid virus

Great long post above. it could be in mainly in place by the end of the year, if we as a nation rise to the challenge as we did last march and april. We showed how hard working/cocooning/inventive and creative we can be. Let us start today before the next influzena seasons arrives on top of covid. We have had our bit of a break over the end of summer,lets show the world what we can do as a nation. No excuses. The rewards are immense.

speckle

JJayoo wrote: »

Two camps

A) Elderly Grandparents/parents still alive , family member currently undergoing treatment. Family memy with condition that would put them at risk.
= Taking this serious because yano I'd rather not take the chance

No vunerable family members = risk doesn't I.pact me directly = this virus bullsh1t is seriously messing up my social life.

Yes but one nation.

Martina1991

Woody79 wrote:

Chris Johns

Mass testing would allow us to fully reopen the economy Get the whole population tested every two weeks, avail of the new saliva kits and invest in the science that allows for self-testing without the need for laboratory access

Chris Johns, A financial and economic columnist.

Who likely doesnt know what it takes to validate a test for national use that is reliable and accurate. Let alone the logistic work it takes to set up the transport and IT support necessary to process and report hundreds of thousands of tests a week.
And this is hoped to be done in a few weeks?

gozunda

podgeandrodge wrote:

...From a US study (acknowledging I don't know if there are variances with quality of care between USA and Ireland):

"In a study of elderly Americans who moved to a nursing home for their final months or years of life, 65 percent died there within one year, according to an investigation by researchers at the San Francisco VA Medical Center and the University of California, San Francisco.

The average age of participants when they moved to a nursing home was about 83. The average length of stay before death was 13.7 months, while the median was five months. Fifty-three percent of nursing home residents in the study died within six months."

To me, it's fair to say that most people going to nursing homes don't spend many years there. I would imagine most residents are there for good.

What? Extrapolating from US study - does not make it 'fair to say" by any stretch of the imagination. Tbh I'm still trying yo figure out exactly what relevance a US study (a country with a lack of any universal health care system) got to do with anything here?

Tbh it looks like you are fishing for any argument pushing that older people are effectively expendable under the current pandemic as they are "going to die anyway' or wtte.

A quick search of place of death for older people in Ireland shows that annually - approx " (46%) of participant deaths occurred in hospital.
Other places included their own home (27%), a hospice (11%) and a nursing home (10%).

Another recent (pre pandemic) report found that just 12 % of older people spent time in a hospice and/or nursing homes (18%) prior to death

As explained previously many eldely people go to nursing homes for short periods of respite or periods of care following illness. From the literature and looking at this pre pandemic - there is no evidence of large scale rapid die off of elderly in nursing homes.

Perhaps you might wish to do a bit more research before jumping to wishful thinking in an effort to bolster such rubbish.

speckle

Martina1991 wrote: »

Chris Johns, A financial and economic columnist.

Who likely doesnt know what it takes to validate a test for national use that is reliable and accurate. Let alone the logistic work it takes to set up the transport and IT support necessary to process and report hundreds of thousands of tests a week.
And this is hoped to be done in a few weeks?

We are talking about home based 2$ near instant based saliva test strips. Doesnt negate the gold standard PCR tests to be used when needed.. if you check the previous links I posted you will see virologists and epidemiologists dicussing the idea.

This does not make me forget how truly thankful I and the whole country should be for the immense hard work you and others in labs all over the country did and continue to do.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

What? Extrapolating from US study - does not make it 'fair to say" by any stretch of the imagination. Tbh I'm still trying yo figure out exactly what relevance a US study (a country with a lack of any universal health care system) got to do with anything here?

Tbh it looks like you are fishing for any argument pushing that older people are effectively expendable under the current pandemic as they are "going to die anyway' or wtte.

A quick search of place of death for older people in Ireland shows that annually - approx " (46%) of participant deaths occurred in hospital.
Other places included their own home (27%), a hospice (11%) and a nursing home (10%).

Another recent (pre pandemic) report found that just 12 % of older people spent time in a hospice and/or nursing homes (18%) prior to death

As explained previously many eldely people go to nursing homes for short periods of respite or periods of care following illness. From the literature and looking at this pre pandemic - there is no evidence of large scale rapid die off of elderly nursing homes.

Perhaps you might wish to do a bit more research before jumping to wishful thinking in an effort to bolster such rubbish.

Heard a figure of 3 years in Ireland, not sure that is median or mean. The thing is a natural death is a lot better than a covid death for alot of different reasons. Would hate to have relatives in a nursing home. Hopefully they won't suffer again as much.

Martina1991

speckle wrote:

We are talking about home based 2$ near instant based saliva test strips. Doesnt negate the gold standard PCR tests to be used when needed.. if you check the previous links I posted you will see virologists and epidemiologists dicussing the idea.

They're not going to be reliable.

I was always told if you can't do something right, don't do it at all.

And

No result is better than a wrong result.