Have NPHET lost the attention of people?

bladespin

meeeeh wrote: »

Really. We are nowhere near ICU capacity that was increased. Testing improved significantly. There were definitely mistakes made but Ireland actually improved significantly from first lockdown.

We need certain restrictions but it's also clear than unless we start strictly prosecuting there is a limit to how much L5 restrictions will achieve especially around Christmas. And historically based on traffic offence fines there is zero chance of that properly working as a deterrent. People here are up in arms when ID Cards are mentioned and it's hard to expect that will change. There is also a question of when medicine becomes more destructive than the disease. Small businesses employ huge amount of people and pay the most income tax. If we leave shops and restaurants closed their demise might have worse public health effect than Covid and pressure on icu beds.

It annoys me immensely how long it took to make a decision regarding masks and their current reluctance about quick tests. Why are they so reluctant to try less proven methods when there is clear push back against what is supposed to be proven methods? Isn't it better to try something new than just urging people to stick to the rules. You can make all the speeches about selfish individuals if they are ignored you are just wasting your energy.

Whoah there, I'm not saying it's right, just that that's how I see it, they can't ever wait until iCU is coming under pressure with this thing, the 2 week delay means numbers could ramp off the chart by the time any effective action could be taken - btw they added feck all really, 17 beds was never going to be a good enough answer to normal needs never mind now.

Ireland always follows the other's coattails, we have never pioneered, it's not what we do.

kippy

bladespin wrote: »

Ireland always follows the other's coattails, we have never pioneered, it's not what we do.

Are you speaking in general or in the context of Covid?

bladespin

kippy wrote: »

Are you speaking in general or in the context of Covid?

Personally I think in general but they certainly seem to wait to see what others do with Covid policy.

meeeeh

bladespin wrote: »

Whoah there, I'm not saying it's right, just that that's how I see it, they can't ever wait until iCU is coming under pressure with this thing, the 2 week delay means numbers could ramp off the chart by the time any effective action could be taken - btw they added feck all really, 17 beds was never going to be a good enough answer to normal needs never mind now.

Ireland always follows the other's coattails, we have never pioneered, it's not what we do.

There were more ICU beds added this year:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/icu-bed-numbers-5217685-Sep2020/%3famp=1

Anyway it's not about being pioneers it's about not being the slowest. Almost the whole Europe was wearing masks when they were still discussing their merits. Plenty of countries are rolling out mass antigen testing and here we are still looking through the numbers and I bet they will be looking through the numbers for another month because they are so reluctant to act decisively on anything that's not 100% reliable.

Thats me

Captain_Crash wrote: »

They tend to only send people with a chance of surviving to ICU and doctors have to make that choice. As sad as it sounds, if an 89 year near end of life is bad enough to require ICU, they likely wont survive anyway and wont get sent.

I have not heard we have not enough ICUs and Irish health services are operating in triage mode as it was, for example, in Italy. There were worrying news from Cork AFAIR that they are close to run out of ICU beds, but patients could be moved to another ICUs in the countries.

In any case, the first reason for lockdowns is to avoid overwhelming health services capacity - normal hospital beds, ICU beds, ventilators whatever comes first. And, as we see, this capacity used not by 75+ age group but mainly by much younger people, who are in their turn tends to ignore any recommendations, do depend on pubs and house parties and/or simply having school age children who have to visit this public place.

Captain_Crash

Thats me wrote: »

I have not heard we have not enough ICUs and Irish health services are operating in triage mode as it was, for example, in Italy. There were worrying news from Cork AFAIR that they are close to run out of ICU beds, but patients could be moved to another ICUs in the countries.

In any case, the first reason for lockdowns is to avoid overwhelming health services capacity - normal hospital beds, ICU beds, ventilators whatever comes first. And, as we see, this capacity used not by 75+ age group but mainly by much younger people, who are in their turn tends to ignore any recommendations, do depend on pubs and house parties and/or simply having school age children who have to visit this public place.

??? In English please... my head hurts reading that.

November Golf

Thats me wrote: »

I have not heard we have not enough ICUs and Irish health services are operating in triage mode as it was, for example, in Italy. There were worrying news from Cork AFAIR that they are close to run out of ICU beds, but patients could be moved to another ICUs in the countries.

In any case, the first reason for lockdowns is to avoid overwhelming health services capacity - normal hospital beds, ICU beds, ventilators whatever comes first. And, as we see, this capacity used not by 75+ age group but mainly by much younger people, who are in their turn tends to ignore any recommendations, do depend on pubs and house parties and/or simply having school age children who have to visit this public place.

The first reason for lockdown is to mitigate against the spread of COVID-19, secondly to avoid the need to restrict non-covid healthcare and thirdly to avoid overwhelming healthcare capacity.

If covid was to spread without restrictions, non-covid care would need to be restricted or stopped and our healthcare capacity would eventually be overwhelm - because the amount of people that have gotten covid is still relatively low compared to our entire population.

kippy

Captain_Crash wrote: »

They tend to only send people with a chance of surviving to ICU and doctors have to make that choice. As sad as it sounds, if an 89 year near end of life is bad enough to require ICU, they likely wont survive anyway and wont get sent.

Is that the point of the argument though........

Thats me

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

The first reason for lockdown is to mitigate against the spread of COVID-19, secondly to avoid the need to restrict non-covid healthcare and thirdly to avoid overwhelming healthcare capacity.

If covid was to spread without restrictions, non-covid care would need to be restricted or stopped and our healthcare capacity would eventually be overwhelm - because the amount of people that have gotten covid is still relatively low compared to our entire population.

The importance of flattening the curve has been emphasised repeatedly by politicians and experts across the world. It is important that the spread of Covid-19 is slowed down as much as possible to allow our healthcare services to cope with a manageable number of serious infections.

Ref: https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/coronavirus-ireland-update-cases-goodnews-21794538

Captain_Crash

kippy wrote: »

Is that the point of the argument though........

Unless I misunderstood, the poster was refuting a point that its mainly elderly people who need to fear the virus by saying that ICU is filled with younger people. I was only pointing out that this is by design.

kippy

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Unless I misunderstood, the poster was refuting a point that its mainly elderly people who need to fear the virus by saying that ICU is filled with younger people. I was only pointing out that this is by design.

Indeed. I misread.
Apologies - by design but an example that it's not just the "elderly" that need be concerned about getting this.

November Golf

Thats me wrote: »

The importance of flattening the curve has been emphasised repeatedly by politicians and experts across the world. It is important that the spread of Covid-19 is slowed down as much as possible to allow our healthcare services to cope with a manageable number of serious infections.

That is absolutely consistent with the point I made.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

...........

Anyway it's not about being pioneers it's about not being the slowest. Almost the whole Europe was wearing masks when they were still discussing their merits. Plenty of countries are rolling out mass antigen testing and here we are still looking through the numbers and I bet they will be looking through the numbers for another month because they are so reluctant to act decisively on anything that's not 100% reliable.

R number in Ireland is going the right way ......... we were quick to go to L3 and then to L5, too quick for level 5 IMO but Tony was incessant and the government folded to the pressure as if L3 didn't work they'd have been fncked.

SB71

was there not another poll created , i think it would tell a completely different story.

topper75

Xtrail14 wrote: »

Tony is Brilliant. 5 star stuff.

When was he at his best - when he said facemasks not needed or when he demanded mandatory facemasks?

Was it when he sent the kids home or allowed the schools to open?

So many twists and turns. Hard to choose.

Thats me

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

That is absolutely consistent with the point I made.

OK, looks like we are on same page.

What the "manageable number of serious infections" stads for it is doctor do not need to take difficult decision to provide bed in ICU to "an 89 year near end of life is bad enough to require ICU" or to yonger someone who has better chances to survive (see "triage").

Since i saw no evidence Ireland didn't reach that point i'd guess Captain_Crash has published product of his imagination and mortality in elderly people caused no by they are not allowed to ICU because of their age (i would see not providing ICU places to elderly while ISUs are availavble is quite strong accusal to HS).

Captain_Crash

Thats me wrote: »

OK, looks like we are on same page.

What the "manageable number of serious infections" stads for it is doctor do not need to take difficult decision to provide bed in ICU to "an 89 year near end of life is bad enough to require ICU" or to yonger someone who has better chances to survive (see "triage").

Since i saw no evidence Ireland didn't reach that point i'd guess Captain_Crash has published product of his imagination and mortality in elderly people caused no by they are not allowed to ICU because of their age (i would see not providing ICU places to elderly while ISUs are availavble is quite strong accusal to HS).

Dude!! Are you able to type coherently? or is English just not your first language? I haven't the foggiest what it is your trying to say?!?!

CountNjord

Captain_Crash wrote: »

They tend to only send people with a chance of surviving to ICU and doctors have to make that choice. As sad as it sounds, if an 89 year near end of life is bad enough to require ICU, they likely wont survive anyway and wont get sent.

That's really sad though for someone of that age to feel disgarded or be looked upon like that.

I know 89 year Olds who love life and are still active, they have friends and family who love them and have a personal attachment to that person's life,love and wisdom.

Sadly there are people in this world who'll say if I was their age I'd die off and to hell with it.

As I'm heading towards 50 I'm learning more about empathy and compassion, one person's compassion is their own .

But I do think that people who are willing to disguard a life for the sake of it have a lot of growing up to do.

I was once one of those people who was materialistic and lacking compassion and had it disguised as compassion to cover up my lack of consideration for others...

Having a narrow mind only lead's to somewhere else...

Yeah imagine being in my 80's and loving life and some person saying a feck it he's lived long enough...let him go...

So sad

Captain_Crash

CountNjord wrote: »

That's really sad though for someone of that age to feel disgarded or be looked upon like that

I couldn't agree more, its incredibly sad, but its the reality of life. People will preach about protecting people from covid but get very defensive and even aggressive when any adult discussion comes up regarding the difficult decisions doctors have to make at times.

If a person is seriously ill, covid or not, they will only be sent to ICU if they have a relatively good chance of survival. That's just life in a hospital and its why I know with all the good will in the world I wouldn't be able to do the job of all the fantastic health care works we have in this country. Many of whom have to make decisions that the rest of us pretend don't get made.

CountNjord

CountNjord wrote: »

I was once one of those people who was materialistic and lacking compassion and had it disguised as compassion to cover up my lack of consideration for others...

Having a narrow mind only lead's to somewhere else...

Yeah imagine being in my 80's and loving life and some person saying a feck it he's lived long enough...let him go...

So sad

Nothing to do with a lack of empathy. Let's say you have a donor liver. One patient is 89 and has multiple underlying conditions, the other is a 40 year old woman with 3 young children, who most likely has decades ahead of her. Who do you give the liver to? These kind of decisions are made every day in healthcare. In fact the lack of any sort of acknowledgement of this in the whole discussion around COVID is extremely worrying. There are only limited resources - saving every 80 and 90 year old with COVID means someone else doesn't get treatment in time or not at all. And BTW we aren't saving them all in any event - many of them never even see the hospital, never mind the ICU - because they might have a 5% chance of survival for example.

Our current policy isn't without medical costs either. And by the way I'm nearly 50 myself with an 84 year old mother I love dearly and not in the least materialistic.
I understand where you are coming from - I really do - but it's not a realistic position.

I would hope NPHET factor these things into their models, but I've never heard it mentioned even once.

CountNjord

CountNjord wrote: »

....................

I know 89 year Olds who love life and are still active, they have friends and family who love them and have a personal attachment to that person's life,love and wisdom.

Sadly there are people in this world who'll say if I was their age I'd die off and to hell with it.

As I'm heading towards 50 I'm learning more about empathy and compassion, one person's compassion is their own .

But I do think that people who are willing to disguard a life for the sake of it have a lot of growing up to do.............

The folk b1tching and moaning about restrictions have sweet fnck all regard for the elderly or for folk who are immunocompromised. With restrictions we can have a low level of Covid19 in the community and most folk can have some element of normality.

L2/L3 is the best we can hope for I reckon ........ current L5 isn't really a benefit considering the disadvantages it brings......... but folk wanting no restrictions at all and claiming vulnerable folk should isolate totally are selfish cnuts IMO

zerosugarbuzz

CountNjord wrote: »

That's really sad though for someone of that age to feel disgarded or be looked upon like that.

I know 89 year Olds who love life and are still active, they have friends and family who love them and have a personal attachment to that person's life,love and wisdom.

Sadly there are people in this world who'll say if I was their age I'd die off and to hell with it.

As I'm heading towards 50 I'm learning more about empathy and compassion, one person's compassion is their own .

But I do think that people who are willing to disguard a life for the sake of it have a lot of growing up to do.

I was once one of those people who was materialistic and lacking compassion and had it disguised as compassion to cover up my lack of consideration for others...

Having a narrow mind only lead's to somewhere else...

Yeah imagine being in my 80's and loving life and some person saying a feck it he's lived long enough...let him go...

So sad

Its sad that people have to die but it is an inevitable fact. My parents dies at 65 and 71, they loved life too. Its not in our hands to keep people alive forever, I'm lost as to what your point is other than sentimentality. It would seem you want businesses to stay closed and young people to stay in so people in their late 80's live longer, the two things are not even related.

Thats me

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to do with a lack of empathy. Let's say you have a donor liver. One patient is 89 and has multiple underlying conditions, the other is a 40 year old woman with 3 young children, who most likely has decades ahead of her. Who do you give the liver to? These kind of decisions are made every day in healthcare.

It is if you have three patients and one liver. Not applicable in the case if you have free ICU beds and some patient requiring it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to do with a lack of empathy. Let's say you have a donor liver. One patient is 89 and has multiple underlying conditions, the other is a 40 year old woman with 3 young children, who most likely has decades ahead of her. Who do you give the liver to? These kind of decisions are made every day in healthcare. In fact the lack of any sort of acknowledgement of this in the whole discussion around COVID is extremely worrying. There are only limited resources - saving every 80 and 90 year old with COVID means someone else doesn't get treatment in time or not at all.

Our current policy isn't without medical costs either. And by the way I'm nearly 50 myself with an 84 year old mother I love dearly and not in the least materialistic.
I understand where you are coming from - I really do - but it's not a realistic position.

The lack of empathy is more the bag of cans and outdoor drinkers who'd happily see the pubs open and let levels of Covid rip through the population without restriction.

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to do with a lack of empathy. Let's say you have a donor liver. One patient is 89 and has multiple underlying conditions, the other is a 40 year old woman with 3 young children, who most likely has decades ahead of her. Who do you give the liver to? These kind of decisions are made every day in healthcare. In fact the lack of any sort of acknowledgement of this in the whole discussion around COVID is extremely worrying. There are only limited resources - saving every 80 and 90 year old with COVID means someone else doesn't get treatment in time or not at all. And BTW we aren't saving them in any event - many of them never even see the hospital, never mind the ICU.

Our current policy isn't without medical costs either. And by the way I'm nearly 50 myself with an 84 year old mother I love dearly and not in the least materialistic.
I understand where you are coming from - I really do - but it's not a realistic position.

I would hope NPHET factor these things into their models, but I've never heard it mentioned even once.

It's not a realistic position to believe that a public health group don't factor in public health into their advice.

There was a figure earlier on outlining the general age profile of ICU admittances and indeed hospital admittances. These are the figures that impact on overall public health.

Thats me

Thats me wrote: »

It is if you have three patients and one liver. Not applicable in the case if you have free ICU beds and some patient requiring it.

Someone could be in an ICU bed for weeks - what happens if someone who has a really good chance of survival needs it and it is taken up by a dementia patient who will very likely die?

kippy

kippy wrote: »

It's not a realistic position to believe that a public health group don't factor in public health into their advice.

There was a figure earlier on outlining the general age profile of ICU admittances and indeed hospital admittances. These are the figures that impact on overall public health.

I would be very concerned that people who need treatment are not getting it due to fear of getting COVID. The hospital numbers are far too low for the time of the year we are in. These health issues haven't disappeared. People are just not going to hospital with them. I mean, would everyone here go to hospital with a mild chest pain, or maybe wait, while they wouldn't before? I would, but I suspect I'm in the minority.

Thats me

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone could be in an ICU bed for weeks - what happens if someone who has a really good chance of survival needs it and it is taken up by a dementia patient who will very likely die?

Would not that another patient placed into another ICU bed?

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone could be in an ICU bed for weeks - what happens if someone who has a really good chance of survival needs it and it is taken up by a dementia patient who will very likely die?

........so the aim is to keep ICU and general hospital beds and associated infrastructure for those that need them.
What happens if someone who has a really good chance of survival is in ICU bed for weeks but someone else has a really good chance of survival if given the right intervention in ICU?
What happens in that instance? Because this is what happens if an when the numbers get to a critical point.

Come on, this has been the point since March - do you not see it?

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

I would be very concerned that people who need treatment are not getting it due to fear of getting COVID. The hospital numbers are far too low for the time of the year we are in. These health issues haven't disappeared. People are just not going to hospital with them. I mean, would everyone here go to hospital with a mild chest pain, or maybe wait, while they wouldn't before? I would, but I suspect I'm in the minority.

Whatever about this happening back in March/April, I do think people are attending hospital.
I've heard of a number of surgerys, elective and otherwise, being held in the past few weeks and plenty people going to appointments. Granted I know in hospitals where major staff numbers have been out due to covid and close contacts this may have been scaled back, which is another reason to do as much as possible to try to lower the numbers with Covid in the community.

And to be frank about it, if any group are more afraid to go to hospital with chest pains or the like, its probably the more elderly amongst us who are being told by a lot here to stay at home and isolate while the "rest of us" carry on as normal.