Covid 19 Part XXIII-33,444 in ROI(1,792 deaths) 9,541 in NI(577 deaths)(22/09)Read OP

khalessi

Dionaibh wrote: »

Is it untrue to say that it's not dangerous for 99.9% of people?

About four in ten adults (37.6%) ages 18 and older in the U.S. (92.6 million people) have a higher risk of developing serious illness if they become infected with coronavirus, due to their older age (65 and older) or health condition

Just over half of those at higher risk of developing a serious illness are ages 65 and older (55.2% or 51.1 million adults); however, the remaining 41.4 million adults ages 18-64 are at risk due to an underlying medical condition.
The share of adults ages 18 and older who have a higher risk of developing a more serious illness varies across the country, ranging from 49.3 percent (West Virginia) to 30 percent (Utah).
In some of the states with the highest number of reported coronavirus cases thus far, the share of adults at high risk of serious illness if infected is relatively high: Louisiana and Florida (at 42.1 percent, each) and Michigan (41.2 percent).
An estimated 5.1 million

But sure be grand.

drunkmonkey

is_that_so wrote: »

He's the other end of it but also an ego-driven opinion. No I didn't watch, I really don't do people giving media opinions on things they just can't show to be true largely because they want to be right. We've far far too many of them. Now if there is something written or researched that can be applied in the real world I'm all ears.

I give up as when we present real word scientific data and studies here there dismissed as conspiracy theories, you've already concluded Dr Mike Yeadon and Dr Carl Heneghan are speaking out just to nurse their ego, there's absolutely no point continuing when you believe that's their intentions.

DangerScouse

Dionaibh wrote: »

But why no dark place for other illnesses that are far more dangerous than Covid? Why no dark place for cancer, for example? Why the focus on Covid only?

I can catch cancer now by being in a crowded room?

Dionaibh

Dionaibh wrote: »

Is it untrue to say that it's not dangerous for 99.9% of people?

Yes. Given almost 0.17% of the total population of New York State have died from Covid and an estimated 80% of the population of the state have not had the virus as yet, it’s pretty obvious what you say is untrue. And dangerous does not just mean fatal.

stockshares

stockshares wrote: »

Conor Brophy, formerly of RTE is with TENEO also.

They have links to Denis O Brien and the Clinton's. Teneo were involved in controversy when one of Hilary Clinton's top advisors was also found to be working for Teneo at the same time.

They took over Dublin PR firm PSG in 2016.

Article on teneo below
https://www.thejournal.ie/teneo-psg-declan-kelly-clinton-2-2884288-Jul2016/

Quote from article
Irishman Kelly said that the acquisition strengthens the company’s capabilities “in Ireland and across Europe”.
“Ireland is a critical market for many multinational corporations today and a great place to invest in the current, volatile post-Brexit environment,” he said.

Where do Bill Gates and Soros come in?

is_that_so

IHaveTheFlag wrote: »

You know its ego driven but yet you haven't watched it. Where can I learn how to discover the content of something without even watching it?

I've heard Heneghan talk and read stuff from him; he's never been a shrinking violet, so forewarned. I generally don't listen to a lot of them anyway as I find they just want to be right. Amused that you imagine my ignorance is compounded by indifference to engaging with "content". Is that really what science is now?

is_that_so

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I give up as when we present real word scientific data and studies here there dismissed as conspiracy theories, you've already concluded Dr Mike Yeadon and Dr Carl Heneghan are speaking out just to nurse their ego, there's absolutely no point continuing when you believe that's their intentions.

You have presented a bloke talking on radio about studies. Where ere these studies and what actual studies have they done themselves?

jackboy

DubInMeath wrote: »

The same could be said for alcohol and eating meat, but I don't think most of the people calling the restrictions we had here for covid useless etc are going to be calling for alcohol and meat to be banned.

Meat and alcohol are low risk when consumed in moderate quantities. It is the huge proportion of our population gorging themselves on mountains of junk that are the issue.

These people are putting massive pressure on the health system and are making the pandemic much worse as they are more susceptible to Covid.

pconn062

Here is a real world example of what's happening today that is affecting spread.

I play in a wedding band and we we're booked to play a wedding last night. It was originally supposed to be in a hotel but due to the uncertainty surrounding indoor gatherings the couple decided to have a marquee wedding instead at their house.

Our manager enquired about how many people were due to attend a few days before the event and was told 50 guests total. When we arrived at the event there were at least 120 people crammed into a marquee. No masks, no social distancing, no regulation, no control. We were very annoyed at the situation, but what can you do with you're there? We wore masks throughout mostly as did the catering staff but it was literally a hotbed for infection if even one person there was carrying the virus.

So that might give an indication as to why cases are rising. There is no doubt events like this are happening all over the country and there is a percentage of people who just either aren't concerned or don't care about the potential spread of the virus.

drunkmonkey

is_that_so wrote: »

You have presented a bloke talking on radio about studies. Where ere these studies and what actual studies have they done themselves?

It's just some random bloke now, your some boy'o:D

stephenjmcd

"The Government’s plan to be published next week is expected to see the entire State placed on Level 2 status, the second most benign of the five levels. This is despite current case high levels in Dublin warranting Level 3 at least.

Government sources said Dublin was likely to be included with all other counties on Level 2, with some text to acknowledge higher levels of the virus in the capital."


On sports grounds NPHET wanted 50 fans, government expected to go with several hundred.

"At Level 2 status, sports grounds would allow no more than 50 supporters, according to NPHET advice to the Cabinet. However, Ministers at the Cabinet sub-committee on Thursday expressed strong disagreement at those low numbers and the plan is expected to increase the numbers allowed under each level significantly, to several hundred under Level 2.

The Government is also considering allowing larger attendance, up to 5,000 at large stadia, but numbers have not been finalised."


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-s-covid-plan-will-see-five-levels-billions-spent-on-health-public-pay-hikes-unlikely-1.4352914?mode=amp

khalessi

stephenjmcd wrote: »

"The Government’s plan to be published next week is expected to see the entire State placed on Level 2 status, the second most benign of the five levels. This is despite current case high levels in Dublin warranting Level 3 at least.

Government sources said Dublin was likely to be included with all other counties on Level 2, with some text to acknowledge higher levels of the virus in the capital."


On sports grounds NPHET wanted 50 fans, government expected to go with several hundred.

"At Level 2 status, sports grounds would allow no more than 50 supporters, according to NPHET advice to the Cabinet. However, Ministers at the Cabinet sub-committee on Thursday expressed strong disagreement at those low numbers and the plan is expected to increase the numbers allowed under each level significantly, to several hundred under Level 2.

The Government is also considering allowing larger attendance, up to 5,000 at large stadia, but numbers have not been finalised."


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-s-covid-plan-will-see-five-levels-billions-spent-on-health-public-pay-hikes-unlikely-1.4352914?mode=amp

Which level would allow the TDs return to Dail buildings?

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's just some random bloke now, your some boy'o:D

Well that’s about the lamest Qanon style meme yet. They just don’t get it. It’s not taking action over an issue that’s the issue with the conspiracy nuts, it’s the made up narratives and intellectual dishonesty that’s feeds their actions that’s the cause of their deserved ridicule

drunkmonkey

stephenjmcd wrote: »

"The Government’s plan to be published next week is expected to see the entire State placed on Level 2 status, the second most benign of the five levels. This is despite current case high levels in Dublin warranting Level 3 at least.

Government sources said Dublin was likely to be included with all other counties on Level 2, with some text to acknowledge higher levels of the virus in the capital."


On sports grounds NPHET wanted 50 fans, government expected to go with several hundred.

"At Level 2 status, sports grounds would allow no more than 50 supporters, according to NPHET advice to the Cabinet. However, Ministers at the Cabinet sub-committee on Thursday expressed strong disagreement at those low numbers and the plan is expected to increase the numbers allowed under each level significantly, to several hundred under Level 2.

The Government is also considering allowing larger attendance, up to 5,000 at large stadia, but numbers have not been finalised."


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-s-covid-plan-will-see-five-levels-billions-spent-on-health-public-pay-hikes-unlikely-1.4352914?mode=amp

My major issue is there is no point in the map where were back to normal, it's just sliding scales or restrictions. They are betting the house on a vaccine by April. It's not even clear we need one at all now.

Plumbthedepths

pconn062 wrote: »

Here is a real world example of what's happening today that is affecting spread.

I play in a wedding band and we we're booked to play a wedding last night. It was originally supposed to be in a hotel but due to the uncertainty surrounding indoor gatherings the couple decided to have a marquee wedding instead at their house.

Our manager enquired about how many people were due to attend a few days before the event and was told 50 guests total. When we arrived at the event there were at least 120 people crammed into a marquee. No masks, no social distancing, no regulation, no control. We were very annoyed at the situation, but what can you do with you're there? We wore masks throughout mostly as did the catering staff but it was literally a hotbed for infection if even one person there was carrying the virus.

So that might give an indication as to why cases are rising. There is no doubt events like this are happening all over the country and there is a percentage of people who just either aren't concerned or don't care about the potential spread of the virus.

'What can you do when you're there?' It's obvious really ' LEAVE'.
I find it incredibly hypocritical of people to give out about situations they feel are unsafe yet remain.

Benimar

drunkmonkey wrote: »

My major issue is there is no point in the map where were back to normal, it's just sliding scales or restrictions. They are betting the house on a vaccine by April. It's not even clear we need one at all now.

What do you define as 'normal'? Everything opened up without any restrictions whatsoever ie: pre-March? If so, there is no chance of that happening in 6 months, bar a Vaccine.

Even the most optimistic observer knows that.

stephenjmcd

Benimar wrote: »

What do you define as 'normal'? Everything opened up without any restrictions whatsoever ie: pre-March? If so, there is no chance of that happening in 6 months, bar a Vaccine.

Even the most optimistic observer knows that.

Yeah that just doesn't happen until a vaccine

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Well that’s about the lamest Qanon style meme yet. They just don’t get it. It’s not taking action over an issue that’s the issue with the conspiracy nuts, it’s the made up narratives and intellectual dishonesty that’s feeds their actions that’s the cause of their deserved ridicule

So you believe the two doctors are being dishonest as well? There just making everything up for a few minutes of fame?
Yea were the conspiracy nuts alright..

pconn062

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

'What can you do when you're there?' It's obvious really ' LEAVE'.
I find it incredibly hypocritical of people to give out about situations they feel are unsafe yet remain.

Calm yourself chief, I wasn't giving out, merely highlighting a situation we found ourselves in. Plus when you've been out of work for 4 months it's not as simple as saying leave when you depend on the money. Both of my businesses require the virus to remain stable to avoid any even temporary closures or lockdowns so my concern is more economical more than anything else, which I think I've seen your talk about here for months no? The economic implications. And I'm highlighting a situation which has the potential to increase cases, thus potentially affecting my own and everyone else's economic situation.

Plumbthedepths

pconn062 wrote: »

Calm yourself chief, I wasn't giving out, merely highlighting a situation we found ourselves in. Plus when you've been out of work for 4 months it's not as simple as saying leave when you depend on the money. Both of my businesses require the virus to remain stable to avoid any even temporary closures or lockdowns so my concern is more economical more than anything else, which I think I've seen your talk about here for months no? The economic implications. And I'm highlighting a situation which has the potential to increase cases, thus potentially affecting my own and everyone else's economic situation.

I'm very calm, if you don't see the hypocrisy in your post that's on you.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So you believe the two doctors are being dishonest as well? There just making everything up for a few minutes of fame?
Yea were the conspiracy nuts alright..

2 doctors vs HSE, ECDC, CDC, WHO, etc. etc. etc. etc. Would be brilliant if they were proven right in the long term, however the risks of taking what essentially is polemic based on the observations of a couple of individuals, rather than research and consensus of the broader medical community, as the basis for public health policy is extreme folly.

drunkmonkey

Benimar wrote: »

What do you define as 'normal'? Everything opened up without any restrictions whatsoever ie: pre-March? If so, there is no chance of that happening in 6 months, bar a Vaccine.

Even the most optimistic observer knows that.

There's only one normal, give it a couple of weeks after the pubs open. If this second wave doesn't materialise it's over. I believe we might be in for a speed bump but it's only going one direction. If people want to restrict themselves they'll be encouraged to do so but for the vast majority life will be as we knew it at the start of the year.
The Optimists are saying open up, shield the vunrable.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

2 doctors vs HSE, ECDC, CDC, WHO, etc. etc. etc. etc. Would be brilliant if they were proven right in the long term, however the risks of taking what essentially is polemic based on the observations of a couple of individuals, rather than research and consensus of the broader medical community, as the basis for public health policy is extreme folly.

It's not observations, stop trying to brush them off as cranks it's making your look silly when you say something like that about a professor in fact based medicine.

khalessi

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's only one normal, give it a couple of weeks after the pubs open. If this second wave doesn't materialise it's over. I believe we might be in for a speed bump but it's only going one direction. If people want to restrict themselves they'll be encouraged to do so but for the vast majority life will be as we knew it at the start of the year.
The Optimists are saying open up, shield the vunrable.

Who would the vunerable be?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

2 doctors vs HSE, ECDC, CDC, WHO, etc. etc. etc. etc. Would be brilliant if they were proven right in the long term, however the risks of taking what essentially is polemic based on the observations of a couple of individuals, rather than research and consensus of the broader medical community, as the basis for public health policy is extreme folly.

you're argument based on ESTABLISHED bodies is exactly why the FDA have the USA sewn up... there's hundreds of instances in history where the Many heads of state were shown to ignore real science in the interest of power and agenda.
It's a sad reflection of democracy and media when these doctors are reduced to asking the right questions of ****iing utube!

Thierry12

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes. Given almost 0.17% of the total population of New York State have died from Covid and an estimated 80% of the population of the state have not had the virus as yet, it’s pretty obvious what you say is untrue. And dangerous does not just mean fatal.

99% survival rate across all ages and 1% IFR seems right alright

Age range is important

99.9% and 0.1% IFR if your 20 and 80/20% if your 80

drunkmonkey

pconn062 wrote: »

Calm yourself chief, I wasn't giving out, merely highlighting a situation we found ourselves in. Plus when you've been out of work for 4 months it's not as simple as saying leave when you depend on the money. Both of my businesses require the virus to remain stable to avoid any even temporary closures or lockdowns so my concern is more economical more than anything else, which I think I've seen your talk about here for months no? The economic implications. And I'm highlighting a situation which has the potential to increase cases, thus potentially affecting my own and everyone else's economic situation.

If I was to put my business hat on I'd be looking to keep restrictions for as long as possible, I'd implement 20km travel restrictions, outlaw people retuning to the office that kind of thing as I'm pretty happy with how business has changed, it's been a good year besides the couple of months we had to close.
Anyone I'm talking to in similar businesses are saying the same thing, lock it down, keep them local.
It's not the world I want to bring my kids up in though.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not observations, stop trying to brush them off as cranks it's making your look silly when you say something like that about a professor in fact based medicine.

They are the only professors in fact based medicine worth listening to?

rusty cole

rusty cole wrote: »

you're argument based on ESTABLISHED bodies is exactly why the FDA have the USA sewn up... there's hundreds of instances in history where the Many heads of state were shown to ignore real science in the interest of power and agenda.
It's a sad reflection of democracy and media when these doctors are reduced to asking the right questions of ****iing utube!

What about the rest of the doctors?

KrustyUCC

Revealed: Strict limits on visitors to family homes will stretch to next year, regardless of Covid-19 infection rate

Five-level plan for living with the virus will remain in place until April

The Irish Independent can reveal that even in the best-case scenario, no more than 10 people from three households will be allowed to visit a family home.

https://m.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/revealed-strict-limits-on-visitors-to-family-homes-will-stretch-to-next-year-regardless-of-covid-19-infection-rate-39524772.html

That's going to be great fun around Christmas time