Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

Don't Chute!

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

Look I am sorry for anyone who cannot call home to see parents etc but this is an unpredicted situation and its unfortunate that even as things stand and in particular with Sweden's insane policies for dealing with the virus it could be a long time before anyone will be allowed to travel there as thing stand.

To answer your questions above, it would take as long as it takes until we have a vaccine. Could be 6 months could be 2 years. I would also add that there would be allowances in my plan for going abroad for reasons such as a dying relative, a funeral etc but with monitored quarantine and testing on return. As the system was streamlined it could be considered to start allowing people from abroad to visit home for just seeing family especially if it looked to be going on for a long time. (but they would have to agree to monitored quarantine in a facility not at home, and only released after a number of clear tests across a time period long enough to ensure the virus would be detected if it the person picked it up).

Ah so she only has to wait until one of her parents dies to go over? Right, right, I hear you. Don’t know how she’s gonna take that but I’ll run it past her anyhow.
I know you’re only in the early stages of developing your plan so I’m just trying to give you some feedback you know? I’m sure you understand, you have a “PHD” after all.

Stormyteacup

hmmm wrote: »

As you said yourself, the UK very quickly backed out of that plan once they realised it wouldn't work with this virus.

The UK plan currently is localised lockdowns to see them through to a vaccine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-54375643

Countries shied away from herd immunity at the start because of indications of massive death toll and not having enough data to identify risk groups.

CFR has been greatly revised down, and risk groups have been identified.

A vaccine is an important part of a herd protection strategy and if one comes along that is effective enough and safe enough, and uptake is high enough - then all the better.

But in the short term low risk groups should be living with less restrictions to begin to build herd protection (imo this is why schools will be kept open at all costs, but more movement of low risk groups is needed).

The hospitals are in the same sorry state that they are in every year, Covid is not particularly adding to the usual strain in hospitals (obviously it’s despicable how under resourced they are).

Stormyteacup

There’s evidence to strongly support that subjecting human beings to prolonged stress puts them at greater risk of contracting viruses.

From this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7345443/


‘Importantly, we found that chronic stressful events were associated with overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines and, in turn, with greater risk of illness and greater symptom scores. There is also evidence that increased cytokine levels correlate with disease severity of COVID-19 (Huang et al., 2020) and that continuous high levels are associated with disease deterioration and fatal outcomes.‘

There are other studies that can be found linking stress levels and mental health issues (poor sleep, unhealthy eating habits etc.) to increased risk of infections.

Creating mass unemployment and destroying industries at the level we have done for the past seven months will have catastrophic consequences on the health of this country.

It’s an easy battle-cry for the selfish privileged, with their heads firmly in the sand for anything past Christmas dinner 2020.

hmmm

Stormyteacup wrote: »

But in the short term low risk groups should be living with less restrictions to begin to build herd protection (imo this is why schools will be kept open at all costs, but more movement of low risk groups is needed).

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but some caveats.

We do know approximately who are the risk groups, and it's a huge group. In the US I saw an estimate that 50% of the population would be considered "at risk". We can't simply isolate everyone who has a risk factor, it's too big - and will need to include their families and anyone else they come into contact with.

The proposal to let it burn through "low risk" groups ignores the completely unknown long-term risk of the virus (and that "at risk" means "at risk of death" only), and the risks of long-covid which is affecting all age groups. From an economic point of view alone, the after-effects of this virus look like they will be substantial:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54449145

"People with "long Covid" symptoms will be offered specialist help at clinics across England, the head of NHS England has announced.

Sir Simon Stevens said there were "tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands" of patients affected."

faceman

Stormyteacup wrote: »

There’s evidence to strongly support that subjecting human beings to prolonged stress puts them at greater risk of contracting viruses.

From this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7345443/


‘Importantly, we found that chronic stressful events were associated with overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines and, in turn, with greater risk of illness and greater symptom scores. There is also evidence that increased cytokine levels correlate with disease severity of COVID-19 (Huang et al., 2020) and that continuous high levels are associated with disease deterioration and fatal outcomes.‘

There are other studies that can be found linking stress levels and mental health issues (poor sleep, unhealthy eating habits etc.) to increased risk of infections.

Creating mass unemployment and destroying industries at the level we have done for the past seven months will have catastrophic consequences on the health of this country.

It’s an easy battle-cry for the selfish privileged, with their heads firmly in the sand for anything past Christmas dinner 2020.

I could show you studies that show the opposite.

Did you know that our 2 neurological hospitals in Ireland saw less stroke patients than normal during lockdown? They reached out to their counterparts in other countries and saw similar trends. While people can shy away from going to hospitals for all sorts of ailments, you cant avoid hospital when you have a stroke.

It baffled Irish and international doctors alike. I dont have the story from the Irish media to hand but Im sure if you google it you will find it.

This is just one example.

While stress levels have undoubtedly increased for some you also can’t ignore the large numbers of people who have decreased stress levels and healthier lives due to WFH etc. This also has to be considered when talking about stress etc.

topper75

hmmm wrote: »

We're told it will take several months to manufacture and roll out completely (the UK is predicting about 10 months, the US a bit less), but we should know whether we have a working vaccine hopefully any time between end of October and year end - all depending on the trials and the numbers of people who get infected.

There are several promising vaccines nearing the end of testing - Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford, and J&J a small bit behind them. The Chinese have several in phase 3 already, with some being given to their military. At this stage I wouldn't describe the chances of a vaccine as "remote".

Pfizer & Oxford have already asked regulators to start reviewing trial data, which will shave another couple of months off the normal timeline.

When you say 'promising' - do you mean in terms of efficacy or in terms of safety?

Because much of the vaccine chat here and elsewhere seems to get really excited about the first and utterly ignore the second.

Consider a scenario where merely 1 in 1000 get an adverse effect. Multiplying that out over a large number of people would yield millions and millions of messed lives for people who were otherwise healthy. No authority will pass that kind of thing.

3xh

hmmm wrote: »

If I remember correctly the UK's original plan had to be rapidly updated with new assumptions based on what they were seeing happening in Lombardy/Italy. Once they plugged in the new figures based on the experience in Italy they realised that hospitals would be over-run. Before that they were looking for population immunity through "natural" infections as I believe they had used a massive number for hidden asymptomatic infections which turned out to be over-optimistic.

And yet every other country went straight for lockdown (except Sweden, obviously) based on the same info they were seeing/getting as the U.K.
Some experts.

And if I remember correctly myself, it was actually at most 7 days from their herd immunity plan to lockdown.

So you’d agree immunity through natural infections is a known and accepted course of action by epidemiology experts. The question is how correct are the models used. How correct is the input info.

There’s obviously something different now with this virus compared to March as if we’re experiencing similar per-day infections but on-the-floor deaths why are we following the same path of near and effectively total lockdown.

‘Hospital capacity’ isn’t a reason. It’s a cop out. People wait on square chairs in an A&E corridor to be admitted, each winter.

The Rnumber is similar, currently
(1.2-1.4 apparently). Cases similar. Hospitalisations increasing but at a dissimilar rate.

It’s clear there’s no such thing as experts in this game. Just consensus depending how good one’s argument is for lockdown or not.

Waiting on a vaccine while everything else falls down around us says, to me, one of two things;

You’re (not you specifically) either an employee of pharma and/or hold shares in pharma companies.

Or

You’re not willing to see other data inputs regarding the futile nature of ‘waiting’ on a vaccine that may or may not come (I admit it’s more likely than not but it’s the future date that no one knows) and if it does come, how effective is it and what % of the population take it.

hmmm

topper75 wrote: »

When you say 'promising' - do you mean in terms of efficacy or in terms of safety?

Because much of the vaccine chat here and elsewhere seems to get really excited about the first and utterly ignore the second.

Consider a scenario where merely 1 in 1000 get an adverse effect. Multiplying that out over a large number of people would yield millions and millions of messed lives for people who were otherwise healthy. No authority will pass that kind of thing.

The smallest phase 3 trial is 30,000 people - J&J are testing 60,000. There is no way a vaccine which causes significant adverse effects in 1 in a 1000 will be authorised. The Oxford trial was shut down twice while they investigated single incidents.

What we will have to expect (for any vaccine) is some mixture of low-fever, tiredness, sore arms etc. That's the natural immune response kicking in and the vaccine doing its job.

The experts are hinting that what we will probably happen is that first batches of vaccines will be authorised for use in high-risk groups, where the risk from the virus outweighs the risk of a new vaccine (e.g. nursing homes, ICU staff). All the while that is happening, the Regulators will be gathering data on any adverse effects. By the time it reaches the population who are not at risk, it will probably be close to a year after the first vaccinations.

ArthurDayne

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

Because we need to get this virus under control and due a minority but a large minority who simply cannot abide by the restrictions and guidelines when we are relatively open then we have to lock down instead.

Just look at the insanity being posted here: “open up the country (absolute lunacy to even suggest this”, “herd immunity (the sign of a total looper)”, “it’s only old people who die (aside from being incorrect it’s just a sh1t way to treat older people)” and so on.

If we have any hope of getting the virus under control we need a total lockdown again as we did in March, though it could be improved by closing ports and airports too.

Lamenting the fact that not all people will abide by the restrictions is like lamenting the fact that 1+1=2. Human beings are literally biologically wired to want to socialise — with studies showing that socialising triggers the stimulation of dopamine in the brain. It is a natural evolutionary function that propels us to seek safety in groups and to propagate our species.

So, when you introduce restrictions to inhibit this fundamental element of human nature, two things are clear: (1) there is a high likelihood of poor compliance due to basic human nature — most particularly among those who don’t have life partners and families (e.g. most young people) and (2) widespread buy-in has to be carefully managed, particularly if required over a long period. Adding to this is the fact, whatever way you want to dress it up, that this virus is not a severe threat to the vast majority to the population — so it‘s difficult to engender the human instinct for self-preservation for people who are not overly threatened by the virus.

So lament it all you want, lament the fact that people are not complying with the suppression of their instincts for months on end. You may as well dress up as King Canute and stand on the beach lamenting the inexorable coming of the tide. The fact is, suppression of human nature requires both a sound rationale and an understanding of the end goal. The end goal of lockdown appears to be nothing more than “lock down only to re-open and then lock down again”. That is a different tale to the one which was told in March — the rationale for flattening the curve was to enable the ramping up of healthcare capacity.

That was a clear rationale, with a clear end goal, and therefore people by and large bought in. Unfortunately it was accompanied by a dishonest narrative which has been spun for months by media, politicians and people like yourself in our communities — a narrative that lockdowns and stringent restrictions are the ethical pathway and all naysayers are therefore, invariably, unethical people. And now we are all trapped because of that narrative, stuck in an endless loop of trying to prevent the deaths of mainly elderly people at the expense of absolutely every other form of vulnerability in our society. It’s ethics with blinkers — and is leading us further and further into long term societal damage.

3xh

3xh wrote: »

There’s obviously something different now with this virus compared to March as if we’re experiencing similar per-day infections but on-the-floor deaths why are we following the same path of near and effectively total lockdown. .

The only difference is that luckily at the moment the people getting infected are not those at most risk, sooner or later that will swing and we could see scary death tolls again.

Also this ignited long covid which could see a lot of health issues even health young people who had mild covid but could suffer long term.

3xh

faceman wrote: »

I could show you studies that show the opposite.

Did you know that our 2 neurological hospitals in Ireland saw less stroke patients than normal during lockdown? They reached out to their counterparts in other countries and saw similar trends. While people can shy away from going to hospitals for all sorts of ailments, you cant avoid hospital when you have a stroke.

It baffled Irish and international doctors alike. I dont have the story from the Irish media to hand but Im sure if you google it you will find it.

This is just one example.

Very interesting, Faceman.

I’d be interested to discover who the previous patients were in those 2 hospitals and the ones abroad.

As in, could they have generally been old people in care homes who perhaps died before getting the stroke they would’ve got in time?

Or are the doctors suggesting in a normal year they’d see many 30-60 yr olds presenting with stroke symptoms/damage but for whatever reason that just stopped since March.

Jorge Limited Maze

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

I have explained multiple time’s in multiple posts.

You lockdown until the virus is zero cases then you open up everything inside the county but essentially ban inward foreign travel by closing ports/airports and using the army to stop cross border trips.

Alternatively you get an all-Ireland agreement to close the island. I’ve said this and least 5 times in this thread alone and I won’t be doing it again.

As we import and export fook loads of stuff and therefore drivers etc will be entering and leaving the country it's a total non runner to try and keep the virus out.

3xh

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

Also this ignited long covid which could see a lot of health issues even health young people who had mild covid but could suffer long term.

Off hand, I only ever hear of and see long Covid on the likes of RTE radio and TV programming. Plus the odd story on Independent.ie.

I’d love to hear and read more about the multiple survivors of Covid who have zero damage to them. Look at Trump. Old, overweight (albeit, yes, with no expense spared medical provisions) but I doubt any of our public medical care would worsen one’s Covid effects. You agree with that?

Any of these young, healthy GAA players we hear about are outliers. My cynical mind would have me ask what other undiagnosed ailments could they have had that worsened any supposed long term effects they may have now. Does their years of energy drink intake do anything in conjunction with their long Covid. Past drug use maybe?

That goes for any claimed long term sufferer we hear about, not just GAA players.

It’s too tabloid-esque to latch onto these ‘healthy person suffers from long Covid’ stories.

topper75

Yeah it is rather suspicious when blatant outliers are promoted as 'the story'.

ShyMets

Augeo wrote: »

As we import and export fook loads of stuff and therefore drivers etc will be entering and leaving the country it's a total non runner to try and keep the virus out.

I've already explained to the poster why we can't seal the boarder. But they don't seem to get it or want to get it

bucketybuck

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Just so I know, how long do your closed border policies last for? I just want to tell all of those people what to expect. 1 year? 2? 3? More?

Another reminder that an isolated country with none of these border issues tried for zero covid but still has not been able to achieve it.

So since the aim is zero covid and since the policies would not work, the answer to how long they would last is that they would be permanent. Uselessly permanent but permanent all the same.

It is amazing that this even needs to be said.

agoodpunt

many people call for lock down are being selfish especially when it dosent effect them

dalyboy

hmmm wrote: »

Herd immunity will only come with a vaccine. There is no "natural herd immunity" route out of Covid without mass suffering and death, and if those infections are dragged out over a long time we are likely to see reinfections.

So stop trying to spread fake news and disinformation about vaccines, unless you want this pandemic to last longer than it has to.

Suffering and death is the exact thing that a targeted protection herd immunity strategy will protect from happening.

There is ZERO evidence of reinfections other then examples of people who still have fragments of covid still showing from their FIRST infection (can show up 78 plus days after 1st infection)

Stop the fake news yourself

Stormyteacup

faceman wrote: »

I could show you studies that show the opposite.

Did you know that our 2 neurological hospitals in Ireland saw less stroke patients than normal during lockdown? They reached out to their counterparts in other countries and saw similar trends. While people can shy away from going to hospitals for all sorts of ailments, you cant avoid hospital when you have a stroke.

It baffled Irish and international doctors alike. I dont have the story from the Irish media to hand but Im sure if you google it you will find it.

This is just one example.

Undoubtedly there have been mental health benefits to reduced work commutes, more family time and time for leisure pursuits.

All of these are positive changes for the better and will hopefully endure past Covid, and should.

However this can be achieved without the damage to a large portion of society currently under mental duress, sidelined by a government that should have the interests of hard working contributors to society as their core mandate.

The point is that many those enjoying a better quality of life seem care little or nothing enough about those less fortunate. Beyond paying them passing lip-service about how terrible it is. There is such little inclination to explore any other option than increasing restrictions.

Any mention of holistic damage done by lockdowns and restrictions is minimised and even scoffed at because the effects are not as immediate and shocking as deaths and ICU numbers. And in time this will affect all of us.

Whiplash85

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Lamenting the fact that not all people will abide by the restrictions is like lamenting the fact that 1+1=2. Human beings are literally biologically wired to want to socialise — with studies showing that socialising triggers the stimulation of dopamine in the brain. It is a natural evolutionary function that propels us to seek safety in groups and to propagate our species.

So, when you introduce restrictions to inhibit this fundamental element of human nature, two things are clear: (1) there is a high likelihood of poor compliance due to basic human nature — most particularly among those who don’t have life partners and families (e.g. most young people) and (2) widespread buy-in has to be carefully managed, particularly if required over a long period. Adding to this is the fact, whatever way you want to dress it up, that this virus is not a severe threat to the vast majority to the population — so it‘s difficult to engender the human instinct for self-preservation for people who are not overly threatened by the virus.

So lament it all you want, lament the fact that people are not complying with the suppression of their instincts for months on end. You may as well dress up as King Canute and stand on the beach lamenting the inexorable coming of the tide. The fact is, suppression of human nature requires both a sound rationale and an understanding of the end goal. The end goal of lockdown appears to be nothing more than “lock down only to re-open and then lock down again”. That is a different tale to the one which was told in March — the rationale for flattening the curve was to enable the ramping up of healthcare capacity.

That was a clear rationale, with a clear end goal, and therefore people by and large bought in. Unfortunately it was accompanied by a dishonest narrative which has been spun for months by media, politicians and people like yourself in our communities — a narrative that lockdowns and stringent restrictions are the ethical pathway and all naysayers are therefore, invariably, unethical people. And now we are all trapped because of that narrative, stuck in an endless loop of trying to prevent the deaths of mainly elderly people at the expense of absolutely every other form of vulnerability in our society. It’s ethics with blinkers — and is leading us further and further into long term societal damage.

One of the best articulated posts I have read on this topic. Well done.

Augeo

Augeo wrote: »

As we import and export fook loads of stuff and therefore drivers etc will be entering and leaving the country it's a total non runner to try and keep the virus out.

This can be addressed with a testing and quarantine regime.

Stormyteacup

hmmm wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but some caveats.

We do know approximately who are the risk groups, and it's a huge group. In the US I saw an estimate that 50% of the population would be considered "at risk". We can't simply isolate everyone who has a risk factor, it's too big - and will need to include their families and anyone else they come into contact with.

The proposal to let it burn through "low risk" groups ignores the completely unknown long-term risk of the virus (and that "at risk" means "at risk of death" only), and the risks of long-covid which is affecting all age groups. From an economic point of view alone, the after-effects of this virus look like they will be substantial:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54449145

"People with "long Covid" symptoms will be offered specialist help at clinics across England, the head of NHS England has announced.

Sir Simon Stevens said there were "tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands" of patients affected."

With regards to at risk groups for hospitalisations and mortality - it is absolutely not a huge group. All data available on HSPC, which I won’t post again because many have already done so. There are very specific risk groups known and for hospitalisations and mortality risk, it’s a very small proportion of society.

Your other point is difficult to argue with at present because there is not enough information on it yet.

I would very much like to see what percentage of the recovered continue to suffer adverse effects, what are they, and to what degree do they experience it.

And how does it compare to other post-viral complications already studied?

A simple search on the Internet throws up hundreds of pages of reports of viruses currently in circulation that are harmless to some who contract them, but cause horrific effects in others - loss of limbs, neurological damage, respiratory damage.

It’s true we don’t know what we are dealing with yet with long-covid, but would you not expect by now we would have more concrete information than several sensationalised news stories and prognoses about long-covid from doctors that differ greatly?

ShyMets

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

This can be addressed with a testing and quarantine regime.

And the 300 plus boarder crossings. You mentioned rolling checkpoints. That will not work as it would leave crossings unguarded for potentially prolonged periods leaving people free to cross.

The only way to make this work is to have every crossing patrolled 24/7 and we haven't the manpower

hmmm

dalyboy wrote: »

Suffering and death is the exact thing that a targeted protection herd immunity strategy will protect from happening.

No-one has said how this is supposed to work. Lock up everyone who is at-risk, their families and everyone who has to come into contact with them? Completely unworkable and morally indefensible.

There is ZERO evidence of reinfections other then examples of people who still have fragments of covid still showing from their FIRST infection (can show up 78 plus days after 1st infection)

You probably need to do a bit more reading. There have been examples of reinfections where genome sequencing proves that the second infection is different from the first. Now whether this is uncommon, or whether there is something unique about these individuals is not possible to say yet until we have more data. The hope also is that subsequent infections will have fewer symptoms than earlier infections.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Re-infection-and-viral-shedding-threat-assessment-brief.pdf

hmmm

Stormyteacup wrote: »

With regards to at risk groups for hospitalisations and mortality - it is absolutely not a huge group. All data available on HSPC, which I won’t post again because many have already done so. There are very specific risk groups known and for hospitalisations and mortality risk, it’s a very small proportion of society.

There are 1 million people in Ireland estimated to have high blood pressure alone. This puts them in an "at risk" group for Covid.

There about 240,000 people with diabetes.

150,000 with chronic kidney disease.

240,000 with heart disease.

There are over 300,000 with asthma.

A lot of these people have no idea they even have the underlying illness and are at risk.

ShyMets

ShyMets wrote: »

And the 300 plus boarder crossings. You mentioned rolling checkpoints. That will not work as it would leave crossings unguarded for potentially prolonged periods leaving people free to cross.

The only way to make this work is to have every crossing patrolled 24/7 and we haven't the manpower

Or we get a whole island approach which eliminates this.

Also how do you see the border being patrolled if there is a brexit hard border considering that legally it will have to be in that scenario.

beauf

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Lamenting the fact that not all people will abide by the restrictions is like lamenting the fact that 1+1=2. Human beings are literally biologically wired to want to socialise — with studies showing that socialising triggers the stimulation of dopamine in the brain. It is a natural evolutionary function that propels us to seek safety in groups and to propagate our species.

So, when you introduce restrictions to inhibit this fundamental element of human nature, two things are clear: (1) there is a high likelihood of poor compliance due to basic human nature — most particularly among those who don’t have life partners and families (e.g. most young people) and (2) widespread buy-in has to be carefully managed, particularly if required over a long period. Adding to this is the fact, whatever way you want to dress it up, that this virus is not a severe threat to the vast majority to the population — so it‘s difficult to engender the human instinct for self-preservation for people who are not overly threatened by the virus.

So lament it all you want, lament the fact that people are not complying with the suppression of their instincts for months on end. You may as well dress up as King Canute and stand on the beach lamenting the inexorable coming of the tide. The fact is, suppression of human nature requires both a sound rationale and an understanding of the end goal. The end goal of lockdown appears to be nothing more than “lock down only to re-open and then lock down again”. That is a different tale to the one which was told in March — the rationale for flattening the curve was to enable the ramping up of healthcare capacity.

That was a clear rationale, with a clear end goal, and therefore people by and large bought in. Unfortunately it was accompanied by a dishonest narrative which has been spun for months by media, politicians and people like yourself in our communities — a narrative that lockdowns and stringent restrictions are the ethical pathway and all naysayers are therefore, invariably, unethical people. And now we are all trapped because of that narrative, stuck in an endless loop of trying to prevent the deaths of mainly elderly people at the expense of absolutely every other form of vulnerability in our society. It’s ethics with blinkers — and is leading us further and further into long term societal damage.

If some people don't believe its a threat. How about saving a waiver that they are ignoring the restrictions, but on the agreement that if they get COVID, they agree not to be treated for it. So they don't have to wear a mask etc. but people are entitled to refuse them entry or deal with them.

In that way people can get on with doing their own thing.

ShyMets

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

Or we get a whole island approach which eliminates this.

Also how do you see the border being patrolled if there is a brexit hard border considering that legally it will have to be in that scenario.

You keep going on about an all Ireland approach. The Unionists are aligned with London. The only way this could happen is if London forces their hand and there is nothing to suggest they will.

In terms of Brexit, they wont patrol every crossing only the main routes because both Governments realize the utter futility in trying it

ArthurDayne

3xh wrote: »

Off hand, I only ever hear of and see long Covid on the likes of RTE radio and TV programming. Plus the odd story on Independent.ie.

I’d love to hear and read more about the multiple survivors of Covid who have zero damage to them. Look at Trump. Old, overweight (albeit, yes, with no expense spared medical provisions) but I doubt any of our public medical care would worsen one’s Covid effects. You agree with that?

Any of these young, healthy GAA players we hear about are outliers. My cynical mind would have me ask what other undiagnosed ailments could they have had that worsened any supposed long term effects they may have now. Does their years of energy drink intake do anything in conjunction with their long Covid. Past drug use maybe?

That goes for any claimed long term sufferer we hear about, not just GAA players.

It’s too tabloid-esque to latch onto these ‘healthy person suffers from long Covid’ stories.

Fear sells unfortunately, and even more unfortunate is the fact that questioning the underpinning motive of these articles (or, even if the motive is sincere, the sweeping conclusions readers leap to from them) leads to the inevitable and entirely unfair cry of “don’t you care about this young person?”

It’s ironic in many ways, because it’s the very thing that purportedly reputable media outlets mock allegedly disreputable outlets for. How many times has a Left-leaning person (myself being one) felt frustrated by seeing an article in the right wing media about a group of migrants being responsible for some terrible crime and — when they point out that these articles are often selective and intended to generate clicks through fearmongering — are confronted by people saying “don’t you care about the victims of these crimes?”. People will, with a lot of justification, say that the right wing media will never run stories about the millions upon millions of migrants who quietly go about their business and do no harm to anyone.

I’m not saying these issues are like for like, far from it, but the underpinning commonality from a commercial perspective is that these outlets, whether Left or Right, know how to massage the fears of their readership to keep them reading. People won’t click on any of the millions of articles one could write about people who got Covid and were over it in a few days without any problems — that’s boring — they’ll click on the articles about the rarer scenarios, and they will click enough times that the rare becomes perceived as the common.

The latest stats I see provide that in Ireland the virus has killed 19 people under the age of 45, with 68 cases in that age group having been admitted to ICU since the pandemic reached here. But ultimately, the media will hone in on these cases, to the point where an impression is created that the threat to younger people is much more severe than it really is.