Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

Goldengirl

is_that_so wrote: »

Again if you'd read my post you can clearly see I did not refer to his real time reporting. This seems to be more about your own issues with people's choice of language not matching your own worldview but each to their own.

Again " if you read my post " I am referring to his " consistent under reporting " , using today's as an example of this .
Your reply seems to be more about your own issues with what I am highlighting , as my worldview is partly dependant upon accurate reporting , which is not the reporting I feel we have been getting from this man .
Numbers are not decreasing in any good way in ICU , if those people are dying . Only " good " decrease in ICU is discharge to wards of those who have improved , as most people with a bit of common sense and humanity would accept .
So it is disingenuous and poor reporting by Bowers to say the numbers have improved in ICU .

Thierry12

Thierry12 wrote: »

Most weren't asking to open bars, nightclubs etc

Mask wearing cinemas, gyms sure

No danger there

Most were calling for pubs to be opened. Apart from here we have a whole threads full of calls for them to be opened.

I know of one family case linked to a gym.

So why are governments stupid for giving into what people want?

Jimson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What’s the deal with ‘save Christmas’? There are 364 other days of the year to get together as a family and have a big dinner. Seems madness to me to be prioritising Christmas over doing the right thing. Just don’t get it. My family is arranging a ‘summer Christmas’ for next year.

If the numbers are down then we should have Christmas as normal you can't keep the country locked down until their is a vaccine. It could be a year away or much longer.

If we get down to 100 and under the country will be opened back up, get back to over 600 will be locked down again.

Jimson

Jimson wrote: »

If the numbers are down then we should have Christmas as normal you can't keep the country locked down until their is a vaccine. It could be a year away or much longer.

If we get down to 100 and under the country will be opened back up, get back to over 600 will be locked down again.

I agree with you about opening up when the numbers are down to an appropriate level. I just don’t get the fixation on it having to be by Christmas. There are 364 other days in the year

eagle eye

Jim_Hodge wrote:

I'm not going to dump a load of links and not trying to be narky but Google "are antibody tests proof of immunity" and you'll see they're not.

So then your answer is no?

Goldengirl

awec wrote: »

Not convinced that schools have played any part in this drop, at least not based on what I see every day here.

Creches are obviously still open, and kids have been mingling with their mates as normal. Kids were outside playing all day, every day during their week off. I think the idea that if kids aren't at school then they're sitting at home isolating is incredible naive.

Yes , thankfully the weather was great .
OUTSIDE being the important word here .

SCOOP 64

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, I don’t get that. Why does the family get together have to be on that day?

It wouldn't be the same for me anyway at any other time of year and the thought of shops not being open to Christmas shop all a big part of the Christmas atmosphere, don't get me wrong if the numbers go the wrong way i understand that it cant happen, as it looks at moment with the numbers going down people are looking at these and are hoping for a reasonably normal Christmas, don't see the harm in that.

kippy

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I find peoples’ views on this a little strange I must say.

So, for the past while we have been fed a narrative that our valiant efforts to stop the virus have been hampered by selfish people being out and about socialising etc. Yet all I hear is people talking about how we need to save Christmas, and how getting numbers down means we all get the pet on the head from the State of being allowed home to see family. What’s the difference here ? We criticise the young for wanting to socialise and then we also advocate hunkering down in lockdown again so that we can ..ehhhhh...socialise at Christmas.

If people really cared about the cases rising or putting our health service at risk (given the purported ability of this virus to cripple our society) — then nobody should even be entertaining the idea of wanting to socialise at Christmas. Socialising at Christmas, even with a change in behaviour from usual Christmas fare, invariably means that cases will likely rise again and that at least some people will die.

I just find it fascinating that so many on here criticise the selfishness and moral deficiency of others but are perfectly happy to accept the moral choice that people dying is a price worth paying to socialise a bit at Christmas. Surely the more morally perfected approach is to stay on lockdown indefinitely until there is a vaccine? Shouldn’t the Great Prophets of Morality be leading by example and dissuading the idea of people “selfishly” wanting to socialise ?

2 things.
1. Christmas won't be like any other Christmas we have ever had. There will be plenty restrictions "rightfully" in place and people will be expected to abide by them in order to reduce risk. So it won't be a "normal" christmas.
2. What happened in September/early october were people breaking the regulations in place at the time. (Not everyone and not everyone who got the disease broke the rules but enough did)

I've stated this before, but it down to individuals and their actions as to what happens with respect to tighter and looser restrictions.

Goldengirl

Goldengirl wrote: »

Again " if you read my post " I am referring to his " consistent under reporting " , using today's as an example of this .
Your reply seems to be more about your own issues with what I am highlighting , as my worldview is partly dependant upon accurate reporting , which is not the reporting I feel we have been getting from this man .
Numbers are not decreasing in any good way in ICU , if those people are dying . Only " good " decrease in ICU is discharge to wards of those who have improved , as most people with a bit of common sense and humanity would accept .
So it is disingenuous and poor reporting by Bowers to say the numbers have improved in ICU .

A lot of people are not happy with the fact that a 90 year old terminally ill person who tests positive will go down as a Covid death but that’s how it is.

Unfortunately we have to hear again and again how almost 2000 have died, despite the fact that a huge number were likely to have died this year anyways.

We also plenty of “Covid” cases in the hospital figures that are not even primarily in hospital due to Covid.

There has been a lot more negative spin put on the numbers than positive.

awec

Goldengirl wrote: »

Yes , thankfully the weather was great .
OUTSIDE being the important word here .

Does outside or inside make any difference when they're pretty much standing on top of one another and grabbing each other etc?

It's not like they socially distance when they're outside.

Thierry12

DubInMeath wrote: »

Most were calling for pubs to be opened. Apart from here we have a whole threads full of calls for them to be opened.

I know of one family case linked to a gym.

So why are governments stupid for giving into what people want?

You can open anything you want, but what France did was negligence, learned nothing.

Covid takes a long long time to build up to levels France have now, they let it run free since July, 5 months of no tracing, tracking, isolating, everything open.

Asian countries would have never let it get to a stage where you have to lockdown a whole country for a 2nd time

stephenjmcd

eagle eye wrote: »

You seem to know a lot about T cells. Care to share your knowledge with the rest of us?

Literally posting what I've read previously, you can easily Google it for yourself. I doubt you will though given your reply to others. Up to you to educate yourself in the area not others before you dismiss them.

Seeing as you'll probably come back with a smart comment here's one link for you to read

https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/interviews/other-kind-covid-19-immunity

Harry Palmr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree with you about opening up when the numbers are down to an appropriate level. I just don’t get the fixation on it having to be by Christmas. There are 364 other days in the year

It's not Christmas day, it's the run up the government is thinking about. Massive spend and for many businesses the difference between surviving and closing in January.

Stheno

Thierry12 wrote: »

You can open anything you want, but what France did was negligence, learned nothing.

Covid takes a long long time to build up to levels France have now, they let it run free since July, 5 months of no tracing, tracking, isolating, everything open.

One of my Irish friends and their family went to France in August.

There were free testing walk in testing centres in the area they were in, all you needed was id

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A lot of people are not happy with the fact that a 90 year old terminally ill person who tests positive will go down as a Covid death but that’s how it is.

Unfortunately we have to hear again and again how almost 2000 have died, despite the fact that a huge number were likely to have died this year anyways.

We also plenty of “Covid” cases in the hospital figures that are not even primarily in hospital due to Covid.

There has been a lot more negative spin put on the numbers than positive.

So were going back to these script again :rolleyes:

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

Can you explain and back up that assertion?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.27.20220509v1

A study that shows the sensitivity of some of the antibody tests as low as 68%.

Thierry12

AdamD wrote: »

You can tell you have absolutely never step foot in China and know nothing about the place

Not personally

Cousin worked there for years and he loved it, sounded nothing like the stereotypes media portray

He was booted out in January when Covid exploded there, Visa was cancelled, he didn't disagree with that either, take care of your own

Thierry12

Stheno wrote: »

One of my Irish friends and their family went to France in August.

There were free testing walk in testing centres in the area they were in, all you needed was id

Voluntary?

Renjit

eagle eye wrote: »

You seem to know a lot about T cells. Care to share your knowledge with the rest of us?

This has good laymen details
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-testing-basics

Goldengirl

Jimson wrote: »

If the numbers are down then we should have Christmas as normal you can't keep the country locked down until their is a vaccine. It could be a year away or much longer.

If we get down to 100 and under the country will be opened back up, get back to over 600 will be locked down again.

Yes .
If people thought the last reopening after the first lockdown was slow , they will not be happy with what constitutes " a normal Christmas " this time .
I don't reckon we will be allowed more than 2 households to visit , and don't think pubs , will be open .

ACitizenErased

Latest 14 day incidence by epi date

ArthurDayne

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Surprised by the attitude too. No matter what your view on the situation, I’m absolutely baffled that many still think of any level of restriction as some kind of oppression. “Ah they can’t cancel Christmas?” Or “ah they couldn’t make people quarantine at Christmas?!” There are nuances in restrictions, some are harsh, some are light, some make little sense when compared to others. But this attitude of people wanting/expecting a normal Christmas is pretty surprising. I feel bad for anyone hanging hopes on pubs being fully open and/or having a 2019-esque Christmas.

Fair enough it should be less restrictive than now, but think about other major crises, did we have people moaning and complaining about an abnormal Christmas during wars, etc? I’m sure someone will be along to berate me for comparing war and covid, but what they have in common is massive impacts in day to day life.

It couldn’t be any clearer from looking to the European mainland what happens when you loosen restrictions. I find it pretty funny here when people get so agitated at posts regarding other countries under pressure. “We don’t need that negativity and scaremongering” etc.

Funnily, I am actually probably more or less on the opposite camp to you — but still appreciate the quality of your post.

I guess I was being sarcastic in my post in the sense that I actually think it’s perfectly OK for people to want to socialise at Christmas. The people most at risk are the old and people can make decisions which help to protect their older loved ones (which people here have in fact been doing, evidenced by the lack of correlation between the steepness of the cases rise versus the steepness of deaths).

But in the moral panic we have created — we have ended up in a world where people must be made to feel guilty for acting out the most basic human desire to socialise with others. My point was to try highlight the hypocrisy inherent in a society which now criticises young people for socialising but at the same time tells them to stop socialising now for the purpose of allowing socialising at Christmas — and with that, inevitably, at least some further deaths.

Personally I think people should go and have a Christmas because the people we are supposedly trying to save mostly don’t have many Christmases left. We have always subconsciously accepted that our way of life invariably involves death and our choices as a society invariably lead to people dying. But none of the people who say “We must lock down to save Christmas” in the sincere belief that they are saying something very innocent will ever say what they accidentally truly mean : “the death of others is a price worth paying for normality”.

bb1234567

858 deaths in France today and over 3300 hospital admissions , France and Belgium will soon overtake the deaths seen in their first wave..Italy and Germany soon to follow

MelbourneMan

Hello. I have some free time this evening if there are any questions people want answered on this topic. Today was a good day in our fight against the virus. Keep up the good work all.

Goldengirl

awec wrote: »

Does outside or inside make any difference when they're pretty much standing on top of one another and grabbing each other etc?

It's not like they socially distance when they're outside.

That has been the case the whole time , so no different except now not inside playing .
I don't think that playing outside is an issue tbh, and if it is ,it needs to be allowed for , as the alternative is to lock children away on their own .
If they can be allowed together in school with no masks and no problem according to Public Health , I don't think parents should be stopping their children playing outside .

Jimson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree with you about opening up when the numbers are down to an appropriate level. I just don’t get the fixation on it having to be by Christmas. There are 364 other days in the year

No real fixation on it to be honest, just happened to coincide when the country needed to go into lockdown.

If we have massive cases on Xmas week country will be shut down regardless of Christmas or not.

MelbourneMan

Jimson wrote: »

If the numbers are down then we should have Christmas as normal you can't keep the country locked down until their is a vaccine. It could be a year away or much longer.

If we get down to 100 and under the country will be opened back up, get back to over 600 will be locked down again.

Hello. We are trying to avoid this cyclical response.

The more likely scenario being proposed is more of a modified Level 3 for the long term, with very limited - in the order of a single digit number of days - exemptions which will apply on specific dates, only to facilitate some semblance of normal family celebrations. This will not include large gatherings, the likes of Christmas parties or outings etc, nor an open, indefinite period of weeks or months of this status.

The goal is to achieve a steady state level of restrictions which can facilitate a handful of days when effectively the rules dont apply. As long as these number of days are below a threshold, and Level 3, or localised time limited targeted higher restrictions, they will not have a deleterious effect on our management of the chains of transmission.

owlbethere

Goldengirl wrote: »

Yes .
If people thought the last reopening after the first lockdown was slow , they will not be happy with what constitutes " a normal Christmas " this time .
I don't reckon we will be allowed more than 2 households to visit , and don't think pubs , will be open .

I think you are right. Unfortunately some of the population has proved themselves to be selfish and entitled. The pubs will have to remain closed because of the entitlement for a 12 pubs thing. Makes sense to continue to keep contacts low. Christmas isn't going to change that. People need to cop on and plan for a low key Christmas.

eagle eye

stephenjmcd wrote:

Literally posting what I've read previously, you can easily Google it for yourself. I doubt you will though given your reply to others. Up to you to educate yourself in the area not others before you dismiss them.

I've read everything I can about them. You brought them up.though not me.

If you are going to make statements like you did them back them up.

stephenjmcd

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. We are trying to avoid this cyclical response.

The more likely scenario being proposed is more of a modified Level 3 for the long term, with very limited - in the order of a single digit number of days - exemptions which will apply on specific dates, only to facilitate some semblance of normal family celebrations. This will not include large gatherings, the likes of Christmas parties or outings etc, nor an open, indefinite period of weeks or months of this status.

The goal is to achieve a steady state level of restrictions which can facilitate a handful of days when effectively the rules dont apply. As long as these number of days are below a threshold, and Level 3, or localised time limited targeted higher restrictions, they will not have a deleterious effect on our management of the chains of transmission.

Christ almighty that sounds like something direct from NPHET, telling people with absolute certainty what they can and can't do when its merely your opinion.

Tony is that you?