Covid 19 Part XXIX-85,394 ROI(2,200 deaths) 62,723 NI (1,240 deaths) (26/12) Read OP

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

It's going well but we aren't where we need to be, where we should have been after six weeks.

6 weeks after the first lockdown the positive rate was at 3.5%, and I think we can all agree that "lockdown" was far more extensive than this "lockdown"

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

6 weeks after the first lockdown the positive rate was at 3.5%, and I think we can all agree that "lockdown" was far more extensive than this "lockdown"

We started that one off in the high teens, this one started at 7%.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

We started that one off in the high teens, this one started at 7%.

Actually topped out in the 20's.

The reality though is we can only compare positive rates from the start of September when the current test criteria was established. In April only symptomatic contacts were being tested for one. When the criteria for testing is different the comparison is not really that relevant.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

The reality though is we can only compare positive rates from the start of September when the current test criteria was established. In April only symptomatic contacts were being tested for one. When the criteria for testing is different the comparison is not really that relevant.

Well if we are doing that then we have to look at how many of the yes s are hospital admissions.
For example, heavily pregnant women might be in hospital three times in a week. They'll be tested all three times and are added to the daily numbers. Most pregnant women are obviously being very careful so how many negative tests are they adding per week? How many negative tests are people entering hospitals for routine minor surgeries, MRI's etc. adding to the daily negative tests?

Jim_Hodge

Gael23 wrote: »

That’s because the pubic are quite rightly turning against NPHET

So you have figures for this that contradict the survey results that show a large majority in favour of the restrictions and even showing more people favour harsher restrictions than those favouring reducing them?

Just asking.

growleaves

COVID-19: Americans are in ‘delusional psychosis’ and policing each other, psychiatrist warns

The “driving force of the coronavirus pandemic and the hysteria” around it is fear, McDonald said at the summit.

This fear has now “grown and become so entrenched that it has reached a state of what I would call delusional psychosis. A delusion is a fixed false belief that is contrary to reality,” he added.

“Fear has become a new virtue. Never before in the history of this country have we told people that fear is good,” or to “settle into” those fears and allow them “to control and constrain your life,” said McDonald, who spoke at the American Front Line Doctors White Coat Summits in July and October.

Moreover, Americans “who are either afraid, or who have been fed lies and misinformation for months now, have grown to not only feel afraid, but also to believe that what they are being told is true, which is primarily that all of us are at equal risk of catching a virus and dying from it,” McDonald said.

“This is demonstrably untrue. It is a lie, in fact. And we’ve known that it’s a lie for about six months, and yet people have come to believe it.”

While there was “a lot of infection” from the coronavirus, there was “very, very little death or hospitalization outside of very specific populations,” McDonald said.

“Less than one percent of the population accounts for over 90 percent of all the deaths,” which occur in people “over age 70, mostly over age 80, with at least two and a half to three comorbidities, according to the CDC,” he added.

“Other than that group of people, we really are not at risk of hospitalization or death in any meaningful way from this virus, certainly less than we are of standard influenza.”

Most disturbingly, the pandemic “hysteria” has reached the stage of “going beyond fear, going beyond the crazy itself, to what I would call group control,” he said.

funnydoggy

"McConkey" is trending on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/search?q=mcconkey&src=trend_click&vertical=trends

https://twitter.com/NoelRock/status/1333554759589130241

Jim_Hodge

eagle eye wrote: »

Well if we are doing that then we have to look at how many of the yes s are hospital admissions.
For example, heavily pregnant women might be in hospital three times in a week. They'll be tested all three times and are added to the daily numbers. Most pregnant women are obviously being very careful so how many negative tests are they adding per week? How many negative tests are people entering hospitals for routine minor surgeries, MRI's etc. adding to the daily negative tests?

Where are you getting that heavily pregnant women are in hospital three times a week and being tested each time? That's news to us - our daughter is a midwife and currently pregnant herself, so we are seeing and hearing a different tale.

eagle eye

Jim_Hodge wrote:

Where are you getting that heavily pregnant women are in hospital three times a week and being tested each time? That's news to us - our daughter is a midwife and currently pregnant herself, so we are seeing and hearing a different tale.

A lot of women will have difficulties and end up in hospital for a good part of a day. It's the norm, not an oddity.

Jim_Hodge

eagle eye wrote: »

A lot of women will have difficulties and end up in hospital for a good part of a day. It's the norm, not an oddity.

I never said it was an oddity for a pregnant woman to visit hospital - that's just you deflecting from the questions asked. . What I asked was two things:

1. How many need to do so three times a week? (Unless you have other information the answer is a miniscule percentage)

2. Why do you contend they are tested for Covid each time? (Again, you may know something different but the vast majority aren't tested at all for a day visit and none should be tested three times in a week)

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

Well if we are doing that then we have to look at how many of the yes s are hospital admissions.
For example, heavily pregnant women might be in hospital three times in a week. They'll be tested all three times and are added to the daily numbers. Most pregnant women are obviously being very careful so how many negative tests are they adding per week? How many negative tests are people entering hospitals for routine minor surgeries, MRI's etc. adding to the daily negative tests?

I fail to see the point your making? Criteria is unchanged since September, whether for appointments or not.

Also, most pregnant women will only have a handful of hospital visits over the course of their pregnancy, and even so, I don't believe they need a negative test, but stand to be corrected

is_that_so

funnydoggy wrote: »

"McConkey" is trending on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/search?q=mcconkey&src=trend_click&vertical=trends

https://twitter.com/NoelRock/status/1333554759589130241

Is it all McConkey or is it also that people can't grill him effectively? He's done his reputation no favours at all with his behaviour during this.

eagle eye

Jim_Hodge wrote:

1. How many need to do so three times a week? (Unless you have other information the answer is a miniscule percentage)

I'm saying one week where they could be in three times, not every week.

Jim_Hodge wrote:

2. Why do you contend they are tested for Covid each time? (Again, you may know something different but the vast majority aren't tested at all for a day visit and none should be tested three times in a week)

I'm going on two pregnant women I know out of three who are close to the date. They've been tested every time they went in, they were admitted as far I'm aware all three times. One of them stayed overnight twice, the other one overnight once but both tested every time.
Different hospitals too.

funnydoggy

is_that_so wrote: »

Is it all McConkey or is it also that people can't grill him effectively? He's done his reputation no favours at all with his behaviour during this.

Lots of it is people who are saying similar to the stuff in this thread alright!

Thats me

Deleted User wrote: »

I fail to see the point your making? Criteria is unchanged since September, whether for appointments or not.

So what is representativeness of the sample tested according this "Criteria"? These tests having no relation to real distribution of infection.

Thats me

Thats me wrote: »

So what is representativeness of the sample tested according this "Criteria"? These tests having no relation to real distribution of infection.

Its inherently representative in an of itself. It may under-represent or over represent the true infection rate, but in an of itself is consistent and trends can be inferred

Thats me

Deleted User wrote: »

Its inherently representative in an of itself. It may under-represent or over represent the true infection rate, but in an of itself is consistent and trends can be inferred

It does represent or does not. This stats does not. You should go and collect random samples within population, from people representing different clusters of ineterest in proportion.

Russman

is_that_so wrote: »

Is it all McConkey or is it also that people can't grill him effectively? He's done his reputation no favours at all with his behaviour during this.

There’s a large element of if you don’t like the message it’s easy to shoot the messenger I think.
I don’t know whether he’s right or wrong, but I’d put more faith in a specialist than someone on Twitter tbh. I watched it last night, having seen some of the comments about him, and didn’t think there was anything too objectionable really, basically all he said was we don’t have enough data yet to judge the vaccine and that if they showed the same efficacy in real world settings it would be great.

Thats me

Thats me wrote: »

It does represent or does not. This stats does not. You should go and collect random samples within population, from people representing different clusters of ineterest in proportion.

Tell the ECDC and WHO the infection rate is a useless stat

Mitch Connor

Russman wrote: »

There’s a large element of if you don’t like the message it’s easy to shoot the messenger I think.
I don’t know whether he’s right or wrong, but I’d put more faith in a specialist than someone on Twitter tbh. I watched it last night, having seen some of the comments about him, and didn’t think there was anything too objectionable really, basically all he said was we don’t have enough data yet to judge the vaccine and that if they showed the same efficacy in real world settings it would be great.

but he is either lying about the testing or is ignorant of it and telling lies as a result.

Saying it is only tested on young people is simply wrong. So either he is deliberately lying or is deliberately ignorant.

eagle eye

Mitch Connor wrote:

but he is either lying about the testing or is ignorant of it and telling lies as a result.

Saying it is only tested on young people is simply wrong. So either he is deliberately lying or is deliberately ignorant.

Where are you getting your information as regards their testing?

Thats me

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell the ECDC and WHO the infection rate is a useless stat

I do not see where where they would make any conclusions about how many cases we have based on results of testing of high-risk categories and contacts of known cases.

froog

i mean news will always be negative leaning, has been since the dawn of newspapers. it's what sells. and who's fault is that? the news or the people who continue to buy it?

i think it's a bit unfair to single out RTE in this regard.

CruelSummer

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/30/asia/wuhan-china-covid-intl/index.html

Very interesting report into the early response from China to Covid 19, the video is a good watch.

Russman

Mitch Connor wrote: »

but he is either lying about the testing or is ignorant of it and telling lies as a result.

Saying it is only tested on young people is simply wrong. So either he is deliberately lying or is deliberately ignorant.

But that’s not what he said, or at least I’ve just watched it back there and can’t see where he says that.

didyoufart?

These latest figures from the Health Service Executive bring to 23,346 the total number of children and workers tested in 833 schools since early September.

There's a total of 1.1 million in education in the country.

Both schools aren't an issue.

Deeper Blue

froog wrote: »

i mean news will always be negative leaning, has been since the dawn of newspapers. it's what sells. and who's fault is that? the news or the people who continue to buy it?

i think it's a bit unfair to single out RTE in this regard.

There's a balance to be struck.

Rte focus exclusively on the negatives.

That's the issue

Plumbthedepths

froog wrote: »

i mean news will always be negative leaning, has been since the dawn of newspapers. it's what sells. and who's fault is that? the news or the people who continue to buy it?

i think it's a bit unfair to single out RTE in this regard.

RTE is funded by the license fee, if you can receive a signal you legally cannot 'avoid buying content' So negative leaning news sells holds no water in the case of RTE unless it's an editorial decision to do so.

bb1234567

Some very interesting poll research by CSO surrounding public opinion on Christmas restrictions, worries..
https://www.thejournal.ie/cso-covid-19-survey-international-travel-5284847-Dec2020/?utm_source=twitter_short
Re: Incoming Travels

JUST OVER HALF of people (53.7%) believe that individuals travelling to Ireland from ‘red’ regions should not be allowed enter the country, according to research released by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) today.

Re:Concerns

More than four in 10 (41.9%) are worried about household confinement over the Christmas period

Almost three in four (74.5%) were worried about ‘not being able to mix with other households or see friends or family over the Christmas period’ and more than half (54.2%) were worried about ‘being unable to plan ahead, not knowing what restrictions will be in place’ during the Christmas period.

Re: Own compliance with Rules

When asked about their likelihood of complying with potential restrictions that would prevent them from seeing family and friends during Christmas, almost three in five (57.5%) respondents reported they were ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to comply fully.

Just over one in five (21.3%) said they were ‘unsure’, while a similar proportion (21.1%) said they were ‘very unlikely’ or ‘unlikely’ to comply fully with potential restrictions.

Almost two in three (65.3%) men reported that they would be ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to comply compared to one in two (50.0%) women.

Very very surprising to see 2/3 men are very likely to fully comply with restrictions while only half of women are. I would imagine if you asked anyone on the street, they'd predict the exact opposite numbers!

is_that_so

didyoufart? wrote: »

These latest figures from the Health Service Executive bring to 23,346 the total number of children and workers tested in 833 schools since early September.

There's a total of 1.1 million in education in the country.

Both schools aren't an issue.

Way back in March NPHET and the HSE said it was waste of resources to just do blanket testing. There are not without risk but positivity rates in schools have always been a lot lower than the community.