Covid 19 Part XXX-113,332 ROI(2,282 deaths) 81,251 NI (1,384 deaths) (05/01) Read OP

bb1234567

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1343623339525472261
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1343668916007137285

If you thought Europe/USA were orwellian with their restrictions.. some countries really bringing it up to another level

niallo27

Duke of Url wrote: »

If you removed you blinkers you would see most offices are closed down, most working from home, nearly everyone is shops wearing masks, sanitizer running through their blood.

People are less worried then before due to becoming accustomed to taking precautions and understanding restrictions are in place to limit contagion.

What do you see in niallo27 world?

I see people being less cautious, I see people taking chances, I see people visiting people's houses, I see people craving social interaction. Why did the numbers shoot up so much if everybody is taking precautions. We have posters here daily giving out about neighbours and strangers and your saying it'd not happening. Which is it.

igCorcaigh

bb1234567 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1343623339525472261
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1343668916007137285

If you thought Europe/USA were orwellian with their restrictions.. some countries really bringing it up to another level

No alcohol allowed again in SA.
Can you imagine!

marno21

385 in hospital on December 28. That means that the Christmas Day infections have yet to get anywhere near hospital.

It's going to be a bleak January one way or another. I hope for everyone's sake that impulse decisions to make lockdown more harsh aren't taken because these infections are already seeded.

These vaccines can't be rolled out quick enough.

igCorcaigh

So, the hospitalisation rate for the general population (of those tested +ve) seems to be 4 to 5%?
Is that generally agreed?

TonyMaloney

igCorcaigh wrote: »

No alcohol allowed again in SA.
Can you imagine!

we'd all be caving each other's skulls in with rocks within an hour of it being announced

Widdensushi

igCorcaigh wrote: »

So, the hospitalisation rate for the general population (of those tested +ve) seems to be 4 to 5%?
Is that generally agreed?

What about those that are catching it in hospitals?

muddypuppy

bb1234567 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1343623339525472261
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1343668916007137285

If you thought Europe/USA were orwellian with their restrictions.. some countries really bringing it up to another level

Plenty of European countries and US states have curfews and fines for not wearing a mask... and "Bangkok betting businesses will be shut, while bars and nightclubs will be forced to close at midnight until 4 January." is another level? :pac:

igCorcaigh

Widdensushi wrote: »

What about those that are catching it in hospitals?

Interesting, I'm not exactly sure how that scenario impacts on the estimate.

igCorcaigh

TonyMaloney wrote: »

we'd all be caving each other's skulls in with rocks within an hour of it being announced

There would definitely be a run on the hand sanitiser.

mike8634

bb1234567 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1343623339525472261
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1343668916007137285

If you thought Europe/USA were orwellian with their restrictions.. some countries really bringing it up to another level

All for saving vulnerable, but feel really sorry for my 4 year old, 8 year old and all the young kids in the world

What a **** life they are going to have in the future

hotmail.com

bb1234567 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1343623339525472261
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1343668916007137285

If you thought Europe/USA were orwellian with their restrictions.. some countries really bringing it up to another level

Vast differences within Europe regarding restrictions and enforcement.

TonyMaloney

igCorcaigh wrote: »

So, the hospitalisation rate for the general population (of those tested +ve) seems to be 4 to 5%?
Is that generally agreed?

5.68% was being mooted by someone here yesterday. Weird that I can remember the number but not the person who gave it.

It's an astonishing number when you consider the amount of people that are going to catch this prick in the coming weeks

mike8634

hotmail.com wrote: »

Vast differences within Europe regarding restrictions and enforcement.

Europe will catch up someday, you get the feeling this is just the beginning

What a ****ed up world we live in now

TonyMaloney

igCorcaigh wrote: »

There would definitely be a run on the hand sanitiser.

It's not so bad with ice.

A little gloopy, like sambuca.

Duke of Url

niallo27 wrote: »

I see people being less cautious, I see people taking chances, I see people visiting people's houses, I see people craving social interaction. Why did the numbers shoot up so much if everybody is taking precautions. We have posters here daily giving out about neighbours and strangers and your saying it'd not happening. Which is it.

But your answering your own question

Numbers rise when some individuals don’t take precautions.

1 person in a family of 4 doesn’t take precautions and contracts COVID.

That’s not going to be 1 case. It ends up as 4 cases.

What do you think would happen if the Government lifted restrictions now and stopped the COVID campaigns?

igCorcaigh

TonyMaloney wrote: »

5.68% was being mooted by someone here yesterday. Weird that I can remember the number but not the person who gave it.

It's an astonishing number when you consider the amount of people that are going to catch this prick in the coming weeks

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at.
A recent stat I saw was 5%, and on the recent Ireland specific stats from May onwards, it was 4.1%

So it seems to be the ballpark of 4 to 6%, which was why the focus on flattening the curve was the main theme back in the first wave.

I feel we might be entering the worst phase of the pandemic right now, so just wanted to check if there had been any firming up on that hospitalisation figure, now that we have better testing in place. But it still seems quite high.

Widdensushi

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Interesting, I'm not exactly sure how that scenario impacts on the estimate.

You mentioned the hospitalisation rate, many people have been hospitalised with other issues and caught it in hospital, you need to separate those from the overall amount of people in hospital to get the hospitalisation rate.

flanna01

Don't you just love people crying out for stronger restrictions (Now Christmas is over of course...)

The amount of posters blaming Leo V & MeHole M for prolonging things... It'll be their fault when the hospitals are over whelmed....

Well here... Get this..

This is the deal (Biden quip)

We all knew from March / April, how this thing spreads.. We knew how to prevent it spreading... Wash the hands, social distance, reduce all unnecessary contacts, stay two metres apart....

Now comes the third wave... A bit of a hoor by the sounds of it..

Who do we blame - We blame the Government...

Will ye get a grip! Start taking a little personal responsibility.. You had you're Christmas, many of you broke the protocols 9was it really urgent to see Aunt May and Grandpa Bill???

Don't come on here crying about it in January... The Government did'nt do this , you did!!

mike8634

TonyMaloney wrote: »

5.68% was being mooted by someone here yesterday. Weird that I can remember the number but not the person who gave it.

It's an astonishing number when you consider the amount of people that are going to catch this prick in the coming weeks

We have to be missing a ****load of cases for that 5.68% to be correct

What's the CFR here at the moment?

WHO estimates IFR at 0.23% globally and about about 0.45% in Western fat countries like ourselves

igCorcaigh

Widdensushi wrote: »

You mentioned the hospitalisation rate, many people have been hospitalised with other issues and caught it in hospital, you need to separate those from the overall amount of people in hospital to get the hospitalisation rate.

Sure. Difficult to separate out those figures. Still, I think that scenario would be very much the minority, I'm not sure?

igCorcaigh

mike8634 wrote: »

We have to be missing a ****load of cases for that 5.68% to be correct

What's the CFR here at the moment?

WHO estimates IFR at 0.23% globally and about about 0.45% in Western fat countries like ourselves

That figure is specifically about hospitalisation of known cases.

TonyMaloney

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at.
A recent stat I saw was 5%, and on the recent Ireland specific stats from May onwards, it was 4.1%

So it seems to be the ballpark of 4 to 6%, which was why the focus on flattening the curve was the main theme back in the first wave.

I feel we might be entering the worst phase of the pandemic right now, so just wanted to check if there had been any firming up on that hospitalisation figure, now that we have better testing in place. But it still seems quite high.

I think that's a good shout.

People focus on ICU mostly, and with good reason, but in London right now there are hospitals that have major oxygen concerns for their regular beds.
If you don't manage that situation well then the death rate spirals.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-london-queen-elizabeth-hospital-oxygen-b1779468.html

Widdensushi

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Sure. Difficult to separate out those figures. Still, I think that scenario would be very much the minority, I'm not sure?

There have been many outbreaks in hospitals.

niallo27

Duke of Url wrote: »

But your answering your own question

Numbers rise when some individuals don’t take precautions.

1 person in a family of 4 doesn’t take precautions and contracts COVID.

That’s not going to be 1 case. It ends up as 4 cases.

What do you think would happen if the Government lifted restrictions now and stopped the COVID campaigns?

I never said they should lift restrictions though, where are you getting that from. You are proving my point that people are taking less precautions than before and something needs to be done to address this and not just Tony H giving them a tut tut every evening.

igCorcaigh

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I think that's a good shout.

People focus on ICU mostly, and with good reason, but in London right now there are hospitals that have major oxygen concerns for their regular beds.
If you don't manage that situation well then the death rate spirals.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-london-queen-elizabeth-hospital-oxygen-b1779468.html

That's what I'm asking about, so it seems that the initial hospitalisation rate of 5ish % (of those with a positive test) still seems to stand in this time of relatively adequate testing. Or make it 4ish to be conservative. It's still a big indicator of future hospital services pressure, as the virus seems to be moving through large population centres now.

Neamhshuntasach

Widdensushi wrote: »

What about those that are catching it in hospitals?

Which is a large contributor towards the number of cases in hospitals. Was sitting talking to this misses earlier before she went on shift and she can't make head nor tail of what they are calling admissions for her hospital. A main Dublin hospital and she knows of 2 admissions specifically related to covid. The rest were acquired in hospital or came in with it for something else. I'm not going down the road of getting hit by a car with covid and you get covid on the death cert.

But a lot of people in her hospital with covid came in with other ailments and subsequently tested positive when tested or caught it while in hospital. It's the only thing that makes sense to her to have the numbers add up.

Her colleague in the Mater can't figure it out either. It's using the term admissions that seem to be confusing them as it makes it seem like a large number of people came in and took beds. But they're really moving from one bed to another.

igCorcaigh

Widdensushi wrote: »

There have been many outbreaks in hospitals.

I know. But I think that may be the minority of both cases and hospitalisations, by a certain factor that I can't determine.

Anyway, that cohort will increase also, and will add to the hospital pressure also.

TonyMaloney

mike8634 wrote: »

We have to be missing a ****load of cases for that 5.68% to be correct

What's the CFR here at the moment?

WHO estimates IFR at 0.23% globally and about about 0.45% in Western fat countries like ourselves

I don't know, I don't pay much heed to that stuff. It varies from country to country based on loads of stuff from demographics to health systems etc etc

I think we're better off using our own numbers for things like this, rather than large geographical averages.

igCorcaigh

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I don't know, I don't pay much heed to that stuff. It varies from country to country based on loads of stuff from demographics to health systems etc etc

I think we're better off using our own numbers for things like this, rather than large geographical averages.

Very much so, we need localised/national metrics.

I also think we need to leave behind the IFR/CFR discrepancy; testing, for now, is available for most who need it.