Covid 19 Part XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

Sanjuro

DraftDodger wrote: »

It hasn't been explained by a single poster even once over the course of the thread that I’ve seen why it wont work so go ahead have a shot.

Fixed that for you.

DraftDodger

AdamD wrote: »

It has but you're too wilfully ignorant to understand.

And there you go insulting instead of explaining. Go ahead explain it, why wouldn't zero covid work.

is_that_so

Colm Henry suggesting over 80% of the population will now have to be vaccinated against Covid-19 to achieve herd immunity due to the new variants. Also in this NIAC is expected to allow use of AZ for over 65s.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0131/1194115-coronavirus-ireland/

patnor1011

caveat emptor wrote: »

You mentioned freight. I mentioned France requiring antigen tests to reduce that risk (not eliminate it)
Australia and NZ require a bit more than a PCR test. They have mandatory hotel quarantine and multiple PCR tests before being allowed to leave.

We could have that considering most hotels are virtually empty and have been for most of the year.

Confounding the two is disingenuous. Also what sporting event is larger than the tennis? You haven't provided any link to something that was bigger? 400,000 people over 14 days is fairly substantial. Open to correction.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tennis-ausopen/australian-open-to-be-allowed-30000-fans-a-day-idUSKBN29Z06B

Slovak republic is shining example how to do things wrong. They did mandatory mass testing of whole population using antigen tests. What did they achieve? Result show only small number of positive cases I think it was around 6% if I am not mistaken. Second thing they achieved was that after this mass testing event covid cases and deaths pretty much exploded.
PCR test is better however we should redefine what case means. Case should be a person who developed symptoms and have high viral load. Not someone who have traces of a virus detected after 35+ cycles.

Plumbthedepths

DraftDodger wrote: »

And there you go insulting instead of explaining. Go ahead explain it, why wouldn't zero covid work.

It's not up to anyone here to educate you . There is a thread dedicated to Zero Covid the information you seek is gathered all in one place for your convenience.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

Colm Henry suggesting over 80% of the population will now have to be vaccinated against Covid-19 to achieve herd immunity due to the new variants. Also in this NIAC is expected to allow use of AZ for over 65s.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0131/1194115-coronavirus-ireland/

Sounds like they are setting the stage to justify restrictions lasting into next year.

Sanjuro

is_that_so wrote: »

Colm Henry suggesting over 80% of the population will now have to be vaccinated against Covid-19 to achieve herd immunity due to the new variants. Also in this NIAC is expected to allow use of AZ for over 65s.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0131/1194115-coronavirus-ireland/

It was 70% before, right? What’s his reasoning for increasing that number?

patnor1011

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Sounds like they are setting the stage to justify restrictions lasting into next year.

Nope. Multiple years or pretty much indefinite. Take just EU for example. They want over 500M people to get not one but 2 doses of vaccine. That means they need 1 billion of doses which is a manufacturing and logistic nightmare. We are only at the start of vaccinations and see examples of how it will not work happening daily.
Then try to get 80% of the world vaccinated and everyone with a brain will see it can not happen any time soon.

Dingaan

Thomas Byrne is on LBC now discussing the EU vaccine situation.

Happydays2020

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Sounds like they are setting the stage to justify restrictions lasting into next year.

Or the year after. Especially as WHO want a global vaccination programme width no countries moving to 18 - 65 people getting vaccinated until priority groups globally have theirs.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Sounds like they are setting the stage to justify restrictions lasting into next year.

It could be but I take each pronouncement as the current thinking and likely to be superseded by future pronouncements. It also seems to be a message to encourage people to get vaccinated.

lawred2

patnor1011 wrote: »

Nope. Multiple years or pretty much indefinite. Take just EU for example. They want over 500M people to get not one but 2 doses of vaccine. That means they need 1 billion of doses which is a manufacturing and logistic nightmare. We are only at the start of vaccinations and see examples of how it will not work happening daily.
Then try to get 80% of the world vaccinated and everyone with a brain will see it can not happen any time soon.

Just because a mass vaccination program could be ongoing for years does not mean significant restrictions across Europe or the Western world for years..

Once elderly and at risk individuals are vaccinated the hospitalisation numbers will start to reduce.

Some otherwise healthy people getting a mild illness will be no reason for continued restrictions.

Gruffalux

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It's not up to anyone here to educate you . There is a thread dedicated to Zero Covid the information you seek is gathered all in one place for your convenience.

This is the general covid thread and general stuff of all sorts re covid can be discussed here, Ireland covid stuff, Timbuktu covid stuff, living with covid strategy stuff, meaningful Christmas that promptly leads to 1000 deaths covid strategy stuff, zero covid strategy stuff, let's put all our eggs in the ever-multiplying variants vaccine basket covid strategy stuff etc and etcetera.

caveat emptor

patnor1011 wrote: »

Slovak republic is shining example how to do things wrong. They did mandatory mass testing of whole population using antigen tests. What did they achieve? Result show only small number of positive cases I think it was around 6% if I am not mistaken. Second thing they achieved was that after this mass testing event covid cases and deaths pretty much exploded.
PCR test is better however we should redefine what case means. Case should be a person who developed symptoms and have high viral load. Not someone who have traces of a virus detected after 35+ cycles.

Where am I saying use antigen testing for whole population? That's a pointless use of resources and was not being discussed.

Someone said zerocovid can't be done because of freight. I pointed to France who are demanding antigen test for all truck drivers entering into France from Ireland and UK. As I understand if any test positive for that they then get a PCR to confirm and are not allowed enter.

One way to mitigate reimportation of cases via freight. I think it's great that countries are finding solutions instead of problems.

Miccoli

Sanjuro wrote: »

It was 70% before, right? What’s his reasoning for increasing that number?

They’ve no intentions of ever ending restrictions. Hopefully as more and more people get vaccinated and restrictions are not eased, the general public will start to question what’s going on here.

Gruffalux

Miccoli wrote: »

They’ve no intentions of ever ending restrictions. Hopefully as more and more people get vaccinated and restrictions are not eased, the general public will start to question what’s going on here.

Who is ''they'' ...exactly? Names, positions and motivations for being such a ''they'' please.

Sanjuro

Miccoli wrote: »

They’ve no intentions of ever ending restrictions. Hopefully as more and more people get vaccinated and restrictions are not eased, the general public will start to question what’s going on here.

That's a very easy way of thinking. Reducing more complex issues to an "us vs them" mindset. But once you put the bare minimum of thought into it, the who theory falls apart. They, whoever "they" are, are not a cabal trying to keep you in your house.

Sanjuro

Sanjuro wrote: »

It was 70% before, right? What’s his reasoning for increasing that number?

The increase to 80% is because of new more transmissable strains. Doesn't take too much to find info on it.

polesheep

Deleted User wrote: »

The increase to 80% is because of new more transmissable strains. Doesn't take too much to find info on it.

He shouldn't have said it. Now is not the time to present the people with challenges. The communications throughout this affair have been woeful.

Happydays2020

polesheep wrote: »

He shouldn't have said it. Now is not the time to present the people with challenges. The communications throughout this affair have been woeful.

Agree. This is just making people despair. They need hope.

Jim_Hodge

Miccoli wrote: »

They’ve no intentions of ever ending restrictions. Hopefully as more and more people get vaccinated and restrictions are not eased, the general public will start to question what’s going on here.

Would you catch yourself on?

Who are 'they' for a start?

What earthly reason would any group have for perpetuating restrictions that ultimately would ruin the economy and whatever 'they' want to control or manipulate?

caveat emptor

polesheep wrote: »

He shouldn't have said it. Now is not the time to present the people with challenges. The communications throughout this affair have been woeful.

Do you prefer him to give false hope? If the new variant is more transmissible (and there's quite a bit of evidence at this stage both at the molecular level and the epidemiological level) then the R number is higher.

Higher R number means a higher percentage of population will be required to vaccinated (or infected) to get to herd immunity.

There are other variables such as the efficacy of the vaccine and the revaccination period required if other variants emerge that reduce immunity.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.16.21249946v1

Countries pulling out the stops to secure the Pfizer now.

Results In the regulatory approval documents, the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is estimated at 0.948 (that for the Moderna vaccine is similar). Efficacy for the Oxford vaccine against primary symptomatic illness is estimated as 0.704, based on pooling of data from two dose regimes. For values of R0 similar to those reported during the first months of the pandemic, the simplest analysis implies that reducing the value of R below 1 would require 69% and 93% of the population to be vaccinated with the Pfizer and Oxford vaccine respectively (or achieve a comparable level of immunity through natural infection). However, the new variant of COVID-19 (Lineage B.1.1.7, named Variant of Concern VOC-202012/01) is reported to have an R-value 1.56 (0.92 to 2.28) times higher than the original strain. Vaccinating the entire population with the Oxford vaccine would only reduce the R value to 1.325 while the Pfizer vaccine would require 82% of the population to be vaccinated to control the spread of the new variant.

The Oxford vaccine reduces the incidence of serious illness to a greater extent than it reduces symptomatic illness. But its efficacy against the incidence of asymptomatic infections is lower, reducing its efficacy against all infection from 0.704 to 0.525 for the pooled data. Although asymptomatics are less infectious, including them in our calculations still raises R values by 20% or more, from 1.33 to 1.6 for the new variant with 100% vaccination. Neither vaccine is licenced for use in children, and when this is taken into account, this R value rises by a further 37% to 2.2 if the whole adult population is vaccinated. Even the more effective mRNA vaccines may allow the pandemic to persist via transmission amongst children, as current authorisations only allow their use on adults. In the absence of vaccination, R will reduce to 1 when 89% of the population has acquired immunity as a result of previous infection with COVID-19.

Here's the chart showing the effect on R number as proportion of population get's vaccinated. With Oxford astra it never get's below 1 even with 100% of population immunised. This paper coincided with the uptake in vaccine nationalism. Specifically the EU trying to prevent export of Pfizer vaccine to UK / NI. I don't think it's a coincidence.

Miccoli

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

Would you catch yourself on?

Who are 'they' for a start?

What earthly reason would any group have for perpetuating restrictions that ultimately would ruin the economy and whatever 'they' want to control or manipulate?

Hopefully I am wrong but all I’ve seen during this pandemic is the goalposts being moved time and time again with regards to the lifting of restrictions. I remarked only a few weeks ago on a thread here about how I thought once we reached 70% vaccinations we would be told to hold tight and try to get to a higher number. Now we have an official telling us just that.

accensi0n

Miccoli wrote: »

Hopefully I am wrong but all I’ve seen during this pandemic is the goalposts being moved time and time again with regards to the lifting of restrictions. I remarked only a few weeks ago on a thread here about how I thought once we reached 70% vaccinations we would be told to hold tight and try to get to a higher number. Now we have an official telling us just that.

And who are 'they' exactly.

And why will they still want restrictions even after covid is no longer major health concern?

Miccoli

accensi0n wrote: »

And who are 'they' exactly.

And why will they still want restrictions even after covid is no longer major health concern?

Is Covid a major health concern with 70% of the population vaccinated ?

jackboy

Miccoli wrote: »

Hopefully I am wrong but all I’ve seen during this pandemic is the goalposts being moved time and time again with regards to the lifting of restrictions. I remarked only a few weeks ago on a thread here about how I thought once we reached 70% vaccinations we would be told to hold tight and try to get to a higher number. Now we have an official telling us just that.

All those predictions are just rough guesses. No one really knows. We don’t know how many and the types of new variants we will have in the next few months.

Gruffalux

Miccoli wrote: »

Hopefully I am wrong but all I’ve seen during this pandemic is the goalposts being moved time and time again with regards to the lifting of restrictions. I remarked only a few weeks ago on a thread here about how I thought once we reached 70% vaccinations we would be told to hold tight and try to get to a higher number. Now we have an official telling us just that.

The people in charge are just like everyone else but with titles and good wages. They are not particularly experts or even particularly intelligent. They may fancy themselves to be someone important but they are just passing through the train station. They change their pronouncements all the time. They make co(k-ups all the time. The high death toll after Christmas is a monumental co(k-up, in my opinion, as an example. But one thing that is illogical is that 'they', as in any of the lads or lassies who fancy themselves to be important because they are temporarily in charge, would want some kind of continual economic squeeze, or worse still some kind of authoritarian dictatorship. They don't.

patnor1011

lawred2 wrote: »

Just because a mass vaccination program could be ongoing for years does not mean significant restrictions across Europe or the Western world for years..

Once elderly and at risk individuals are vaccinated the hospitalisation numbers will start to reduce.

Some otherwise healthy people getting a mild illness will be no reason for continued restrictions.

Sure, I see logic in your post but then there is a case of quite large part of what you call "elderly and at risk" who can not be vaccinated.
Nobody wants to clearly define what "people at risk" actually mean. Like we were told that obesity is a factor which can determine your covid infection severity and outcome. Obesity is not a problem in most of the world or majority of world population however a major problem in western world or what we call developed nations. There are countries where half or more of the population is obese. Those may be what you call "at risk" people and there are simply too many of them.
So that is a clear case for restriction to continue.

Miccoli

Miccoli wrote: »

Hopefully I am wrong but all I’ve seen during this pandemic is the goalposts being moved time and time again with regards to the lifting of restrictions. I remarked only a few weeks ago on a thread here about how I thought once we reached 70% vaccinations we would be told to hold tight and try to get to a higher number. Now we have an official telling us just that.

utterly utterly depressing listening to Prof Philip Nolan on Newstalk right now. He's basically saying we will be severely restricted for months to come, going to almost Zero Covid (or Zero tolerance Covid) and we only open up REAL priorities over the next 6 months... i.e. education and healthcare.........right up to September. Looks like there will be no holidays in Ireland this Summer as well as none abroad (according to him). How on earth can people tolerate this ?:(:( No crowded events until over 70% of the population is vaccinated either.

(he has also said most of the infection is in the over 65's and this is not reducing as fast as the reduction in ALL other age groups. The rest of the population is doing really well. So we are all stopping our lives for this older age group...........indefinitely)

I feel utterly depressed.

Eod100

Interesting thread here. Article itself behind a paywall. https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1355815515260858370?s=19