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

lawred2

patnor1011 wrote: »

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.

You can't vaccinate everyone.

Reducing restrictions will be a decision based on hospitalisation numbers.

patnor1011

jackboy wrote: »

They are not doom predictions. They are mainstream opinions which the vast majority of doctors and scientists agree with.

Mainstream opinions and scores of "experts" were not always right.
That is what history teach us time and again.

jackboy

polesheep wrote: »

Yes, they are, but they aren't what you are predicting. Our hospitals won't be under threat from younger people with Covid.

Tell that to the under 65’s that have died here with no apparent underlying conditions. The numbers of those are relatively low but we have had heavy restrictions to keep them low.

Akrasia

Coybig_ wrote: »

How many thousands under 65 died in Sweden, just out of curiosity. Specifically looking for under 65s who would not be classed as vulnerable.

In your own time, thanks.

Also, post viral fatigue. It's been around long before Covid ffs.

Have we turned into a dystopian world where you no longer count as a person when you reach 65years old?

polesheep

jackboy wrote: »

Tell that to the under 65’s that have died here with no apparent underlying conditions. The numbers of those are relatively low but we have had heavy restrictions to keep them low.

Surely you can see that those very low numbers are in contrast to higher numbers among the older and more vulnerable groups... with or without restrictions. Covid mainly affects the elderly and the vulnerable, therefore, when those cohorts are vaccinated we can begin to open up. All of the science and statistics support this reasoning.

Coybig_

jackboy wrote: »

Wrong. Far less of the younger population are significantly affected by the virus. But if the number of young people being infected massively increases then the results are predictable.

You are so wrong, yet so confident. Incredible.

In what way are the results predictable? You are talking complete and utter rubbish.

We have had 198 deaths of age 64 and younger with 165 having underlying conditions.

198 deaths from 163,208 cases. That's .001 percent of cases of this age group ending in death.

163,208 cases is 86.7 percent of all cases.

So from the 86.7 percent of cases,that percentage of people have seen .001 percent death rate.

24,883 cases over 65 (including 80 of no age listed). 2506 deaths.

That 13.3 percent of cases accounts for 92.6 percent of deaths.

10 percent of all over 65 who are infected die.

Once the vulnerable and over 65s are vaccinated the threat of death to the remainder of the population group would be greater on the roads of Ireland than from Covid.

Plumbthedepths

jackboy wrote: »

Tell that to the under 65’s that have died here with no apparent underlying conditions. The numbers of those are relatively low but we have had heavy restrictions to keep them low.

'Tell that to the under 65's that have died' how out of curiosity ,seance perhaps?

Akrasia

patnor1011 wrote: »

Since when? Only very recently and they did without them for most of the time last year. That, with third world countries like most of the Africa without restrictions and even functioning health system clearly contradict your doom prediction.

In 21 African countries the case fatality rate is above 3%
This is despite their much younger age profile compared with Europe

https://www.cfr.org/blog/covid-19-death-rate-rising-africa

There are also a lot of undeclared fatalities in Africa as they do not have the infrastructure to test or report accurately in many places

patnor1011

lawred2 wrote: »

You can't vaccinate everyone.

Reducing restrictions will be a decision based on hospitalisation numbers.

Hospitalisation numbers can only go up because of delay of treatment of everything else. Since hospitals are responsible for quite a lot of covid outbreaks it is hard to argue that reducing is going to happen in near future.
What is going to happen will be exactly what we seen - drop of cases in summer and increase in winter simply because we will never get rid of virus which is quite capable of mutating in order to survive.
My opinion is that we are in a long run with multiple strains emerging and multiple new vaccines coming. Pretty much like it is with flu but in this case we will try to fight unwinnable war employing restrictions which do not work anyway until people realize that life must go on.

Coybig_

Akrasia wrote: »

Have we turned into a dystopian world where you no longer count as a person when you reach 65years old?

Does context not matter when you are shamefully thanks baiting?

I specify said that we need to open up fully after this group are vaccinated. Above I have provided statistics which show why this needs to happen.

Please point out where I said you dont count as a person when you are 65 or over. In your own time.

polesheep

Deleted User wrote: »

If this virus mutates to be much more fatal among youth like spanish flu,where will this leave us??

In a different situation, thankfully, one that only exists in your imagination.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

If this virus mutates to be much more fatal among youth like spanish flu,where will this leave us??

With a modified set of vaccines! This is not 1918.

patnor1011

polesheep wrote: »

Surely you can see that those very low numbers are in contrast to higher numbers among the older and more vulnerable groups... with or without restrictions. Covid mainly affects the elderly and the vulnerable, therefore, when those cohorts are vaccinated we can begin to open up. All of the science and statistics support this reasoning.

Not according to UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock who (quote) reprimanded everyone in the country to continue masking up and continue following lock down restrictions and contact tracing false imprisonment, even after vaccination.

“I want to reiterate an important point made by the Chief Medical Officers and the clinical advice that they have been giving: even if you’ve had the jab, the rules still apply,” Matt Hancock scolded a press conference in London."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, echoed Hancock, warning every vaccine recipient to continue masking up even after the second dose. He even said that two masks are better than one and recommends double masking, even after double vaccination.

Hancock said the first vaccine doesn’t protect anyone. He said it takes three weeks and a second dose before the body learns how to build immunity to coronavirus spike proteins. But he said masks will be required even after the second dose because “we still don’t know whether you will be able to pass coronavirus on to someone else,” he said.

England’s deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, agreed with the assessment and warned all vaccine recipients to continue following lock down procedures and contact tracing even after the first two doses. Van-Tam admitted that “we do not yet know the impact of the vaccine on transmission of the virus.”


Not very optimistic IMHO.

Coybig_

Deleted User wrote: »

From what i can see,nothing to stop it mutateing that way....yous seem happy to gamble on increased transmission not causing it


Can you gaurantee it wont?

Do you live every part of your life a slave to Murphy's law or is it just Covid?

TonyMaloney

polesheep wrote: »

Surely you can see that those very low numbers are in contrast to higher numbers among the older and more vulnerable groups... with or without restrictions. Covid mainly affects the elderly and the vulnerable, therefore, when those cohorts are vaccinated we can begin to open up. All of the science and statistics support this reasoning.

Go look at the hospitalisation figures for the last two weeks.

This rubbish is so ****ing boring at this stage. "All of the science and statistics support this reasoning" - hahaha, literally no science or statistics support your frankly ridiculous assertion.

In the last two weeks over 30% of those hospitalised were under 65.
If you vaccinate the over 65s and let it rip, our hospitals would be full of people under 65.

What you're calling for would be the biggest catastrophe in the history of our state.
It's ****ing ridiculous.

polesheep

Deleted User wrote: »

From what i can see,nothing to stop it mutateing that way....yous seem happy to gamble on increased transmission not causing it


Can you gaurantee it wont?

With the roll-out of the vaccines this virus has been tamed. There are some who, inexplicably, don't want that to be. People are strange.

jackboy

Coybig_ wrote: »

You are so wrong, yet so confident. Incredible.

In what way are the results predictable? You are talking complete and utter rubbish.

We have had 198 deaths of age 64 and younger with 165 having underlying conditions.

198 deaths from 163,208 cases. That's .001 percent of cases of this age group ending in death.

163,208 cases is 86.7 percent of all cases.

So from the 86.7 percent of cases,that percentage of people have seen .001 percent death rate.

24,883 cases over 65 (including 80 of no age listed). 2506 deaths.

That 13.3 percent of cases accounts for 92.6 percent of deaths.

10 percent of all over 65 who are infected die.

Once the vulnerable and over 65s are vaccinated the threat of death to the remainder of the population group would be greater on the roads of Ireland than from Covid.

The seeds of the next lockdown are well and truly sown. We see this every time the cases are on a downward trajectory. The pressure to reopen and get back to normal intensify. We reopen, the virus comes back and we lockdown again.

I would honestly like to hear the rationale from a scientist promoting full lifting of restrictions once the vulnerable are vaccinated. I would be open to listening to that reasoning at least.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

From what i can see,nothing to stop it mutateing that way....yous seem happy to gamble on increased transmission not causing it


Can you gaurantee it wont?

It's possible it may mutate to something no more serious than a head cold.
Although considering the vaccines available to us I wouldn't be concerned either ways.

Coybig_

patnor1011 wrote: »

Not according to UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock who (quote) reprimanded everyone in the country to continue masking up and continue following lock down restrictions and contact tracing false imprisonment, even after vaccination.

“I want to reiterate an important point made by the Chief Medical Officers and the clinical advice that they have been giving: even if you’ve had the jab, the rules still apply,” Matt Hancock scolded a press conference in London."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, echoed Hancock, warning every vaccine recipient to continue masking up even after the second dose. He even said that two masks are better than one and recommends double masking, even after double vaccination.

Hancock said the first vaccine doesn’t protect anyone. He said it takes three weeks and a second dose before the body learns how to build immunity to coronavirus spike proteins. But he said masks will be required even after the second dose because “we still don’t know whether you will be able to pass coronavirus on to someone else,” he said.

England’s deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, agreed with the assessment and warned all vaccine recipients to continue following lock down procedures and contact tracing even after the first two doses. Van-Tam admitted that “we do not yet know the impact of the vaccine on transmission of the virus.”


Not very optimistic IMHO.

https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/israel-shows-promising-results-from-pfizer-vaccination-campaign-657051

polesheep

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Go look at the hospitalisation figures for the last two weeks.

This rubbish is so ****ing boring at this stage. "All of the science and statistics support this reasoning" - hahaha, literally no science or statistics support your frankly ridiculous assertion.

In the last two weeks over 30% of those hospitalised were under 65.
If you vaccinate the over 65s and let it rip, our hospitals would be full of people under 65.

What you're calling for would be the biggest catastrophe in the history of our state.
It's ****ing ridiculous.

"let it rip" Those are your words, not mine.

patnor1011

Deleted User wrote: »

If this virus mutates to be much more fatal among youth like spanish flu,where will this leave us??

We do not know.
Even flu seasons are different. Sometimes we have it easy other time we get hit by more deadlier strain.
We should focus on treatment as trying to stop virus like this is a problem which will take decades to solve. We were not particularly successful with any other respiratory virus so there is no guarantee we will do it with this one.

Benimar

Coybig_ wrote: »

You are so wrong, yet so confident. Incredible.

In what way are the results predictable? You are talking complete and utter rubbish.

We have had 198 deaths of age 64 and younger with 165 having underlying conditions.

198 deaths from 163,208 cases. That's .001 percent of cases of this age group ending in death.

163,208 cases is 86.7 percent of all cases.

So from the 86.7 percent of cases,that percentage of people have seen .001 percent death rate.

24,883 cases over 65 (including 80 of no age listed). 2506 deaths.

That 13.3 percent of cases accounts for 92.6 percent of deaths.

10 percent of all over 65 who are infected die.

Once the vulnerable and over 65s are vaccinated the threat of death to the remainder of the population group would be greater on the roads of Ireland than from Covid.

198 as a percentage of 163,208 is 0.12% so you are underestimating by a factor of 100.

TonyMaloney

polesheep wrote: »

"let it rip" Those are your words, not mine.

Forgive me if I got it wrong, but are a bunch of you not talking about opening up once the over 65s are vaccinated?

polesheep

polesheep wrote: »

With the roll-out of the vaccines this virus has been tamed. There are some who, inexplicably, don't want that to be. People are strange.

While I would tend to agree with you, I did hear a disconcerting interview on Times radio in the UK this morning with a member of SAGE who could not confirm that there won’t have to be a full lockdown next winter because they don’t actually know yet if immunity from the current wave of vaccinations will last that long. More work is needed before they know how long they last

polesheep

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Go look at the hospitalisation figures for the last two weeks.

This rubbish is so ****ing boring at this stage. "All of the science and statistics support this reasoning" - hahaha, literally no science or statistics support your frankly ridiculous assertion.

In the last two weeks over 30% of those hospitalised were under 65.
If you vaccinate the over 65s and let it rip, our hospitals would be full of people under 65.

What you're calling for would be the biggest catastrophe in the history of our state.
It's ****ing ridiculous.

What percentage of those 'under 65s' were over 55 or vulnerable?

polesheep

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Forgive me if I got it wrong, but are a bunch of you not talking about opening up once the over 65s are vaccinated?

When the over 65s and vulnerable are vaccinated we should begin to open up.

Coybig_

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Go look at the hospitalisation figures for the last two weeks.

This rubbish is so ****ing boring at this stage. "All of the science and statistics support this reasoning" - hahaha, literally no science or statistics support your frankly ridiculous assertion.

In the last two weeks over 30% of those hospitalised were under 65.
If you vaccinate the over 65s and let it rip, our hospitals would be full of people under 65.

What you're calling for would be the biggest catastrophe in the history of our state.
It's ****ing ridiculous.

.012 percent of those people have died. An inarguable fact. From 86.7 percent of all cases.

At some point we need to accept that people may end up in hospital, just like they do for other reasons. With a death rate of .001 percent for this.

At what point do the terrible effects of Lockdown come under consideration?

What your saying would be the biggest catastrophe in the history of the state is complete horse manure.

polesheep

Deleted User wrote: »

While I would tend to agree with you, I did hear a disconcerting interview on Times radio in the UK this morning with a member of SAGE who could not confirm that there won’t have to be a full lockdown next winter because they don’t actually know yet if immunity from the current wave of vaccinations will last that long. More work is needed before they know how long they last

Indeed and I believe that the vaccine will be adapted and given regularly to those who are vulnerable. Nevertheless, the virus will have been tamed.

TonyMaloney

polesheep wrote: »

When the over 65s and vulnerable are vaccinated we should begin to open up.

Right. I thought so.
So I repeat, the numbers we have suggests that would be an absolute ****ing disaster for our hospitals.

Coybig_

Benimar wrote: »

198 as a percentage of 163,208 is 0.12% so you are underestimating by a factor of 100.

No it's just me who is wrong. Apologies.