Covid 19 Part XXXIII-231,484 ROI(4,610 deaths)116,197 NI (2,107 deaths)(23/03)Read OP

agoodpunt

de new variant is like a new virus altogether mehole with the world opening up 2 choices leave and live or stay and be thankful you survived it.
The unbearable lockdown is supported by those who wish for more so td's know they will be the deciders in next GE the youth will be long gone.

Summer holiday bookings in the UK surge 600% yesterday = Irelands planless lockdown madness

Faugheen

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't see any shifting of the goalposts. The vaccine takes time to administer and the human body takes further time to develop immunity. April is when we should start seeing vaccine dividends, which, coincidentally is around the time of the next review.

Your swear Martin announced life sentences for the population tonight, the way some posters are going on. Get a grip, there are only a few more hard weeks of this left.

I understand some people are very frustrated but the sneering of him for talking about the B117 variant as if it didn’t matter is mind-blowing. People actually learned nothing from what happened at Christmas.

Far from a fan of how this government has handled this, especially their communications strategy, but I saw little wrong in that speech last night. Anyone expecting dates when we’re still weeks away from any vaccine impact data was living in a complete fantasy land.

prunudo

If these zero covid crowd continue getting air time where they are allowed to dismiss the effectiveness of the vaccines without any challenge, it has a real potential to effect the up take of vaccine by the groups further down the list. If people are healthy and not in an at risk group they could start thinking about not taking the vaccine if they contuinely hear it doesn't work.

celt262

prunudo wrote: »

If these zero covid crowd continue getting air time where they are allowed to dismiss the effectiveness of the vaccines without any challenge, it has a real potential to effect the up take of vaccine by the groups further down the list. If people are healthy and not in an at risk group they could start thinking about not taking the vaccine if they contuinely hear it doesn't work.

Shouldn't be giving much air time.

prunudo

celt262 wrote: »

Shouldn't be giving much air time.

I'd agree with that anyway, but their current narrative is dangerous, especially when there isn't a counter argument, from either an opposing contributor or the interviewer themselves.

celt262

prunudo wrote: »

I'd agree with that anyway, but their current narrative is dangerous, especially when there isn't a counter argument, from either an opposing contributor or the interviewer themselves.

Exactly it all seems to be one way traffic.

What Username Guidelines

Faugheen wrote: »

I understand some people are very frustrated but the sneering of him for talking about the B117 variant as if it didn’t matter is mind-blowing. People actually learned nothing from what happened at Christmas.

Far from a fan of how this government has handled this, especially their communications strategy, but I saw little wrong in that speech last night. Anyone expecting dates when we’re still weeks away from any vaccine impact data was living in a complete fantasy land.

While the talk in the media of “a new virus” is incredibly frustrating, I’m not sure what Martin could have said to placate people. I’m starting to think if he had said anything other than “right, open it up” we’d have the same reaction. People are fed up, I’m fed up, I’m worried about how much this is costing, but we’re a lot closer to the end now. You’d think we’ve learnt nothing since last year. 2-3 weeks is a long time in a pandemic. Hospital numbers are dropping fast, cases are dropping fast and vaccinations appear to have already had impact in healthcare workers.

The government have been an absolute mess in terms of communications, but anyone who thinks they’re orchestrating this needs their heads checked.

Interestingly enough, there’s talk on Reddit regarding their r/coronavirus subreddit, it started as the “official” subreddit but has gone a bit nuts recently. Theory is that as time goes by and we’re coming to the end of the pandemic, those left commenting are those with opinions at each extreme end of the reactionary spectrum. Deniers vs doomers let’s say. This is why internet discussions seem to be getting more extreme in the last month or so.

Polar101

Faugheen wrote: »

I understand some people are very frustrated but the sneering of him for talking about the B117 variant as if it didn’t matter is mind-blowing.

The media reporting of variants has been poor at best, so people tend to dismiss anything to do with variants as unimportant. Which isn't necessarily a good idea.

titan18

We also seem one of the few freaking out about the variants. Most other European countries are reopening or have plans to reopen much faster than us.

Honestly, I reckon if cases are 50 a day by April, we still won't reopen things, it'll be some construction and some outdoor sports that we'll get no matter how good things get. There is zero incentive for us to get things lower as the government aren't going to reward it. They and NPHET have their own plan and timetable no matter what the figures are imo.

dominatinMC

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't see any shifting of the goalposts. The vaccine takes time to administer and the human body takes further time to develop immunity. April is when we should start seeing vaccine dividends, which, coincidentally is around the time of the next review.

Then explain how the narrative has gone from "we need to keep strain off the hospital system" to "zero covid". That seems like a big change in direction to me.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Your swear Martin announced life sentences for the population tonight, the way some posters are going on. Get a grip, there are only a few more hard weeks of this left.

Which has been said ad nauseam since the start of this. Now, I understand it is very hard to predict the future in a pandemic, but these seem like empty, hollow words when you have Fergal Bowers tweeting about potential restrictions next Winter. Final lockdown, eh? :rolleyes:

Doctor Jimbob

Faugheen wrote: »

I understand some people are very frustrated but the sneering of him for talking about the B117 variant as if it didn’t matter is mind-blowing. People actually learned nothing from what happened at Christmas.

Far from a fan of how this government has handled this, especially their communications strategy, but I saw little wrong in that speech last night. Anyone expecting dates when we’re still weeks away from any vaccine impact data was living in a complete fantasy land.

Is anyone saying he shouldn't have talked about B117? Most posts I've seen have been criticising the 'new virus' stuff, not the fact he brought it up at all.

Doctor Jimbob

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

While the talk in the media of “a new virus” is incredibly frustrating, I’m not sure what Martin could have said to placate people. I’m starting to think if he had said anything other than “right, open it up” we’d have the same reaction. People are fed up, I’m fed up, I’m worried about how much this is costing, but we’re a lot closer to the end now. You’d think we’ve learnt nothing since last year. 2-3 weeks is a long time in a pandemic. Hospital numbers are dropping fast, cases are dropping fast and vaccinations appear to have already had impact in healthcare workers.

The government have been an absolute mess in terms of communications, but anyone who thinks they’re orchestrating this needs their heads checked.

Interestingly enough, there’s talk on Reddit regarding their r/coronavirus subreddit, it started as the “official” subreddit but has gone a bit nuts recently. Theory is that as time goes by and we’re coming to the end of the pandemic, those left commenting are those with opinions at each extreme end of the reactionary spectrum. Deniers vs doomers let’s say. This is why internet discussions seem to be getting more extreme in the last month or so.

He could have acknowledged the government's role in what went wrong at Christmas. He could have acknowledged that the government have taken an underwhelming approach to restricting foreign travel since the start of the pandemic. Instead, he told us what we have to do to ensure the virus doesn't spread more. The implication being that the spread is due to what the population are doing and nothing at all to do with government errors.

He could have removed the 5km restriction and fully reopened construction - those seem to be going ahead in other countries without any issues.

Some people would still have taken issue with the above, you're right. But I think it would have helped a lot with keeping keeping the majority onside.

plodder

95% of former COVID patients suffer no irreversible damage, Israeli study finds

95% of those hospitalised presumably, which puts long Covid in some perspective finally.

Faugheen

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Is anyone saying he shouldn't have talked about B117? Most posts I've seen have been criticising the 'new virus' stuff, not the fact he brought it up at all.

You have seen no posts sneering at him for bringing up the variant?

He said it is ‘equivalent to a new virus’, not that it actually is a new virus, which I think is a very accurate reflection on B117.

If people have a hard time grasping that without resorting to faux outrage about ‘dangerous’ commentary then I don’t know how else it can be spelled out. The fact people have a problem with that statement shows their complete disregard for it. People will take what they want to suit their own agenda.

plodder

Tanaiste just admitted that NPHET don't want to set exact metrics, other than a downward trend. We've been on a downward trend for several weeks now. So, that is fairly meaningless.

Doctor Jimbob

Faugheen wrote: »

You have seen no posts sneering at him for bringing up the variant?

He said it is ‘equivalent to a new virus’, not that it actually is a new virus, which I think is a very accurate reflection on B117.

If people have a hard time grasping that without resorting to faux outrage about ‘dangerous’ commentary then I don’t know how else it can be spelled out. The fact people have a problem with that statement shows their complete disregard for it. People will take what they want to suit their own agenda.

And just a few hours after his speech we had the zero covid crowd on TV talking up the new virus thing and even going on about a new pandemic. That would never have happened if it wasn't for MM coming out with the term.

It was irresponsible. He should be sticking to the facts.

is_that_so

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

He could have acknowledged the government's role in what went wrong at Christmas. He could have acknowledged that the government have taken an underwhelming approach to restricting foreign travel since the start of the pandemic. Instead, he told us what we have to do to ensure the virus doesn't spread more. The implication being that the spread is due to what the population are doing and nothing at all to do with government errors.

He could have removed the 5km restriction and fully reopened construction - those seem to be going ahead in other countries without any issues.

Some people would still have taken issue with the above, you're right. But I think it would have helped a lot with keeping keeping the majority onside.

That's not what you do with a speech to the nation, when your own musings have the nation in such a black mood anyway. Christmas is in the rear view and really offers nothing to our plans for the future apart from very extreme caution. It's that caution that leaves everything unchanged for another 5 weeks. Now it's all eyes on the rates of vaccination he claimed and the pretty vain hope that they can maintain a coherent communication policy.

is_that_so

Faugheen wrote: »

You have seen no posts sneering at him for bringing up the variant?

He said it is ‘equivalent to a new virus’, not that it actually is a new virus, which I think is a very accurate reflection on B117.

If people have a hard time grasping that without resorting to faux outrage about ‘dangerous’ commentary then I don’t know how else it can be spelled out. The fact people have a problem with that statement shows their complete disregard for it. People will take what they want to suit their own agenda.

The problem with B1.1.17 is that he pushed an unproven 70% increase in transmissability to justify it. That may be their rationale but it doesn't make it true even if it supports the case for being ultra cautious.

plodder

Can someone explain then how B117 is "equivalent to a new virus"? That would imply a close to 0% efficacy against it, which isn't the case for any vaccine afaik.

wadacrack

This is why its wise to be cautious. People don't realise the effects of letting this get out of control again.

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1364469700659445761

Faugheen

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And just a few hours after his speech we had the zero covid crowd on TV talking up the new virus thing and even going on about a new pandemic. That would never have happened if it wasn't for MM coming out with the term.

It was irresponsible. He should be sticking to the facts.

And this is an equivalent to a new virus such as its behaviour, do you not see that to be the case?.

You tried the very same points last night when I put it to you why this was like a new virus and you came back with ‘why are schools opening then?’ And you eventually admitted you hadn’t been listening or paying attention at all to what NPHET has been saying (and that’s fair enough, I only watch the briefings because their communications are far better than the government on this).

Ronan Glynn spoke about the potential of new variants in August and he was laughed out of the room by many on here. Now those same people, following a Christmas where a new, more transmissive and more deadly variant of the virus took hold, are sneering at anyone who tries to make it sound like the big deal that it actually is.

Fact of the matter is nearly everything Ronan Glynn said would happen if we let our guard down has happened, and the government takes a lot of responsibility for that especially around travel into the country.

is_that_so

plodder wrote: »

Can someone explain then how B117 is "equivalent to a new virus"? That would imply a close to 0% efficacy against it, which isn't the case for any vaccine afaik.

It's to do with how quickly it is said to be spreading and potentially bumping up cases faster. In a barely vaccinated environment that's not what you want.

Doctors room ghost

plodder wrote: »

Tanaiste just admitted that NPHET don't want to set exact metrics, other than a downward trend. We've been on a downward trend for several weeks now. So, that is fairly meaningless.

It’s one meaningless waffle after the next from them and if that fails blame the British covid like the boogeyman.
It’s been a long year and here we are,listening to the same clowns banging the same drum.

Faugheen

is_that_so wrote: »

The problem with B1.1.17 is that he pushed an unproven 70% increase in transmissability to justify it. That may be their rationale but it doesn't make it true even if it supports the case for being ultra cautious.

But what has happened is that close contacts in a household has gone from 1 in 5 before the new variant to 1 in 3 among those with B1.1.7 as Glynn pointed out last night. That’s a stark increase and points to a much higher transmissibility. With our R number hovering from 0.6 to 0.8 for the last few weeks, there is method to Philip Nolan’s modelling as well especially since it hasn’t been dropping as B1.1.7 became more dominant.

plodder

is_that_so wrote: »

It's to do with how quickly it is said to be spreading and potentially bumping up cases faster. In a barely vaccinated environment that's not what you want.

The vaccines are still effective against it, albeit at a reduced level. But, that is self-evidently not the same thing as saying it's 'equivalent to a new virus'.

The reduction in efficacy will be reflected in a higher level of hospitalisations than expected. So I don't see why we can't have a target based on level of hospitalisations.

timsey tiger

Faugheen wrote: »

But what has happened is that close contacts in a household has gone from 1 in 5 before the new variant to 1 in 3 among those with B1.1.7 as Glynn pointed out last night. That’s a stark increase and points to a much higher transmissibility. With our R number hovering from 0.6 to 0.8 for the last few weeks, there is method to Philip Nolan’s modelling as well especially since it hasn’t been dropping as B1.1.7 became more dominant.

What dies this mean?

podgeandrodge

plodder wrote: »

95% of former COVID patients suffer no irreversible damage, Israeli study finds

95% of those hospitalised presumably, which puts long Covid in some perspective finally.

That study excluded narcissism, which impacts the likelyhood of long covid . Look at Claire Byrne and Ciara Kelly, and many others in the public eye.

plodder

Seems to me the situation is either:

a) NPHET have target metrics but they don't want to share them in case they have to be changed, or

b) they don't have target metrics and they don't know how we are going to get out of this

Faugheen

timsey tiger wrote: »

What dies this mean?

One out of every 5 close contacts in a home setting we’re getting infected with the virus before B1.1.7

Since B1.1.7, it’s now one in every 3 close contacts getting infected.

Ronan Glynn said it last night.

Faugheen

plodder wrote: »

Seems to me the situation is either:

a) NPHET have target metrics but they don't want to share them in case they have to be changed, or

b) they don't have target metrics and they don't know how we are going to get out of this

It’s the former I reckon. They’ve spoken before about anticipatory behaviour among people if it’s getting close to certain metrics.

They’re right as well, but I wouldn’t criticise the public too much on that because it’s only human nature.