Covid 19 Part XXXIV-249,437 ROI(4,906 deaths) 120,195 NI (2,145 deaths)(01/05)Read OP

darem93

I'd say there is a large amount of people - myself included - who would be more than willing to take the risk and accept the AZ or the J&J vaccine if it meant getting back to any normality that bit sooner.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

FWIW talk about distinguishing the virus from the disease is a typical starting point of the anti-lockdown loons who want to pretend there's no real health emergency and that people are having the wool pulled over their eyes because the level of "disease" is small.

Everyone knows that there is a difference. But in the context of viral spread and infection spread, it doesn't matter. In terms of cases and infection control, it is irrelevant who has Covid-19 and who has merely tested positive for the virus.

It's not a grand conspiracy by NPHET or anyone else to make this a bigger deal, the two terms are used interchangeably to avoid confusion because at the macro level it doesn't actually matter.

As this thread has shown, clearly not everyone.

Whether it matters is another question altogether. And I would largely agree with the rest of your tangential points.

And for what it's worth, I am not an anti-lockdownist nor do I believe that NPHET have tailored together some grand conspiracy.

Nomenclature matters, and it's use should be as accurate as possible when communicating with the public.

The same question goes for "a new virus" when referring to B117 variant. Again, this kind of miscommunication matters (in my view).

Faugheen

darem93 wrote: »

I'd say there is a large amount of people - myself included - who would be more than willing to take the risk and accept the AZ or the J&J vaccine if it meant getting back to any normality that bit sooner.

On this actually. If there are concerns I don't see why there can't be a 'check the box' option on this portal.

As in 'check the box if you are willing to receive AZ. Read here for information around potential side effects' etc etc.

If it is a safe vaccine then I don't understand why they just don't let people choose for themselves.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

As this thread has shown, clearly not everyone.

Whether it matters is another question altogether. And I would largely agree with the rest of your tangential points.

And for what it's worth, I am not an anti-lockdownist nor do I believe that NPHET have tailored together some grand conspiracy.

But you are the one getting uppity about spreading disease and how it scares people, when you are literally the only person I have come across that has had an issue with this.

Mitch Connor

darem93 wrote: »

I'd say there is a large amount of people - myself included - who would be more than willing to take the risk and accept the AZ or the J&J vaccine if it meant getting back to any normality that bit sooner.

I'd sign up tomorrow if it ment i could get back to going to the gym, going out for dinner, playing with the brother's kids, going to the cinema etc.

seamus

Faugheen wrote: »

On this actually. If there are concerns I don't see why there can't be a 'check the box' option on this portal.

As in 'check the box if you are willing to receive AZ. Read here for information around potential side effects' etc etc.

If it is a safe vaccine then I don't understand why they just don't let people choose for themselves.

It's not generally how medicine in this country works to be fair, it would be a significant departure from standard practice.

Where a medicine is not recommended for a certain class of people, and there are equivalent effective medicines available, then a doctor will only prescribe the alternative, and the patient doesn't get to demand it.

This is basically the same thing, but on a broader scale. It is not recommended for under-60s and an alternative exists, therefore it is not in the interests of public health to offer it to them.

I believe they should make an exception, really. I fear there'd be too much bureaucracy in it though. Realistically AZ & J&J should be offered to men under 60 if they're willing to check the "yep, I'm happy" box, but I think there may be too much fear of political fallout were that to be allowed.

DebDynamite

Faugheen wrote: »

On this actually. If there are concerns I don't see why there can't be a 'check the box' option on this portal.

As in 'check the box if you are willing to receive AZ. Read here for information around potential side effects' etc etc.

If it is a safe vaccine then I don't understand why they just don't let people choose for themselves.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-what-is-the-blood-clot-risk-from-the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-how-does-it-compare-12268572

From the article, odds of getting a clot after getting the vaccine: one in 250,000, or 0.0004%.

Odds of getting a blood clot from the contraceptive pill: one in 2,000 or 0.05%.

Further on in the article: In the US, the National Blood Clot Alliance estimates that one in 1,000 women per year who are taking birth control pills will develop a clot, putting the risk at 0.1%.

We seriously need to think outside the box on this one.

Widdensushi

seamus wrote: »

It's not generally how medicine in this country works to be fair, it would be a significant departure from standard practice.

Where a medicine is not recommended for a certain class of people, and there are equivalent effective medicines available, then a doctor will only prescribe the alternative, and the patient doesn't get to demand it.

This is basically the same thing, but on a broader scale. It is not recommended for under-60s and an alternative exists, therefore it is not in the interests of public health to offer it to them.

I believe they should make an exception, really. I fear there'd be too much bureaucracy in it though. Realistically AZ & J&J should be offered to men under 60 if they're willing to check the "yep, I'm happy" box, but I think there may be too much fear of political fallout were that to be allowed.

I agree we should get the option, I wasn't giving the news conference my full attention but I thought they said men and women were equally likely (or unlikely) to get a clot after astra, that the reason more women had issues was that women had that vaccine.

Turtwig

DebDynamite wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-what-is-the-blood-clot-risk-from-the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-how-does-it-compare-12268572

From the article, odds of getting a clot after getting the vaccine: one in 250,000, or 0.0004%.

Odds of getting a blood clot from the contraceptive pill: one in 2,000 or 0.05%.

Further on in the article: In the US, the National Blood Clot Alliance estimates that one in 1,000 women per year who are taking birth control pills will develop a clot, putting the risk at 0.1%.

You might as well be comparing the odds of a baseball team and gaa team to decide who'll win at basketball. The vaccine is potentially linked to a very specific clotting disorder. The pill has no such link. Comparisons of odds is meaningless.

DOCARCH

431 new cases/12 additional deaths.

KrustyUCC

431 cases 12 deaths

Jammyd

DOCARCH wrote: »

451 new cases/12 additional deaths.

431 and 12 deaths

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0414/1209770-ireland-covid-figures/

KrustyUCC

Of the deaths reported today, 4 occurred in April, 2 occurred in March and 6 occurred in January.

KrustyUCC

https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1382376620862898185

Today's case breakdown

TheDoctor

Crazy that January is still the highest part of the daily reported deaths most of the last week.

CalamariFritti

darem93 wrote: »

I'd say there is a large amount of people - myself included - who would be more than willing to take the risk and accept the AZ or the J&J vaccine if it meant getting back to any normality that bit sooner.

I'd go back to normal without any vaccine in the morning.

blowitupref

7 day average in cases 402 it was 501 last Wednesday.

political analyst

By the end of Thursday 25 March this year ....


https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0326/1206400-garda-virus-fines/

....there have been 554 fines of €500 for organising a house party, totaling €277,000.

A further 58 fines of €500 were for organising an event that was not classified as a house party, worth a total of €29,000.

A total of €323,850 could be made from the 2,159 fines of €150 issued for attending house parties.

Isn't that the reason for the numbers of cases still not being low enough to let businesses re-open?

If shop workers have been ensuring that customers respect the face-covering rule then the idea that shopping contributed to the rise in the numbers of cases doesn't hold water.

So what evidence could NPHET have had to justify recommending both the closure of non-essential shops and the ban on click-and-collect?

Why hasn't more contact-tracing being done? If it was being done, it would prove that click-and-collect and non-essential shops did not cause the Christmas case-number increase.

zebastein

Tomorrow we can expect our 14days incidence rate to go down nicely. Hopefully the case numbers will be in the 300/400 range and that should replace the day of the 1st April which has 761 cases reported.

Jim_Hodge

TheDoctor wrote: »

Crazy that January is still the highest part of the daily reported deaths most of the last week.

Coming to the end of the three month period to register, coupled with delays due to covid restrictions.

Batattackrat

political analyst wrote: »

By the end of Thursday 25 March this year ....


https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0326/1206400-garda-virus-fines/



Isn't that the reason for the numbers of cases still not being low enough to let businesses re-open?

If shop workers have been ensuring that customers respect the face-covering rule then the idea that shopping contributed to the rise in the numbers of cases doesn't hold water.

So what evidence could NPHET have had to justify recommending both the closure of non-essential shops and the ban on click-and-collect?

Why hasn't more contact-tracing being done? If it was being done, it would prove that click-and-collect and non-essential shops did not cause the Christmas case-number increase.

Yea its a pity they couldn't have a few pints in a regulated environment like a pub.

muddypuppy

TheDoctor wrote: »

Crazy that January is still the highest part of the daily reported deaths most of the last week.

Well, in January we had >6 times the cases of March, probably missed a good few cases there due to testing/contact tracing being overwhelmed, and barely any vaccine.
It seems like a lot of deaths are reported late, but in fact it's a small percentage, it's just that very few people are dying of covid right now, so the few reported late looks bad.

harr

https://twitter.com/riochtconor2/status/1382085587625259008?s=21

Lowest hospital numbers since early October...

saabsaab

Batattackrat wrote: »

Yea its a pity they couldn't have a few pints in a regulated environment like a pub.

Better than letting the UK variants home at Christmas.

boardise

Deleted User wrote: »

As this thread has shown, clearly not everyone.

Whether it matters is another question altogether. And I would largely agree with the rest of your tangential points.

And for what it's worth, I am not an anti-lockdownist nor do I believe that NPHET have tailored together some grand conspiracy.

Nomenclature matters, and it's use should be as accurate as possible when communicating with the public.

The same question goes for "a new virus" when referring to B117 variant. Again, this kind of miscommunication matters (in my view).

Micheal Martin was slated for saying last winter that the B 1 1 7 was almost like a new virus. A few weeks back I heard a medical expert on Euronews saying exactly the same thing Just remarking.

Sobit1964

boardise wrote: »

Micheal Martin was slated for saying last winter that the B 1 1 7 was almost like a new virus. A few weeks back I heard a medical expert on Euronews saying exactly the same thing Just remarking.

Didnt Merkel say it was like a whole new pandemic?

Faugheen

boardise wrote: »

Micheal Martin was slated for saying last winter that the B 1 1 7 was almost like a new virus. A few weeks back I heard a medical expert on Euronews saying exactly the same thing Just remarking.

Because contrarians here don't want any hysteria even though they cause most of it themselves.

Anyone with any understanding of B117 knows what MM said wasn't so outrageous.

normanoffside

DOCARCH wrote: »

431 new cases/12 additional deaths.

3 Deaths were also denotified

https://twitter.com/roinnslainte/status/1382383128287842309

KrustyUCC

https://twitter.com/RiochtConor2/status/1370802500111101954

Shows decent progress being made

political analyst

This article was published last month.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/explainer-what-is-going-on-with-click-and-collect-services-1.4518019

During the second lockdown in October and November, non-essential retailers were allowed to sell online as well as offer a so-called click-and-collect service, which is where customers can order products online before later collecting them from the store.

It allowed many smaller retailers who did not have the capacity for full online delivery services to continue to trade through November.

However, with Covid-19 case numbers surging at the end of December, non-essential retail was forced to close for the third time in less than a year on January 6th, and the Government decided not to allow the click-and-collect model so as to reduce movement and travel as much as possible.

It was felt that by taking that option off the table it would stop people driving to retail and town centres to pick up ordered goods and would reduce the movement of people in the community.