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

Vicxas

wadacrack wrote: »

i thinks its a combination of factors. Relaxing restrictions too quickly. Less-than-desired levels of effectiveness of the Sinovac vaccine. Vaccinated people become infected before the vaccine illicit an immune response. Variants in South America seem to be pretty serious. Its hard to say at this stage but the virus seems to be impacted younger people more severely than previous waves.

I would put this mostly down to the questionable efficacy of Sinovac

firemansam4

Hector Savage wrote: »

I usually use the terms "worrying", "turning point" etc with sarcasm ... but this :
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56731801

Extremely worrying, Chile have ~66% of population with 1st dose, ~27% with 2 doses.

Also this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/14/science-proves-boris-johnson-wrong-vaccines-reducing-deaths/

appears as a good news story, but



This doesn't seem like a good result - only 8% reduction in hospitalisation due to vaccine ??? Still 32% of vaccinated people in hospital ???


If this is true than the vaccines won't get us out of this sh1t ....

Like many news articles, the headline is very misleading....

if you read more into the BBC article it goes into more detail about the sinovac vaccine they are using in chile.

Studys show that it only gives 3% protection after the first dose, then over 50% on second dose.
As most their population has still only had one dose then that would explain their high infection levels.

As for the Telegarph article, Its behind a paywall and im not going to register a free trial with that rag to try and see the article....

snotboogie

Hector Savage wrote: »

I usually use the terms "worrying", "turning point" etc with sarcasm ... but this :
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56731801

Extremely worrying, Chile have ~66% of population with 1st dose, ~27% with 2 doses.

Also this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/14/science-proves-boris-johnson-wrong-vaccines-reducing-deaths/

appears as a good news story, but



This doesn't seem like a good result - only 8% reduction in hospitalisation due to vaccine ??? Still 32% of vaccinated people in hospital ???


If this is true than the vaccines won't get us out of this sh1t ....

The Chile article needs more context. They just reached 65 vaccines per 100 (not 66% of the population with one shot) and have 380 cases per million. Israel at 65 vaccines per 100 had 800 cases per million. In fact, Israel at 100 vaccines per 100 had 425 cases per million, its only after they reached the 100 per 100 number that cases started to really tail off. Israel are currently at about 20 cases per million. Vaccination does work at reducing cases but you need a lot of people vaccinated. Less than 40% of people in Chile have gotten at least one shot. They need more vaccinations.

firemansam4

snotboogie wrote: »

The Chile article needs more context. They just reached 65 vaccines per 100 (not 66% of the population with one shot) and have 380 cases per million. Israel at 65 vaccines per 100 had 800 cases per million. In fact, Israel at 100 vaccines per 100 had 425 cases per million, its only after they reached the 100 per 100 number that cases started to really tail off. Israel are currently at about 20 cases per million. Vaccination does work at reducing cases but you need a lot of people vaccinated. Less than 40% of people in Chile have gotten at least one shot. They need more vaccinations.

You cant even compare the two countries. Chile are using a completely different vaccine for the vast majority of their population.

The sinovac vaccine has shown to have very poor efficacy after 1 dose only.

Vicxas

Anyone have a breakdown of hospital numbers, was it an increase of ICU or just general beds?

Hector Savage

firemansam4 wrote: »

Like many news articles, the headline is very misleading....

if you read more into the BBC article it goes into more detail about the sinovac vaccine they are using in chile.

Studys show that it only gives 3% protection after the first dose, then over 50% on second dose.
As most their population has still only had one dose then that would explain their high infection levels.

As for the Telegarph article, Its behind a paywall and im not going to register a free trial with that rag to try and see the article....

Here

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ftfIVRYIIAfDBolkIKErMKEoZ-69EM04aXD4W2QJde8/edit?usp=sharing

Eod100

Another exemption for MHQ

https://twitter.com/Orlaodo/status/1382996535584116741

seamus

Vicxas wrote: »

Anyone have a breakdown of hospital numbers, was it an increase of ICU or just general beds?

Tiny increase in both. ICU up by 2, hospital up by 6.

Hospital admissions actually went up by 8 yesterday and dropped by 2 overnight.

This is almost unheard of (admissions always increase overnight), which leads me to believe that it's probably a statistical blip overall.

ednwireland

Eod100 wrote: »

Another exemption for MHQ

https://twitter.com/Orlaodo/status/1382996535584116741

FFS at this point there will more exceptions than people quarantining good to know that the virus knows who these exceptions are.

stephenjmcd

Eod100 wrote: »

Another exemption for MHQ

https://twitter.com/Orlaodo/status/1382996535584116741

They really dont want the High Court ruling on this. Every case that's come so far has had a change made on the back of it and the state giving in before it comes back infront of a judge

zebastein

ednwireland wrote: »

FFS at this point there will more exceptions than people quarantining good to know that the virus knows who these exceptions are.

Especially when your exemptions are rugby players do a contact sport, or surrogacy that may involve going to the hospital or other care facility, which are places where the virus is more likely to spread

lawred2

zebastein wrote: »

Especially when your exemptions are rugby players do a contact sport, or surrogacy that may involve going to the hospital or other care facility, which are places where the virus is more likely to spread

amongst healthy young people likely to be asymptomatic...

ooohhh scary

to think they might bring it home to their vaccinated parents and grandparents...

zebastein

I am not discussing the actual level of threat, but the fact that if these people are allowed to get in, I see plenty of other people who should be allowed if the criteria is solely the health risk for the country (let's remember that the criteria cannot be discriminatory)

seamus

stephenjmcd wrote: »

They really dont want the High Court ruling on this. Every case that's come so far has had a change made on the back of it and the state giving in before it comes back infront of a judge

That's exactly it.

The court won't say, "OK, if you're a surrogate you don't have to go into MHQ", or, "OK, if you have a family member who is about to die you can go".

The court will rule on a much broader ground than the specific one the person is appealing on. In most cases the court will decide that where there is a compelling humanitarian reason for the person to be allowed out, then they must be allowed out.
This will then make it next to impossible to keep MHQ standing because we can all come up with "compelling humanitarian reasons" why we shouldn't be stuck in a hotel room.

lawred2

seamus wrote: »

That's exactly it.

The court won't say, "OK, if you're a surrogate you don't have to go into MHQ", or, "OK, if you have a family member who is about to die you can go".

The court will rule on a much broader ground than the specific one the person is appealing on. In most cases the court will decide that where there is a compelling humanitarian reason for the person to be allowed out, then they must be allowed out.
This will then make it next to impossible to keep MHQ standing because we can all come up with "compelling humanitarian reasons" why we shouldn't be stuck in a hotel room.

But Stephen doesn't care. He believes MHQ isn't in contravention of any constitutional provisions or European laws

"Doesn't care one bit" were his words

Stephen is proper hard

lawred2

zebastein wrote: »

I am not discussing the actual level of threat, but the fact that if these people are allowed to get in, I see plenty of other people who should be allowed if the criteria is solely the health risk for the country (let's remember that the criteria cannot be discriminatory)

The whole thing is an exercise in showmanship. Look at what I can get done. He's pure middle management.

It was one thing he could say "I got that done"

Whereas tackling HSE bloat, mismanagement, waste and exploding waiting lists?

Too hard. Sod that. Look over here at how hard I am. I get sh!t done!

DebDynamite

lawred2 wrote: »

The whole thing is an exercise in showmanship. Look at what I can get done. He's pure middle management.

It was one thing he could say "I got that done"

Whereas tackling HSE bloat, mismanagement, waste and exploding waiting lists?

Too hard. Sod that. Look over here at how hard I am. I get sh!t done!

To be fair, he’s not in the job that long and his tenure so far has been kind of dedicated to Covid, not surprisingly. He’s hardly going to sort out in less than a year what other health ministers failed to do during a full term.

OwenM

lawred2 wrote: »

The whole thing is an exercise in showmanship. Look at what I can get done. He's pure middle management.

It was one thing he could say "I got that done"

Whereas tackling HSE bloat, mismanagement, waste and exploding waiting lists?

Too hard. Sod that. Look over here at how hard I am. I get sh!t done!

Exactly, zero leadership. He's also a smarmy git, I really wish he was standing in my constituency so I could not vote for him.

lawred2

DebDynamite wrote: »

To be fair, he’s not in the job that long and his tenure so far has been kind of dedicated to Covid, not surprisingly. He’s hardly going to sort out in less than a year what other health ministers failed to do during a full term.

Did I say that? To be fair.

ednwireland

zebastein wrote: »

Especially when your exemptions are rugby players do a contact sport, or surrogacy that may involve going to the hospital or other care facility, which are places where the virus is more likely to spread

id have less problem with elite sport exemptions as the professional squads are bubbles ( to a certain extent !) and do a lot of testing - twice weekly i think.

stephenjmcd

Wonder will Mr Donnelly be as abrupt to the commission as he was on Prime Time last night

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1383007593883443203?s=20

saabsaab

lawred2 wrote: »

The whole thing is an exercise in showmanship. Look at what I can get done. He's pure middle management.

It was one thing he could say "I got that done"

Whereas tackling HSE bloat, mismanagement, waste and exploding waiting lists?

Too hard. Sod that. Look over here at how hard I am. I get sh!t done!

He is right. We're too soft in this country. About time that people get things done.

saabsaab

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Wonder will Mr Donnelly be as abrupt to the commission as he was on Prime Time last night

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1383007593883443203?s=20

I am sure he will clarify our position.

Doctor Jimbob

saabsaab wrote: »

I am sure he will clarify our position.

Our position is clear as mud, so good luck to him.

brickster69

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Wonder will Mr Donnelly be as abrupt to the commission as he was on Prime Time last night

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1383007593883443203?s=20

Oh oh, not the dreaded letter. Next will be the call to the headmistress's office for 6 of the best. Naughty naughty

DebDynamite

lawred2 wrote: »

Did I say that? To be fair.

Ok well, you suggested he should’ve at least started trying to reform the HSE. Like that’s going to happen in the middle of a pandemic...

Doctor Jimbob

DebDynamite wrote: »

Ok well, you suggested he should’ve at least started trying to reform the HSE. Like that’s going to happen in the middle of a pandemic...

He's far too busy focusing on the important things, like how often he gets mentioned on twitter.

arccosh

zebastein wrote: »

Especially when your exemptions are rugby players do a contact sport, or surrogacy that may involve going to the hospital or other care facility, which are places where the virus is more likely to spread

I think it's more a case that these people are getting tested on a far more regular basis compared to Jo soap who went on a mad one in Spain.

podgeandrodge

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

He's far too busy focusing on the important things, like how often he gets mentioned likedon twitter.

fixed.

RGS

MHQ is a disaster.

If Donnelly was as sure about MHQ as he claims he would be instructing his legal team to defend all challenges but id say the AG is in his ear
"Just fold in this case".