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

timsey tiger

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Whats insane about 19 million? Their population is about 275 times our own. Our confirmed cases per capita is about 4 times theirs.

I'm sure there's massive underreporting there of course, but it would be 70 million cases there to get to our equivalent.

I guess the only thing that is insane is the amount of underreporting.

big syke

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

Semantics.

Many of those more vulnerable have yet to be vaccinated.

Does that pass your scrutiny?

Semantics? Really?

More vulnerable how? 90% of deaths are in the +70 no?

The majority of those who have passed with or due to covid are now vaccinated.

big syke

ShineOn7 wrote: »

You're choosing whatever semantics suits your own narrative. What's being said repeatedly on here is "the vulnerable are vaccinated"

Why are Cohort 7 called "High risk"?

For the craic?

As for HCWs: they aren't fully finished doing them yet

Cohort 2 (Frontline Healthcare Workers)

• Total in group: ~250,000
• Total vaccines: 351,425
• Total with first vaccine: 255,631 (+422)
• Total with second vaccine: 95,794
• 102% of total half vaccinated (+0%)
• 40% of total fully vaccinated (+1%)

"High Risk" not good enough for you?

Grand so, how about Very High Risk - Cohort 4

Cohort 4 (People aged 16-69 and at very high risk of severe Covid-19)

• Total in group: ~250,000
• Total vaccines: 184,022 (+19,440)
• Total with first vaccine: 178,985 (+15,126)
• Total with second vaccine: 5,037 (+4,314)
• 72% of total half vaccinated (+11%)
• 2% of total fully vaccinated (+1.7%)

So no

We're not there yet

I dont have a narrative.

High risk how?

Are 90+ percent of deaths in the age group now bu and large fully vaccinated?

wadacrack

Interesting chart. 50-60% On dose seems to suppress the Ro below 1

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1388509328185782277

saabsaab

If say the 19 to 29 age group is responsible for spread and 50% of new cases surely the best way to end this is to vaccinate them next? Even if it is out of turn.

timsey tiger

saabsaab wrote: »

If say the 19 to 29 age group is responsible for spread and 50% of new cases surely the best way to end this is to vaccinate them next? Even if it is out of turn.

Might be if you are worried about case numbers, but might not be if hospitalisations is a bigger worry.

Personally I think too much farting about with the order of things isn't the best for many reasons.

KanyeSouthEast

LarryBird wrote: »

Terrible to still be seeing these high numbers

Awful. We should go back to level 5 maybe even see if there’s a level 6 available. Stay safe.

User142

saabsaab wrote: »

If say the 19 to 29 age group is responsible for spread and 50% of new cases surely the best way to end this is to vaccinate them next? Even if it is out of turn.

That was the original plan. It was flipped but no one in a position to say anything cared.

The rationale from the now scrapped plan was

Rationale

If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission.

Ethical Principles

The principle of minimising harm is relevant should it become clear that a vaccine can impact on transmission of the virus as this would indirectly protect the most vulnerable in society as well as restore social and economic activity.

Now in contrast compare it to the media outrage when there were talks of potentially skipping the 50+ age cohort and wait for the JnJ deliveries in June to do them. Daily coverage and ministers grilled constantly.

The young cohort was funted to the back of the queue with little discussion and then the government introduced the lovely "vaccine bonus".

ednwireland

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Greg Hughes a radio host on highland radio Donegal just posted that he's been told the current level of restrictions won't be lifted in Donegal if the current rates continue.

wont work people will just travel north. need to test the s**t out of the areas causing the high numbers and break the infection chain

timsey tiger

LarryBird wrote: »

Terrible to still be seeing these high numbers

Which high numbers, are you some antivaxxer complaining about the so called ramp-up?

saabsaab

timsey tiger wrote: »

Might be if you are worried about case numbers, but might not be if hospitalisations is a bigger worry.

Personally I think too much farting about with the order of things isn't the best for many reasons.

Higher case numbers will result in more hospitalizations. If the young are superspreaders then stopping the source will be to everyones benefit.


Cut the head of the snake!

verizon

ShineOn7 wrote: »

A million percent this

A million percent sweeping generalisation.

What Username Guidelines

timsey tiger wrote: »

Is this thread full of narcissists who believe that they are invincible? I've lost count of the number of posters who proclaim that case numbers don't matter any more.

Sure higher case numbers are unlikely to overwhelm the hospital system and result in excess mortality. But for the individual, if you haven't been vaxxed your personal level of risk is still linked to case numbers, the same as it was back in January.

Ones chances of catching covid don't really depend on whether hospitals are full of old people with covid or not now do they?

Obviously even if one does catch it symptoms are likely to be mild, but that also was always the case for anybody not yet vaxxed.

The gap in communications in my opinion is the difference between population risk and personal risk. The easing of restrictions is largely driven by population risk and the ability for the health services to deal with anyone who needs medical support, this risk is diminishing in a non-linear fashion as the most vulnerable are being vaccinated.

The issue is with the way this messaging is being received by some - asking what’s “safe” now or what we’re allowed to do as it’s “safe” when not much has changed for those <60.

I think this has been a big issue since the beginning tbh and what causes so much tension in discussions. You could have someone who is anxious on a personal level get jumped on here by someone who is arguing from a population-level improving situation, etc. Same with schools, at a high level they are safe and don’t seem to drive spread, but if there’s a case in a class and it spreads as we would expect it to spread, you have people saying “we were told schools were safe”.

Its just worrying to see people just blindly assume that because hairdressers will be open again, they will not catch covid there. Yes there are less cases in the community and those >60 are more protected so your chances are leagues less than they were in January, but you are by no means guaranteed as “safe”.

irelandpride

Its not that people think they wont catch Covid, its people don't care if they do catch it.

Its harmless for most people and the stats back that up.

LessOutragePlz

irelandpride wrote: »

Its not that people think they wont catch Covid, its people don't care if they do catch it.

Its harmless for most people and the stats back that up.

But what if you catch it and kill your granny! :eek:

Or end up with long covid? :rolleyes:

What Username Guidelines

irelandpride wrote: »

Its not that people think they wont catch Covid, its people don't care if they do catch it.

Its harmless for most people and the stats back that up.

Yep, plenty of people think that way. However, believe it or not, there are plenty who rigidly stick to every rule until they are told they’re allowed do something again, and then assume it is therefore safe.

My point was, that for the majority, nothing has really changed since 8k cases per day in January and now, aside from a lower level of covid in the community.

quokula

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

The gap in communications in my opinion is the difference between population risk and personal risk. The easing of restrictions is largely driven by population risk and the ability for the health services to deal with anyone who needs medical support, this risk is diminishing in a non-linear fashion as the most vulnerable are being vaccinated.

The issue is with the way this messaging is being received by some - asking what’s “safe” now or what we’re allowed to do as it’s “safe” when not much has changed for those <60.

I think this has been a big issue since the beginning tbh and what causes so much tension in discussions. You could have someone who is anxious on a personal level get jumped on here by someone who is arguing from a population-level improving situation, etc. Same with schools, at a high level they are safe and don’t seem to drive spread, but if there’s a case in a class and it spreads as we would expect it to spread, you have people saying “we were told schools were safe”.

Its just worrying to see people just blindly assume that because hairdressers will be open again, they will not catch covid there. Yes there are less cases in the community and those >60 are more protected so your chances are leagues less than they were in January, but you are by no means guaranteed as “safe”.

It's the difference between people who only care about themselves, and people who can see the big picture.

If you are a healthy unvaccinated person then the personal risk to you hasn't changed. But your risk of killing a parent, killing a friend with health issues, or being a link in a long chain that eventually kills a stranger, is much reduced with the current vaccination progress.

If you think of it this way - for every one of the ~5,000 people in Ireland who have died of covid, there was a specific chain of likely hundreds of people that took that virus all the way from Wuhan to that victim. And if any one single person in that chain had been more careful with their social distancing and not picked it up or passed it on, then that victim would still be alive today.

So as a healthy low risk person it should absolutely be your responsibility not to play your part in killing the vulnerable, but as the vaccines continue to drastically cut the number of vulnerable people out there, then ultimately it becomes safer to relax the rules, and we're getting very close to that tipping point now.

blowitupref

As of 8pm tonight


In hospital 122 (no change)
In ICU 41 (decrease of 3, sadly 1 death)

Last Saturday at 8pm

In hospital 163
In ICU 46

political analyst

In that online meeting that Holohan had with Donegal politicians, Charlie McConalogue took issue with his use of phrase 'the dogs on the street' and stated that not all of Donegal has high numbers of cases - that the north-east of the county is OK and that the problem is in south-west Donegal.

Given that vaccination in the UK (including NI) is ahead of that in the Republic and that NI businesses that have re-opened still have to require that customers (whether they come from NI or from the Republic) distance among themselves and wear masks, why does Donegal still have higher numbers of cases than other counties?

AdamD

quokula wrote: »

It's the difference between people who only care about themselves, and people who can see the big picture.

If you are a healthy unvaccinated person then the personal risk to you hasn't changed. But your risk of killing a parent, killing a friend with health issues, or being a link in a long chain that eventually kills a stranger, is much reduced with the current vaccination progress.

If you think of it this way - for every one of the ~5,000 people in Ireland who have died of covid, there was a specific chain of likely hundreds of people that took that virus all the way from Wuhan to that victim. And if any one single person in that chain had been more careful with their social distancing and not picked it up or passed it on, then that victim would still be alive today.

So as a healthy low risk person it should absolutely be your responsibility not to play your part in killing the vulnerable, but as the vaccines continue to drastically cut the number of vulnerable people out there, then ultimately it becomes safer to relax the rules, and we're getting very close to that tipping point now.

This is ludicrous logic.

1: You're suggesting the virus is only caught by people not being careful
2: You're suggesting if any of those 5,000 didn't catch it at the time they did, they wouldn't have caught it another time.


And constant use of the word killing. Jesus Christ. The virus is killing people, people aren't.

PTH2009

political analyst wrote: »

In that online meeting that Holohan had with Donegal politicians, Charlie McConalogue took issue with his use of phrase 'the dogs on the street' and stated that not all of Donegal has high numbers of cases - that the north-east of the county is OK and that the problem is in south-west Donegal.

Given that vaccination in the UK (including NI) is ahead of that in the Republic and that NI businesses that have re-opened still have to require that customers (whether they come from NI or from the Republic) distance among themselves and wear masks, why does Donegal still have higher numbers of cases than other counties?

A regional approach needs to be taken from now on i think

Ficheall

AdamD wrote: »

This is ludicrous logic.

It's sound logic. If cases are X, any unvaccinated person Tim is at the same risk of catching it as another time it was X.

However, the more problematic issue the last time there were X cases was the risk of Tim passing it on to, e.g., his vulnerable parents. Now, with said vulnerable parents vaccinated there is no cause for concern on that front. Tim's own risk of catching it hasn't changed (ignoring the chance of catching it from his parents), but the associated concern has decreased.

AdamD wrote: »

2. You're suggesting if any of those 5,000 didn't catch it at the time they did, they wouldn't have caught it another time.

This is an impressive responsibility shirk!
"Yes, I ran him over with my car, your honour, but who's to say he wouldn't have been run over by someone else if I hadn't??"

AdamD

Ah yes, catching covid is now the same as running somebody over with a car.


Hysterics.

You also completely misunderstood my other point, which had nothing to do with vaccinations.

Ficheall

AdamD wrote: »

Ah yes, catching covid is now the same as running somebody over with a car.


Hysterics.

You also completely misunderstood my other point, which had nothing to do with vaccinations.

No, I was just illustrating it was a bs excuse. If it makes you more comfortable:
"Yes, I did eat your Easter egg, but if I hadn't, who's to say someone else wouldn't have?"


It is possible I missed what the other point you were making was, in which case apologies, and I'm open to clarification.

AdamD

AdamD wrote: »

Ah yes, catching covid is now the same as running somebody over with a car.


Hysterics.

You also completely misunderstood my other point, which had nothing to do with vaccinations.

No one equated those things. It's not other people's fault that you don't understand now analogies work.

timsey tiger

Ficheall wrote: »

No, I was just illustrating it was a bs excuse. If it makes you more comfortable:
"Yes, I did eat your Easter egg, but if I hadn't, who's to say someone else wouldn't have?"


It is possible I missed what the other point you were making was, in which case apologies, and I'm open to clarification.

You're wasting your time. This one isn't bothered with logic and reason, just running on pure instinct.

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

You're choosing whatever semantics suits your own narrative. What's being said repeatedly on here is "the vulnerable are vaccinated"

Why are Cohort 7 called "High risk"?

For the craic?

As for HCWs: they aren't fully finished doing them yet

Cohort 2 (Frontline Healthcare Workers)

• Total in group: ~250,000
• Total vaccines: 351,425
• Total with first vaccine: 255,631 (+422)
• Total with second vaccine: 95,794
• 102% of total half vaccinated (+0%)
• 40% of total fully vaccinated (+1%)

"High Risk" not good enough for you?

Grand so, how about Very High Risk - Cohort 4

Cohort 4 (People aged 16-69 and at very high risk of severe Covid-19)

• Total in group: ~250,000
• Total vaccines: 184,022 (+19,440)
• Total with first vaccine: 178,985 (+15,126)
• Total with second vaccine: 5,037 (+4,314)
• 72% of total half vaccinated (+11%)
• 2% of total fully vaccinated (+1.7%)

So no

We're not there yet

Disingenuous in the extreme. One dose does not equal “half vaccinated”. The are vaccinated. They are protected to the extent that a couple of weeks after dose 1 most of the final protection is in place and risk of hospitalisation is low

hynesie08

PTH2009 wrote: »

A regional approach needs to be taken from now on i think

I'm sure you'd be saying the same if your region had Donegals numbers....

ednwireland

political analyst wrote: »

In that online meeting that Holohan had with Donegal politicians, Charlie McConalogue took issue with his use of phrase 'the dogs on the street' and stated that not all of Donegal has high numbers of cases - that the north-east of the county is OK and that the problem is in south-west Donegal.

you have that the wrong way round it's the north east that is high.

also derrys 14 day rate is still quite a bit higher than donegals so this nonsense that cases are lower in the north keeps been repeated.

Jim_Hodge

ednwireland wrote: »

you have that the wrong way round it's the north east that is high.

also derrys 14 day rate is still quite a bit higher than donegals so this nonsense that cases are lower in the north keeps been repeated.

Where can you see the 14 day rate for Derry?