Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

bucketybuck

Like NPHET, clearly you do not take human behaviour into account when assessing consequence of actions.

Ficheall

bucketybuck wrote: »

Like NPHET, clearly you do not take human behaviour into account when assessing consequence of actions.

If NPHET didn't take human behaviour into account, there'd be far fewer restrictions.

pjohnson

bucketybuck wrote: »

Like NPHET, clearly you do not take human behaviour into account when assessing consequence of actions.

Heck a lot of eejits dont accept the consequences of actions and instead just blame NPHET/Tony for every single thing that happens.

AdamD

pjohnson wrote: »

Heck a lot of eejits dont accept the consequences of actions and instead just blame NPHET/Tony for every single thing that happens.

And others don't accept that there are also consquences to overly 'cautious decision making'. And its not all positive. Unneccesarily restricting people last summer absolutely hurt compliance in the winter. A concept NPHET have never seemed to understand.

Like closing everything for months before Christmas, absurd.

alias no.9

Cork2021 wrote: »

We didn’t need it? We had no cases!

For the most part, you didn't get a test last year unless you had at least 2 symptoms. Comparing case numbers is utterly pointless.

zebastein

1huge1 wrote: »

Great to see continued reduction in Hospitalisations/ICU.

Looking at our cases though, while it has gone down a bit in the past week or two, they have been relatively stagnant since March.

Meanwhile looking at other European countries that had much higher case numbers from March - May, they have now dropped considerably below us (nominally and cases per 100,000).

Anyone any idea as to why we aren't seeing cases drop move, akin to the likes of Denmark and Austria for example.

Obviously, it doesn't bother me as much anymore as we are in a very good place re the vaccine and hospitals, but curious all the same.

I can't talk for Denmark and Austria, but other countries that were much higher like France are now below Ireland in number of cases.

One of the difference is that they opened the vaccinations to everyone quite early. There are plenty of people in their 20s and 30s vaccinated, they even started vaccinating teenagers, and we know that in Ireland (and elsewhere), most of the cases are people under 40s.

It is really 2 different strategies: Countries that vaccinate everyone see their transmission going down (you still have people in their 40/50s not vaccinated, but less transmission means less chances to catch it), Ireland that vaccinate older people has still a high transmission in children/teenagers/20s/30s but that should not translate into deaths as vulnerable and older people are protected

MerlinSouthDub

Ficheall wrote: »

Well, a lower A in the A(1+r)^t growth formula when things started opening back up again, as was the main intention.

Personally, I think the decisions we made last summer increased "A". Keeping pubs which didn't serve food closed resulted in far too many people crammed into the pubs which do serve food. Spreading the same number of people over a larger number of venues would have reduced risk. This was an incredibly stupid decision, and unique in Europe.

Ficheall

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

Personally, I think the decisions we made last summer increased "A". Keeping pubs which didn't serve food closed resulted in far too many people crammed into the pubs which do serve food. Spreading the same number of people over a larger number of venues would have reduced risk. This was an incredibly stupid decision, and unique in Europe.

Well, I mean the numbers were pretty low most of last summer - about a ~fifteenth of what they are this year - so the measures were certainly somewhat successful in keeping the cases down. I'd agree that keeping the foodie pubs closed too would probably have helped even further, but I've no idea to what extent.

kilns

Goldengirl wrote: »

But if it is falling is it because people are not getting PCRs which may be more accurate ?
Unless you are sick/ symptomatic you won't test positive with an antigen test , and they aren't sensitive to pick up all asymptomatic cases.
So at best you are only disencouraging people from getting PCR, because they probably don't have the capacity anymore as cutting back .
That is a false security really .

Or the fact that the Antigen testing is succesful and those with symptoms who test postive with antigen only go for PCRs

Are people in Ireland who are asymptomatic getting pcr tests?

I think you are living in a fantasy world to be honest

kilns

1huge1 wrote: »

Great to see continued reduction in Hospitalisations/ICU.

Looking at our cases though, while it has gone down a bit in the past week or two, they have been relatively stagnant since March.

Meanwhile looking at other European countries that had much higher case numbers from March - May, they have now dropped considerably below us (nominally and cases per 100,000).

Anyone any idea as to why we aren't seeing cases drop move, akin to the likes of Denmark and Austria for example.

Obviously, it doesn't bother me as much anymore as we are in a very good place re the vaccine and hospitals, but curious all the same.

I asked the same question as I know Switzerland and Germany very well and now their cases are basically down 120 and 360 per day with much bigger populations than Ireland

But some have a fantasy that Antigen testing is bad and stopping people going to get tested, in fact it is working so well on the continent

Vicxas

I really think we should be championing Antigen testing seeing as we share a border with NI and could catch the Delta Variant coming across the border before it could get out of hand.

Doctor Jimbob

Ficheall wrote: »

Well, I mean the numbers were pretty low most of last summer - about a ~fifteenth of what they are this year - so the measures were certainly somewhat successful in keeping the cases down. I'd agree that keeping the foodie pubs closed too would probably have helped even further, but I've no idea to what extent.

We were doing far less testing last summer too though. Our numbers are probably somewhat higher than last summer, but it's impossible to say for certain given the testing differences.

JDD

I have to agree with the posters regarding overly cautious restrictions when case numbers are low and/or following 5/6 months of strict restrictions.

We saw both in September and December last year that when restrictions are lifted after a long period of strict constraints, people go overly mad and it leads to massive increases in cases. You can wag the finger all you like and say "they should take responsibility, that's not NPHET's fault", but that's not going to help. Human nature is human nature and NPHETs decisions should be based on behavioural science as well as the case numbers.

We are never going to get back down to ten cases a day, like last summer. We have the Kent and Delta variants now, and had we had those last summer we would probably have stalled around the 200-300 mark just like we have right now. Even when everyone has been offered a vaccine there will be at least 10% of the population who choose not to take the vaccine or who can't take the vaccine, and the virus will continue to circulate in that cohort.

Restrictions are like pressure on a spring. The longer you press down on the spring, and the more weight you press down on the spring, the higher the spring is going to pop when restrictions are lifted. Low hanging fruit, like wearing masks indoors, social distancing where possible and sanitising should continue. But you have to let people socialise or we will see the scenes we saw in Westport at Christmas all over the country. And you have to let people shop, or we are going to have such a massive hit to our economy we won't be able to pay for social services, healthcare or education in the future.

The elderly and the vulnerable are vaccinated. The Delta variant may be more transmissable, but as we can see in the UK it does not lead to a sharp uptick in hospitalisations where the vulnerable are vaccinated.

We need to live with this.

MerlinSouthDub

Ficheall wrote: »

Well, I mean the numbers were pretty low most of last summer - about a ~fifteenth of what they are this year - so the measures were certainly somewhat successful in keeping the cases down. I'd agree that keeping the foodie pubs closed too would probably have helped even further, but I've no idea to what extent.

Opening the non foodie pubs would also probably have helped even further.

bucketybuck

kilns wrote: »

But some have a fantasy that Antigen testing is bad and stopping people going to get tested, in fact it is working so well on the continent

I wouldn't call it a fantasy as such, or at least its not their own fantasy. It is that Tony decreed that antigen testing was bad and so a cohort of people now believe that antigen testing is bad. Thats how it seems to go, they will defend anything and everything the government does, when antigen testing is finally encouraged by NPHET they will pivot to extolling its virtues without missing a beat.

Bit cynical

bucketybuck wrote: »

I wouldn't call it a fantasy as such, or at least its not their own fantasy. It is that Tony decreed that antigen testing was bad and so a cohort of people now believe that antigen testing is bad. Thats how it seems to go, they will defend anything and everything the government does, when antigen testing is finally encouraged by NPHET they will pivot to extolling its virtues without missing a beat.

They will probably use some other name for it though, like lateral flow, so that it is not immediately realised that they have done a u-turn.

First Up

JDD wrote:

We saw both in September and December last year that when restrictions are lifted after a long period of strict constraints, people go overly mad and it leads to massive increases in cases. You can wag the finger all you like and say "they should take responsibility, that's not NPHET's fault", but that's not going to help. Human nature is human nature and NPHETs decisions should be based on behavioural science as well as the case numbers.

Human behaviour can be changed through a combination of enforcement and education in social responsibility. The behaviour of the virus can only be changed by a vaccine.

This will end sooner if those two behaviours are not in competition with each other.

Ficheall

Or, they might continue to say as has been said throughout, that the properly informed and implemented use of antigen tests would definitely be a good thing.


Should the government be using antigen tests? Yes. Should they be advising caution regarding their use and interpretation? Also yes.

Can they rely on people to exercise personal responsibility in their use? Therein lies the rub..

JDD

JDD wrote: »

I have to agree with the posters regarding overly cautious restrictions when case numbers are low and/or following 5/6 months of strict restrictions.

We saw both in September and December last year that when restrictions are lifted after a long period of strict constraints, people go overly mad and it leads to massive increases in cases. You can wag the finger all you like and say "they should take responsibility, that's not NPHET's fault", but that's not going to help. Human nature is human nature and NPHETs decisions should be based on behavioural science as well as the case numbers.

We are never going to get back down to ten cases a day, like last summer. We have the Kent and Delta variants now, and had we had those last summer we would probably have stalled around the 200-300 mark just like we have right now. Even when everyone has been offered a vaccine there will be at least 10% of the population who choose not to take the vaccine or who can't take the vaccine, and the virus will continue to circulate in that cohort.

Restrictions are like pressure on a spring. The longer you press down on the spring, and the more weight you press down on the spring, the higher the spring is going to pop when restrictions are lifted. Low hanging fruit, like wearing masks indoors, social distancing where possible and sanitising should continue. But you have to let people socialise or we will see the scenes we saw in Westport at Christmas all over the country. And you have to let people shop, or we are going to have such a massive hit to our economy we won't be able to pay for social services, healthcare or education in the future.

The elderly and the vulnerable are vaccinated. The Delta variant may be more transmissable, but as we can see in the UK it does not lead to a sharp uptick in hospitalisations where the vulnerable are vaccinated.

We need to live with this.

There was no mad increase in September. Just a continuation of the trend for the previous 3 months

JDD

First Up wrote: »

Human behaviour can be changed through a combination of enforcement and education in social responsibility. The behaviour of the virus can only be changed by a vaccine.

This will end sooner if those two behaviours are not in competition with each other.

I'm not saying that restrictions cannot be enforced. I'm saying that when they are lifted - such as allowing people to go to pubs and restaurants - people will go out more regularly and probably in larger groups in order to make up for lost time.

I am doubtful that education in social responsibility will have a significant effect on what people choose to do or not to do. Certainly not now, 18 months later. Look at the recommendations from NPHET on foreign travel for example. Do you think that a significant chunk of those unvaccinated who had planned to travel to Spain changed their mind when NPHET said only vaccinated should travel? Do you think a TV ad and newspaper article might change their minds?

I'm not saying that it is bad advice, it's probably good advice. But we MUST accept reality and know that just because you or me would decide that it was for the greater good not to travel, doesn't mean that the majority would decide the same.

While NPHET or the government might disapprove of the choices made by the population at large, it is an abdication of their responsibility to plan for the foreseeable consequences of those decisions, and to learn from what has happened in the very recent past. That's the point of being in power.

bucketybuck

JDD wrote: »

While NPHET or the government might disapprove of the choices made by the population at large, it is an abdication of their responsibility to plan for the foreseeable consequences of those decisions, and to learn from what has happened in the very recent past. That's the point of being in power.

If the likes of Tony were less arrogant they would consider the role they played in creating a situation where the people of Ireland no longer respect their words or actions.

For an obvious and simple example, constantly parroting the line "we are deeply concerned" even when cases and deaths were minimal has inevitably led to people no longer caring when Tony says he is "deeply concerned". That is very basic boy who cried wolf stuff, psychology 101.

But recognising that takes a level of self awareness that NPHET have never shown.

stephenjmcd

Hospital numbers at 38 as of 8am, ICU at 13

hmmm

JDD wrote: »

The Delta variant may be more transmissable, but as we can see in the UK it does not lead to a sharp uptick in hospitalisations where the vulnerable are vaccinated.

I agree with most of what you say, but I think the evidence is not there just yet that Delta will not lead to increased hospitalisations. The UK numbers are increasing at the moment, and we'll need a few weeks more to know whether it does or not.

I also believe we need to live with this, and much of the variant talk is scare-mongering, but Delta is the real deal at least in terms of how quickly it spreads. It also may (may) put more people in hospital. We're nearly at the finish line, it makes sense to be a bit cautious.

What we can do is continue to make outdoor space available to hospitality, allow vaccinated people travel in and out of the country, and allow the use of antigen tests in places where people would otherwise not be tested. I think also that we should encourage people to wear masks etc. even after the requirement to do so is lifted, as long as they are comfortable doing this.

seamus

kilns wrote: »

Or the fact that the Antigen testing is succesful and those with symptoms who test postive with antigen only go for PCRs

More likely people are testing with antigens and not going for PCRs. Think about it. You get flagged as a close contact, you do an antigen test, negative. Grand. Five days later, another negative, grand.

Scale that up to a population level and you will miss a lot of cases. Even people who get a positive on the antigen may not bother going for a PCR, just follow the guidelines on isolation and job done.

I'm not sure where the logic is in "antigen tests == lower cases". Surely if everyone testing positive in antigen tests was coming forward for a PCR, the number of cases would be high (but the detection rate high too).

In fact, the positivity rate in tests in Germany has fallen off a cliff since the start of May, which suggests to me that people who get a positive result in a home antigen test aren't coming forward for the PCR and are likely just isolating at home.

That's not a bad thing, but it goes to show that once home testing becomes ubiquitous, then the official numbers are more fraught and comparisons with other countries much harder to do.

TheDoctor

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Hospital numbers at 38 as on 8am, ICU at 13

Good post weekend discharge

First Up

JDD wrote:

While NPHET or the government might disapprove of the choices made by the population at large, it is an abdication of their responsibility to plan for the foreseeable consequences of those decisions, and to learn from what has happened in the very recent past. That's the point of being in power.

So if the population at large won't follow advice or behave responsibly on foreign travel, what do you want government to do?

The options range between shrugging their shoulders and banning foreign travel. If you were in power, what's your choice?

TefalBrain

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Hospital numbers at 38 as on 8am, ICU at 13

This is getting ridiculous now. No way can they continue with this level of attempts to frighten people with numbers that tiny. The vulnerable are vaccinated. It's time to move on now.

namloc1980

TefalBrain wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous now. No way can they continue with this level of attempts to frighten people with numbers that tiny. The vulnerable are vaccinated. It's time to move on now.

Some doctor on Newstalk was saying it's even more important then ever to talk about daily numbers ffs. They just won't let go.

timmyntc

seamus wrote: »

More likely people are testing with antigens and not going for PCRs. Think about it. You get flagged as a close contact, you do an antigen test, negative. Grand. Five days later, another negative, grand.

Scale that up to a population level and you will miss a lot of cases. Even people who get a positive on the antigen may not bother going for a PCR, just follow the guidelines on isolation and job done.

I'm not sure where the logic is in "antigen tests == lower cases". Surely if everyone testing positive in antigen tests was coming forward for a PCR, the number of cases would be high (but the detection rate high too).

In fact, the positivity rate in tests in Germany has fallen off a cliff since the start of May, which suggests to me that people who get a positive result in a home antigen test aren't coming forward for the PCR and are likely just isolating at home.

That's not a bad thing, but it goes to show that once home testing becomes ubiquitous, then the official numbers are more fraught and comparisons with other countries much harder to do.

And yet Denmark are doing far more PCRs than us, nevermind the antigen testing.
You seem determined to play down the impact of antigen testing on getting a hold on the pandemic, yet you offer no hard evidence of same. All just theoretical scenarios from yourself, passed off as fact when in reality you have as much evidence for your theories as Alex Jones does for his claims that chemicals in water are turning the frogs gay

mloc123

is_that_so wrote: »

Not looking very likely to be much of an issue for us as there are very few cases.

Timely bump on this