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

iamwhoiam

DebDynamite wrote: »

Absolutely it’s their choice. So long as they don’t mandate that everyone else has to wear a mask, and others have a choice not to wear a mask once we’ve reached herd immunity.

Fair enough but I do see use for masks in crowded places such as buses or planes to be fair .

JRant

CruelSummer wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1408498765309300737?s=21

Interesting piece of science fiction here from George Lee. Where did he get the double the hospitalisation figure? The U.K. hospitalisation rates have not gone up. The incidence of Covid in the U.K. has stabilised in all regions bar one. They also had a 12 week gap for mRNA vaccines which we didn’t, as did NI & Scotland.

What is be basing the 97% more transmissible figure on?
PHE are revising down the transmissibility of Delta all the time as data comes in:

https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1408406649224589317?s=21

It's just lies, there is no other way to describe it.

Cork2021

Turtwig wrote: »

This pandemic will continue on for at least another year. Masks are a very cheap effective way at reducing spread. I do think there is a case to be made for keeping masks use in certain environments such as public transport.

Sorry but no. Masks can’t be compulsory once this is over. Now I know a lot of people that will keep wearing them in indoor environments like retail and public transport.
It will have to be a personal choice.
I wear one for 45+ Hours a week. It’s absolute torture especially if it’s warm!
It should be part of a vaccine bonus for the time being before we do get back to normal that you don’t need to wear a mask.

hmmm

DebDynamite wrote: »

In the example I gave above, George Lee said two out of three people with only one vaccintaton are more likely to catch the variant.

We've been badly served by the Irish media unfortunately. They mix up terms, don't understand the science, use vague terms like "protection" or "safety" which are meaningless without context.

There's a prominent article on the RTE website today, and in one paragraph it says that one dose will provide protection from hospitalisation & severe disease, and literally a paragraph later says that it only provides 33% protection.

I think what the writer is trying to do is differentiate between being infected with Delta (with or without symptoms), and the risk of being hospitalised, but using the term "protection" to mean both is very confusing when you're reading it. I can understand why people could be confused or nervous.

It uses terms like "safe" which is a bit confusing. No vaccine is perfect, it's all about risk. If you're fully vaccinated and worried about getting a headcold, you're less safe. If you're fully vaccinated and worried about becoming hospitalised, the risk seems to be the same as before this variant (i.e. very low).

hmmm

JRant wrote: »

It's just lies, there is no other way to describe it.

You're misreading it - it's not the total number of hospitalisations, it's comparing the percentage of people who get the Delta variant and are hospitalised versus the figures for previous variants. This varies significantly by age. I haven't seen UK figures, but the initial Scottish figures show a significant increase (these figures will change as more data is received).

eagle eye

DebDynamite wrote:

About 65% think we should sill have to wear masks and have restrictions even after everyone is vaccinated! Should we appease these people as well?

What makes you think that it's your choice and not a choice for the nation as a whole?

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

There's a prominent article on the RTE website today, and in one paragraph it says that one dose will provide protection from hospitalisation & severe disease, and literally a paragraph later says that it only provides 33% protection.

I think what the writer

Writer is George Lee.

It is pretty evident from the past week that the HSE have been prioritising second doses of AZ.

Turtwig

Arghus wrote: »

Exactly.

Reading through these threads and this forum you'd be forgiven for thinking that everyone out there is catatonic with stress. In truth, most people are just getting on with it, trying to live life - and we all know this, or at least most of us do.

The posters who you see posting about the fear and the hysteria that they assume everyone is living through are projecting, in my view, what they feel themselves. And often the contributors who speak of "scaremongering" are frequently the most emotional and near apocalyptic in their predictions.

I agree that media coverage can be over the top. But people can disengage with that - and lots have. The posters who rail constantly about the media also seem to be the ones who most hang on it's every word and their mood seems to be entirely determined by what is broadcast or printed or posted. I've given out about the media here myself, but there's a limit I think too between legitimate criticism and downright obsession.

The vast, vast majority of people out there are nowhere near as consumed with all matters Covid as we are here. The proof is obvious: these forums are practically dead compared to even a few months ago. I'm including myself in this, we're the freaks lads.

The second most bizarre thing I read in this thread was when NPHET, the CMO and media were saying nothing or very little about covid. Posters was making up imaginary statements so they could mock NPHET and back slap one another.

hmmm

Turtwig wrote: »

Writer is George Lee.

It is pretty evident from the past week that the HSE have been prioritising second doses of AZ.

I don't think it's just RTE journalists having these issues, they apply across the media.

Saying "protection is lower" is meaningless without context. Does this mean you're more likely to get a headcold, or more likely to end up on a ventilator, because at the moment I get the impression a lot of people think it's the latter when the reality is the former.

The health authorities can help here also by providing more context around some of the terms they use at press conferences, e.g. "Protection is lower so you are more likely to catch and transmit the virus, but if fully vaccinated you still have strong protection against severe disease."

shockframe

Arghus wrote: »

Exactly.

Reading through these threads and this forum you'd be forgiven for thinking that everyone out there is catatonic with stress. In truth, most people are just getting on with it, trying to live life - and we all know this, or at least most of us do.

The posters who you see posting about the fear and the hysteria that they assume everyone is living through are projecting, in my view, what they feel themselves. And often the contributors who speak of "scaremongering" are frequently the most emotional and near apocalyptic in their predictions.

I agree that media coverage can be over the top. But people can disengage with that - and lots have. The posters who rail constantly about the media also seem to be the ones who most hang on it's every word and their mood seems to be entirely determined by what is broadcast or printed or posted. I've given out about the media here myself, but there's a limit I think too between legitimate criticism and downright obsession.

The vast, vast majority of people out there are nowhere near as consumed with all matters Covid as we are here. The proof is obvious: these forums are practically dead compared to even a few months ago. I'm including myself in this, we're the freaks lads.

The media of Denmark is less concerned about 3 cases of Delta at Copenhagen than ours is.

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think it's just RTE journalists having these issues, they apply across the media.

Agreed.
RTÉ are actually one of the better ones imo. Mark Coughlan of prime time has been rather good imo.

The Indo is just awful. The Irish Times is a bit better but still rather weak.

Maybe it's fairer not to look at publications but the actual journalists? I'm on the fence with that as often the quality of a journalist work is determined by the work requirements the publication puts on them.

Case in point for George's article what were the constraints that were imposed on him when writing that piece? As I think it's not a bad piece. It could be a lot better but he paints the vaccination dilemma quite well. Though, I do feel, the HSE actions these past two weeks have answered the decision on that. The younger cohorts being delayed so that second doses are prioritised.

ninebeanrows

As KMills saying.

Time for some personal responsibility

If you are worried, dont go, plain and simple

With our level of vaccination our health service will not get overwhelmed in any apocalyptic wave

Some unfortunate people will catch covid and die but mass vaccination has now reduced that risk to similar to seasonal flu levels

Chris_5339762

Cork2021 wrote: »

Sorry but no. Masks can’t be compulsory once this is over. Now I know a lot of people that will keep wearing them in indoor environments like retail and public transport.
It will have to be a personal choice.
I wear one for 45+ Hours a week. It’s absolute torture especially if it’s warm!
It should be part of a vaccine bonus for the time being before we do get back to normal that you don’t need to wear a mask.

I can see general public transport being recommended for continual mask wearing, and you'll probably see people in shops with masks on voluntarily.


However, aviation will insist on keeping masks for good now. That won't change, just like we still have to unpack our liquids for security, the new rules around masks in airport and on planes will not go away.

Arghus

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think it's just RTE journalists having these issues, they apply across the media.

Saying "protection is lower" is meaningless without context. Does this mean you're more likely to get a headcold, or more likely to end up on a ventilator, because at the moment I get the impression a lot of people think it's the latter when the reality is the former.

The health authorities can help here also by providing more context around some of the terms they use at press conferences, e.g. "Protection is lower so you are more likely to catch and transmit the virus, but if fully vaccinated you still have strong protection against severe disease."

It is amazing how often that statement is put out there, without any real clarification about what it means in reality. You have "33% protection from the Delta varient after one dose" is a ball-park statement I've heard bandied about a lot recently in relation to AstraZeneca, without any clarification what "protection" from what means - death? severe disease? just contracting the virus? As you've said yourself above

I agree with you, it isn't just RTE. You read that kind of woolly lack of specificity across all kinds of media. But it amazes me that in an interview setting, when that kind of claim is made - and in Ireland, lately, it has tended to be made by ISAG types - it's often just passed over and not interrogated further. And I do wonder how deliberate that vagueness is on the part of whoever has made the claim - it comes across as dishonest and alarmist to me.

DebDynamite

eagle eye wrote: »

What makes you think that it's your choice and not a choice for the nation as a whole?

If those 65% of people continue to wear their masks and social distance amongst a population who have been fully vaccinated, I think the risks from the 35% who do not wish to continue the restrictions will be negligible. Everyone has the choice to do as they wish, with minimal consequences.

Obviously if circumstances change, this could be revisited.

Arghus

Turtwig wrote: »

Agreed.
RTÉ are actually one of the better ones imo. Mark Coughlan of prime time has been rather good imo.

The Indo is just awful. The Irish Times is a bit better but still rather weak.

Maybe it's fairer not to look at publications but the actual journalists? I'm on the fence with that as often the quality of a journalist work is determined by the work requirements the publication puts on them.

Case in point for George's article what were the constraints that were imposed on him when writing that piece? As I think it's not a bad piece. It could be a lot better but he paints the vaccination dilemma quite well. Though, I do feel, the HSE actions these past two weeks have answered the decision on that. The younger cohorts being delayed so that second doses are prioritised.

I think Fergal Bower's columns on Saturday are, in the main, fairly good. Very humane, clear sighted, but not dogmatic and judgemental. He's not afraid to say that he doesn't know things.

I think Paul Cullen in the Irish Times is okay too. Not in constant lockstep agreement with NPHET or Goverment policy or rabidly against. Quite fair. Has called things wrong, but we all have.

Cork2021

A bit of common sense here in this thread

https://twitter.com/ohanloncmr/status/1408737544758607875?s=21

VG31

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

However, aviation will insist on keeping masks for good now. That won't change, just like we still have to unpack our liquids for security, the new rules around masks in airport and on planes will not go away.

Why would they still be mandatory after the pandemic ends? Liquids are not comparable, the terrorist thread is still an issue, the coronavirus will not be within a few years. We didn't wear masks on planes before to protect against the flu, which is what the coronavirus will end up like in terms of impact.

Also not being able to take liquids on board is a minor inconvenience. Wearing a mask continuously for hours is not minor (IMO).

GeorgeBailey

Arghus wrote: »

But it amazes me that in an interview setting, when that kind of claim is made - and in Ireland, lately, it has tended to be made by ISAG types - it's often just passed over and not interrogated further. And I do wonder how deliberate that vagueness is on the part of whoever has made the claim - it comes across as dishonest and alarmist to me.

Remember during brexit Michael Gove said something like "people have had enough of experts". Many (including me) laughed incredulously at such an idiotic statement. But it's during covid times that I think I finally understand.

There is zero doubt that people of science like epidemiologists, virologists, etc know waaaaayy more than I do. However, most are looking to push the population in one direction or another for various reasons and so will often be selective in their use of facts to push that particular narrative.

I have no doubt many are doing so for genuine reasons and what they perceive to be the greater good. However, it leads to a situation where we can't and shouldn't take expert opinions at face value. So questioning experts even by lay people is important and comments like "where did you get your degree in epidemiology again?" miss the point.

eagle eye

Chris_5339762 wrote:

I can see general public transport being recommended for continual mask wearing, and you'll probably see people in shops with masks on voluntarily.

However, aviation will insist on keeping masks for good now. That won't change, just like we still have to unpack our liquids for security, the new rules around masks in airport and on planes will not go away.

Another one is these people that love to work while having a bad cold or other ailment. They should be forced to wear masks at work and if travelling via public transport to and from work.
I've picked up doses at work from people like that and been off sick for a day or two over it. Now that we know that masks limit spread they should be mandatory for anybody who wants to work while carrying a dose.

Turtwig

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

Remember during brexit Michael Gove said something like "people have had enough of experts". Many (including me) laughed incredulously at such an idiotic statement. But it's during covid times that I think I finally understand.

There is zero doubt that people of science like epidemiologists, virologists, etc know waaaaayy more than I do. However, most are looking to push the population in one direction or another for various reasons and so will often be selective in their use of facts to push that particular narrative.

I have no doubt many are doing so for genuine reasons and what they perceive to be the greater good. However, it leads to a situation where we can't and shouldn't take expert opinions at face value. So questioning experts even by lay people is important and comments like "where did you get your degree in epidemiology again?" miss the point.

I think a very big distinction needs to be made between experts that appear in the media all the time and those that don't. The media needs a for and against. They also need people who will be available. Those two factors severely limit the quality of any scientific discussion in the media. This problem existed long before covid. Covid unfortunately has shown just how much of a glaring weakness it is.

Gove's statement was still a terrible statement. There is a growing anti-intellectual sentiment in some parts of the world. It may take hold here. I sincerely hope it doesn't.

Bit cynical

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

There is zero doubt that people of science like epidemiologists, virologists, etc know waaaaayy more than I do. However, most are looking to push the population in one direction or another for various reasons and so will often be selective in their use of facts to push that particular narrative.

I have no doubt many are doing so for genuine reasons and what they perceive to be the greater good. However, it leads to a situation where we can't and shouldn't take expert opinions at face value. So questioning experts even by lay people is important and comments like "where did you get your degree in epidemiology again?" miss the point.

I think also they can take a very narrow view even of their own field. For example a HSE consultant was given his own Q&A thread on this forum early on in the thread where he rubbished the use of of masks by the public on the basis that people would not know how to use them and that if they were not used properly they were next to useless.

Now what he was saying was in fact perfectly correct. If you don't use masks properly (i.e. limiting air gaps around the edges and instead forcing breath through the material itself) there is a chance that infected particles will bypass the mask and infect the patient or the wearer may become infected.

However while this is perfectly true, it is also a very narrow view. The idea of masks is to slow down spread among a network of people not prevent infection between one person and others. As such, even a small reduction in transmission can have a large effect in the community. But realising this requires a different kind of thinking to that in which the typical hospital consultant is trained.

The problem is not that we have turned anti-expert but rather that we have latched on to a very narrow range of experts and these have been allowed into positions of disproportionate influence. How we extricate ourselves from this mess I'm not sure. It is going to be messy I think.

Tyrone212

The North has reported 298 new cases and no new deaths

Last Saturday. The North reported 158 cases and no deaths

JRant

hmmm wrote: »

You're misreading it - it's not the total number of hospitalisations, it's comparing the percentage of people who get the Delta variant and are hospitalised versus the figures for previous variants. This varies significantly by age. I haven't seen UK figures, but the initial Scottish figures show a significant increase (these figures will change as more data is received).

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm not the one misreading anything. It would seem Georgie is using incomplete data from other countries and making massive leaps off the back of it. England has already significantly downgraded the Delta variants ability to spread compared to previous ones.

VG31

VG31 wrote: »

Why would they still be mandatory after the pandemic ends? Liquids are not comparable, the terrorist thread is still an issue, the coronavirus will not be within a few years. We didn't wear masks on planes before to protect against the flu, which is what the coronavirus will end up like in terms of impact.

Also not being able to take liquids on board is a minor inconvenience. Wearing a mask continuously for hours is not minor (IMO).

It will be interesting what happens in the US. A number of Republican senators are pushing for them to go on public transport and on planes: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/ted-cruz-joins-forces-with-other-gop-lawmakers-to-try-and-end-the-mask-mandates-for-vaccinated-travelers-ahead-of-independence-day/amp_articleshow/83871799.cms

The requirement to wear them on public transport and planes is due to end in September. If I'm not mistaken the requirement to wear them on planes in Australia is due to end in September as well. It was recently extended.

You're right that's it not a minor issue to wear those things on a plane. It's horrendous. What I don't get about the mask thing is that not being able to see people smile, or communicate properly with people is hardly ever mentioned.

Multipass

VG31 wrote: »

Why would they still be mandatory after the pandemic ends? Liquids are not comparable, the terrorist thread is still an issue, the coronavirus will not be within a few years. We didn't wear masks on planes before to protect against the flu, which is what the coronavirus will end up like in terms of impact.

Also not being able to take liquids on board is a minor inconvenience. Wearing a mask continuously for hours is not minor (IMO).

It would greatly increase the onboard sales of drinks and snacks. Who can make their coffee last the longest?

Turtwig

To be fair to the HSE consultant at the time people always thought of masks as protecting the individual. It was the combination of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers of covid that makes masks of any kind really effective for covid. An infectious person who doesn't know they have the disease is far less likely to spread it through a mask of any kind.
I wouldn't put that down to the consultant's profession. The idea that any piece of cloth could slow covid down seemed far fetched. When we better understood how covid spread it made sense.

Looking back now I remember when I grasped this secondary use of masks thinking that this may be our way to negate the need for social distancing entirely. How wrong I was

Renjit

Gortanna wrote: »

What I don't get about the mask thing is that not being able to see people smile, or communicate properly with people is hardly ever mentioned.

Cue for designer transparent masks :pac:

VG31

Gortanna wrote: »

It will be interesting what happens in the US. A number of Republican senators are pushing for them to go on public transport and on planes: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/ted-cruz-joins-forces-with-other-gop-lawmakers-to-try-and-end-the-mask-mandates-for-vaccinated-travelers-ahead-of-independence-day/amp_articleshow/83871799.cms

I've no doubt they will be dropped this year in the US. Europe will hopefully follow.

Gortanna wrote: »

You're right that's it not a minor issue to wear those things on a plane. It's horrendous. What I don't get about the mask thing is that not being able to see people smile, or communicate properly with people is hardly ever mentioned.

I agree and it's of particular relevance in open, individualistic societies like ours that place importance in seeing other's facial expressions. It may not matter so much in more anonymous societies such as China.

More importantly, masks are extremely difficult for the deaf and hard of hearing as they cannot lip read and it can be harder to be understood.

Multipass wrote: »

It would greatly increase the onboard sales of drinks and snacks. Who can make their coffee last the longest?

Once everyone who wants to be has been vaccinated , I'm not going to feel too guilty about dragging out my drinks as long as possible. Until then I'm avoiding eating or drinking on public transport as much as possible.


I am however fully in favour of wearing a mask on public transport if you're coughing and sneezing. Or better still avoid it all together. That will probably be more likely to come from societal pressure then an actual rule though.

JRant

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

Remember during brexit Michael Gove said something like "people have had enough of experts". Many (including me) laughed incredulously at such an idiotic statement. But it's during covid times that I think I finally understand.

There is zero doubt that people of science like epidemiologists, virologists, etc know waaaaayy more than I do. However, most are looking to push the population in one direction or another for various reasons and so will often be selective in their use of facts to push that particular narrative.

I have no doubt many are doing so for genuine reasons and what they perceive to be the greater good. However, it leads to a situation where we can't and shouldn't take expert opinions at face value. So questioning experts even by lay people is important and comments like "where did you get your degree in epidemiology again?" miss the point.

We should take what experts say into account. When they start pontificating over how everyone should lead their lives it becomes a huge problem. This was true for Brexit and it true of COVID and climate change.

All these experts are suddenly able to tell entire populations how they should be living their daily lives, with zero, and I mean ZERO, emphaty for how it would affect everyday lives.

Take our current CMO, who's remit is to advise government, yet he's taken it upon himself to constantly judge large sections of society because they aren't "behaving" the way he believes they should. That's what drives the "people are sick of experts" narrative.