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

timmyntc

mohawk wrote: »

Different type of clot but it’s all about risk. Pill is an example of acceptable risk. The clot risk in AZ is so low that it appears that we are being over cautious regarding the vaccine especially when blood clots happen more frequently with Covid infection then with the vaccine.

The risk of death from a clot from the pill is so much lower than the risk of death from a clot from taking AZ.
Geting the clot isnt the overall outcome here - so the chance of clotting cannot be compared side by side.

Clots from AZ & other vaccines are very serious and often fatal. Clots from taking the pill or getting a long haul flight are mostly fine. Totally different risks.

pauldry

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Of today’s 434 cases, half are under 31 and 80% are under 45

Where do you get this info?

funnydoggy

pauldry wrote: »

Where do you get this info?

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0507/1217556-coronavirus-ireland/

Wolf359f

mohawk wrote: »

Different type of clot but it’s all about risk. Pill is an example of acceptable risk. The clot risk in AZ is so low that it appears that we are being over cautious regarding the vaccine especially when blood clots happen more frequently with Covid infection then with the vaccine.

Nobody is saying either accept the risk from AZ or get infected in order to achieve herd immunity. Yes Covid is far far more dangerous, however, we're looking to get 80% of people vaccinated rather than 80% infected.
If covid was rampant in Ireland and everyone was going to end up infected, then yes, the risks of AZ outweigh the benefit in all age groups. Going back to Dec/Jan, if the risks of clots were known and we had a supply of AZ, there's no way it would have been restricted to only the 50+ age group.

ShineOn7

Deleted User wrote: »

Blood clotting risk on a long haul flight is far higher than AZ blood clotting risk

Yeah I'm gonna need a source on that

Blood clot risk from AZ is 1 in 100,000

And from long haul flights? I can't find data on a quick Google

Also, there's ways to reduce the risk from getting them on flights, such as compression socks and walking around during the flight

It's a silly comparison tbh

ArthurDayne

timmyntc wrote: »

The risk of death from a clot from the pill is so much lower than the risk of death from a clot from taking AZ.
Geting the clot isnt the overall outcome here - so the chance of clotting cannot be compared side by side.

Clots from AZ & other vaccines are very serious and often fatal. Clots from taking the pill or getting a long haul flight are mostly fine. Totally different risks.

Edit : think I meant to respond to someone else!

This is absolutely true, but the authorities around Europe have really made a mess of getting their messaging right as regards setting out the personal risk assessment and their words have not always mirrored how they behaved (i.e. the temporary suspension). You don’t have to deceive people as regards the risk, you just have to put it in perspective. I got my AZ vaccine earlier this week in Belfast and the risks were explained, contextualised, and I accepted them. The risks pale into insignificance versus the collective gravity of the risks I take all the time through drinking, eating ****e, not being at ideal body weight etc etc. It should be a rather straightforward personal risk assessment but is being turned into something much more complex by intense media focus and over-cautious behaviour by the relevant authorities.

The extent of the mess made here and across Europe is that [at least some and maybe many] people are being given a disproportionate sense of the risk of serious harm from the AZ vaccine — especially versus the context where people take many risks both in their lifestyle choices and day-to-day activities — to the point where they may be hesitant to accept it and thus may delay the process (which foreseeably could cause more Covid deaths).

So yeah, I personally agree that the personal risk assessment for taking the AZ vaccine should be more straightforward than people are making out — but the authorities (and media) bear a responsibility for legitimising the over-complication of that personal assessment.

mohawk

mohawk wrote: »

Different type of clot but it’s all about risk. Pill is an example of acceptable risk. The clot risk in AZ is so low that it appears that we are being over cautious regarding the vaccine especially when blood clots happen more frequently with Covid infection then with the vaccine.

UP until the vaccines I had not heard much of anything regarding blood clots as being possible from having had Covid-19, anyone got a link for this? and not in the last few months? or perhaps any deaths from clots whist having covid-19 say 2020?

I had heard everything from respiratory distress, cardiac muscle damage and honeycomb lungs to the usual cough and loss of smell.

any links?

ednwireland

rusty cole wrote: »

UP until the vaccines I had not heard much of anything regarding blood clots as being possible from having had Covid-19, anyone got a link for this? and not in the last few months? or perhaps any deaths from clots whist having covid-19 say 2020?

I had heard everything from respiratory distress, cardiac muscle damage and honeycomb lungs to the usual cough and loss of smell.

any links?

https://www.rcsi.com/dublin/news-and-events/news/news-article/2020/04/blood-clotting-a-significant-cause-of-death-in-patients-with-covid19

A study led by clinician scientists at RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences has found that Irish patients admitted to hospital with severe COVID-19 infection are experiencing abnormal blood clotting that contributes to death in some patients.

funnydoggy

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/department-of-health-advises-against-using-diy-supermarket-covid-tests-40396207.html

:pac: ah lads.

podgeandrodge

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Yeah look, not necessarily disagreeing with you. But I don't think it's black and white.

Someone maintaining a reasonably 'safe' lifestyle, i.e. working from home, not mixing, just the odd shop, could reasonably say that getting AZ right now would pose a bigger risk than their unlikely chance of covid + risk of serious ilness.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for people in that position to say it's not worth it, wait for a vaccine that poses less risk.

Maybe this goes back to the point of "offering" certain vaccines - to those that want/need them most.

bennyineire wrote: »

So by the same logic these people should never take a long haul airplane flight again?

No, I don't see that as the same logic. I didn't say "never take a vaccine again".

I'm not debating the risk, and whether the risk of death is similar to a flight (or not?).

All I'm saying is that you might wait a month or 2 if you're not at real risk of contracting covid (at home mostly and not mixing), until you have a chance of taking a vaccine that doesn't pose as much risk.

is_that_so

funnydoggy wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/department-of-health-advises-against-using-diy-supermarket-covid-tests-40396207.html

:pac: ah lads.

"Does not currently recommend" is pretty factual!

Rambling Man

[quote="[Deleted User];......means of justifying the extended closure of business such as indoor hospitality.[/quote]

Why would anyone have a vested interest in doing that?

funnydoggy

funnydoggy wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/department-of-health-advises-against-using-diy-supermarket-covid-tests-40396207.html

:pac: ah lads.

Do not recommend =/= do not use.

They'll probably never be recommended by NPHET, but that doesn't make them ineffective to use.

Not as good as PCR tests for sure, but any weapon that detects positive cases cannot be seen as a bad thing!

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

What a shocker, anything that would eat into the official daily case tallies of 400/500 is discouraged. It's purely about a scaremongering narrative of control, and any tenuous means of justifying the extended closure of business such as indoor hospitality.

or the accuracy of the test is not high enough for them to recommend.

zebastein

eskimohunt wrote: »

Do not recommend =/= do not use.

They'll probably never be recommended by NPHET, but that doesn't make them ineffective to use.

Not as good as PCR tests for sure, but any weapon that detects positive cases cannot be seen as a bad thing!

Exactly, they won't recommend people to buy a foam roller or knee pads either, that does not mean that these items have no benefit for your health depending on your need/usage. Just that they cannot make any general recommendation.

Lumen

An update on hospitalisations.

We're now bumping along at around 13 COVID-positive admissions per day in our acute hospitals, averaged over 14 days. This is about the same level as we had late last Nov/early December, before The Christmas Thing started.

The difference is that the 7-day case numbers were around 250 back then, and are now around 450. This is great news.

I'm not sure whether it's possible to get those hospitalisations down much more, because with a background infection rate in the community there are presumably always going to be people coming into hospital for unscheduled reasons (i.e. some kind of emergency) who have to be admitted and will test positive, but these aren't necessarily people being treated for COVID. But I'm only guessing really.

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What a shocker, anything that would eat into the official daily case tallies of 400/500 is discouraged. It's purely about a scaremongering narrative of control, and any tenuous means of justifying the extended closure of business such as indoor hospitality.

You really don’t make your case any better with the nonsense hyperbole.

Which part of what he said is incorrect?

hynesie08

Deleted User wrote: »

What a shocker, anything that would eat into the official daily case tallies of 400/500 is discouraged. It's purely about a scaremongering narrative of control, and any tenuous means of justifying the extended closure of business such as indoor hospitality.

Wouldn't an uptick in people testing at home lead to an increase of people going for pcr tests because they tested positive at home, leading to an increase in case numbers? Wouldn't that benefit the invisible hand holding down the pubs?

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do not recommend =/= do not use.

They'll probably never be recommended by NPHET, but that doesn't make them ineffective to use.

Not as good as PCR tests for sure, but any weapon that detects positive cases cannot be seen as a bad thing!

That’s not what a lot of people buying them in Supermarkets will use them for though.

CMO is bang on here.

poppers

funnydoggy wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/department-of-health-advises-against-using-diy-supermarket-covid-tests-40396207.html

:pac: ah lads.

Pat Kenny will have a meltdown on monday morning's show

Turtwig

Not always a fan of Tony's answers. Think Glynn is a better communicator. Those said I think he answered the antigen testing questions quite well. The wedding example was pretty good.

Martina1991

eskimohunt wrote: »

Do not recommend =/= do not use.

They'll probably never be recommended by NPHET, but that doesn't make them ineffective to use.

Not as good as PCR tests for sure, but any weapon that detects positive cases cannot be seen as a bad thing!

They perform very poorly at detecting asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases. Their performance is particularly poor on children. This leads to false reassurance that a person definitely doesnt have the virus.

They are only of use when viral loads are quite high, and people with symptoms should come forward for a PCR test so they can be accurately recorded and contact traced anyway.

They are a waste of money in my personal (and professional) opinion.

Dr. Bre

George lee in concern overdrive on rte

Klonker

Martina1991 wrote: »

They perform very poorly at detecting asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases. Their performance is particularly poor on children. This leads to false reassurance that a person definitely doesnt have the virus.

They are only of use when viral loads are quite high, and people with symptoms should come forward for a PCR test so they can be accurately recorded and contact traced anyway.

They are a waste of money in my personal (and professional) opinion.

Maybe antigen tests aren't the really needed right now. But say in 2 months time my friend is having a gathering of about 10 people at her house. I want to go, I've had my vaccine, I'm young and not in an at risk category but I'm still kind of worried that I could have the virus and pass it on to others though I have no noticeable symptoms. Would it not be better that I take an antigen test beforehand and if positive I wont go? You may say it would be better that if I don't go at all but that's not what people will be doing in say 2, 3 or 6 months time.

Even right now a lot of people are visiting their close families. Would it not be better if they took an antigen test beforehand and not go if positive rather than the alternative of just not going anyway without a test?

How can you say that's a waste of money in your personal (and professional opinion)?

CapriciousOne

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do not recommend =/= do not use.

In fairness he’s literally said do not use them also -

Dr Holohan said he and his team are "strongly advising people - don't buy these and don't use them".

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0507/1217601-covid-antigen-tests/

podgeandrodge

Klonker wrote: »

Maybe antigen tests aren't the really needed right now. But say in 2 months time my friend is having a gathering of about 10 people at her house. I want to go, I've had my vaccine, I'm young and not in an at risk category but I'm still kind of worried that I could have the virus and pass it on to others though I have no noticeable symptoms. Would it not be better that I take an antigen test beforehand and if positive I wont go? You may say it would be better that if I don't go at all but that's not what people will be doing in say 2, 3 or 6 months time.

Even right now a lot of people are visiting their close families. Would it not be better if they took an antigen test beforehand and not go if positive rather than the alternative of just not going anyway without a test?

How can you say that's a waste of money in your personal (and professional opinion)?

Isn't that the point though that they making against them?
That people will take these (possibly) unreliable tests, get an all clear, and potentially party with others and start a spread of the virus by throwing caution to the wind?

That you're better off assuming you have Covid and not going to the party, than taking these tests and partying like it's 1999

Martina1991

Klonker wrote: »

Maybe antigen tests aren't the really needed right now. But say in 2 months time my friend is having a gathering of about 10 people at her house. I want to go, I've had my vaccine, I'm young and not in an at risk category but I'm still kind of worried that I could have the virus and pass it on to others though I have no noticeable symptoms. Would it not be better that I take an antigen test beforehand and if positive I wont go? You may say it would be better that if I don't go at all but that's not what people will be doing in say 2, 3 or 6 months time.

Even right now a lot of people are visiting their close families. Would it not be better if they took an antigen test beforehand and not go if positive rather than the alternative of just not going anyway without a test?

How can you say that's a waste of money in your personal (and professional opinion)?

Vaccinated people can visit a non vaccinated household from Monday the 10th May. In 2 months time the majority of the adult population will have been offered at least their first jab.

If you have no noticeable symptoms then performing an antigen test is really of little use. You can't rely on the result due to poor sensitivity.

The insert that comes in the packet will even say the device's intended use is for symptomatic people suspected as having covid, and that a negative result doesn't rule out the presence of the virus.


These tests are tools and should be used at the right time, by the right people.

I'm trying to think of an analogy to describe it.
It's like trying to cut a steak with a tea spoon. You might think it's better to use something rather than nothing. But if that something isn't very effective, what's the point in wasting your time and money. Just use the right, more accurate and safer tool.

podgeandrodge

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Isn't that the point though that they making against them?
That people will take these (possibly) unreliable tests, get an all clear, and potentially party with others and start a spread of the virus by throwing caution to the wind?

That you're better off assuming you have Covid and not going to the party, than thee tests and partying like it's 1999

Either that or cillians commercial intetest in pcr will be decimated. Or he doesnt trust the stupid public to read whats essentially a pregnancy test. Has he a problem with the test, the tester or the integrity of a shop bought test. Earlier in the year they had a place but now its a no?

Turtwig

Klonker wrote: »

Maybe antigen tests aren't the really needed right now. But say in 2 months time my friend is having a gathering of about 10 people at her house. I want to go, I've had my vaccine, I'm young and not in an at risk category but I'm still kind of worried that I could have the virus and pass it on to others though I have no noticeable symptoms. Would it not be better that I take an antigen test beforehand and if positive I wont go? You may say it would be better that if I don't go at all but that's not what people will be doing in say 2, 3 or 6 months time.

Even right now a lot of people are visiting their close families. Would it not be better if they took an antigen test beforehand and not go if positive rather than the alternative of just not going anyway without a test?

How can you say that's a waste of money in your personal (and professional opinion)?

In both scenarios you'd be wasting money imo. Take precautions when meeting. Get a PCR test if you feel you must. Antigen tests have their uses. Self administered in the scenarios above is certainly not one of those uses.

I know it feels like something better than nothing. Sometimes nothing is actually better. Isolate before meeting. Meet up with precautions. Wait until they're fully vaccinated. There's much better and, crucially, reliable things you can do. Antigen testing just isn't the tool people wish it be. I wish I could say you could use it in your scenarios above. Unfortunately I can't.

ShineOn7

New cases: 434


Denotified cases: 4
Total cases: 251,904
New deaths: 4
Denotified deaths: 0
Total deaths: 4,918

Of the 434 cases notified today

• Male: 221
• Female: 212
• Under 45 years old: 347 (80%)
• Median age: 31

• Dublin: 197
• Cork: 44
• Kildare: 34
• Limerick: 20
• Meath: 20
• Remaining 119 cases spread across 16 other counties

Vaccination Numbers - Up to Wednesday 5th May

• Total doses: 1,700,538 (+44,762)
• First dose: 1,233,067 (+31,694)
• Second dose: 467,471 (+12,978)

** Vaccine Type**

• Pfizer: 1,179,638 (+24,098) - 54% of total
• Moderna: 84,758 (+2,245) - 5% of total
• AZ: 436,142 (+18,329) - 41% of total
• Janssen: 0 (+)

Cohort Breakdown

Cohort 1 (Residents aged 65+ in LTCF)

• Total in group: ~105,000
• Total vaccines: 194,667 (+546)
• Total with first vaccine: 109,874 (+502)
• Total with second vaccine: 84,793 (+44)
• 105% of total half vaccinated (+1%)
• 81% of total fully vaccinated (+0%)

Cohort 2 (Frontline Healthcare Workers)

• Total in group: ~250,000
• Total vaccines: 352,673 (+1,173)
• Total with first vaccine: 256,742 (+855)
• Total with second vaccine: 95,931 (+318)
• 103% of total half vaccinated (+1%)
• 38% of total fully vaccinated (+0%)

Cohort 3 (People 70+)

• Total in group: 482,327
• Total vaccines: 736,597 (+12,768) *Total with first vaccine: 457,246 (+839)
• Total with second vaccine: 279,351 (+11,929)
• 95% of total half vaccinated (+0%)
• 58% of total fully vaccinated (+3%)

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

• Total in group: ~250,000
• Total vaccines: 229,017 (+12,026)
• Total with first vaccine: 222,038 (+11,344)
• Total with second vaccine: 6,979 (+682)
• 89% of total half vaccinated (+5%)
• 2.8% of total fully vaccinated (+0.3%)

Cohort 5 (All aged 60-69)

• Total in group: 417,000
• Total vaccines: 183,785 (+17,588)
• Total with first vaccine: 183,737 (+17,583)
• Total with second vaccine: 48 (+5)
• 44% of total half vaccinated (+4%)
• 0% of total fully vaccinated

Cohort 7 (People aged 16-69 who have an underlying conditions that puts them at high risk of severe disease and death)

• Total in group: ~350,000
• Total vaccines: 1,809 (+389)
• Total with first vaccine: 1,807 (+389)
• Total with second vaccine: 2 (+0)
• 0.5% of total half vaccinated (+0.1%)
• 0% of total fully vaccinated (+0%)

Other "Uncoded" Cohort

• Total: 817
• First Dose: 768
• Second Dose: 49

Hospital stats as of 8 am today

• Hospitalised: 126 (-5)
• ICU: 34 (-2)
• New admissions past 24 hours: 15

The 7 day incidence rate: 64.1


The 5-day moving average: 416