Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP
Options
Comments
-
I would hope that one thing we can agree on is that re-opening should be based on objective criteria, so that people know what to aim for/expect.
Right now that isn't the case. As far as I know nobody in government or public health has stated what the tolerable level of infection, hospitalisation and death is.
So it's easy to see why some people assume their answer would be "zero".0 -
Long covid will likely be a significant impact on the health service and we will have to increase capacity in the health services to cope with it. Otherwise waiting lists for other services will also be impacted. Long covid though isn't really justifiable reason for lock down. That's hospitalisations for which case numbers in various demographics are the best proxy. In time, as vaccinations increase higher case numbers can be tolerated. We can already see this in Ireland. Vaccination should also hopefully reduce the incidences of long covid too.0
-
Sorry if already mentioned:
Melbourne set for fourth lockdown as Covid cluster in Australian city growsThe new Melbourne cluster was found after a traveller from India became infected while in hotel quarantine in South Australia state earlier this month.
The traveller was not diagnosed until he returned home from Adelaide to Melbourne.0 -
But for the sake of 8-10 more weeks of partial restrictions after 14 months of pretty heavy restrictions, I don't see the benefit in opening up any faster. Measured, sure-footed, and calculated is the only way forward.
This is an example of the single biggest problem in this country, the total disassociation with the effects of these restrictions.
I have said this before, in March 2020 it was rightly considered a very serious thing to remove peoples civil liberties. It wasn't done lightly, it was an emergency measure with the expectation that it would be just a few weeks to "flatten the curve".
Go forward in time and since then we find our government throwing on a few more months just in case, extending them based on "wait and see", and completely forgetting just how ****ing serious it should be to have these restrictions at all.
Measured and sure footed is grand for those least affected by the restrictions, but it would be nice for the decision makers to at least pretend that they understand the consequences of what they are doing, because that 8-10 weeks you so casually throw out there could be a life changing period of time for a lot of people.
The restrictions of peoples civil liberties should be ending at the earliest opportunity, they should not be in place a microsecond longer than the emergency requires. They are the last ****ing thing that should be subject to some civil servant "we'll chance it for a while longer" mentality.0 -
Maybe off topic, but has the health service increased capacity in any area since the start of COVID? Or is the only answer from the Government lockdown?
I know you cant fund "live" capacity indefinitely if its not needed, but as we're not out of the woods yet I was wondering if they actually have added anything significant during all this should we end up in another surge situation again?
Thats what lockdowns were initially introduced for as far as I recall0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry to drag the thread back a bit, I just wanted to point something out.
I'm not going to disagree with any of these posts, they could all be correct. But there's a common thread here - it's all opinion. It what we think "may" happen. And that is as true for my post as it is for anyone else's.
But what's the correct thing to do here? To look at the possible worst-case scenarios (guided by some rational numbers, not ISAG hysteria) and be guided by them, or to say, "It probably won't be that bad, we should take the chance".
Some people of course would prefer to take the chance. Open up and lets see what happens. I have a gut feeling it won't be that bad.
But for the sake of 8-10 more weeks of partial restrictions after 14 months of pretty heavy restrictions, I don't see the benefit in opening up any faster. Measured, sure-footed, and calculated is the only way forward.
I don't agree, we shouldn't have to put up with restrictions any longer than necessary just incase or as our health experts like to call it, "an abundance of caution".
And just on the young people getting serious illness or dieing, don't forget NIAC told us the chance of a healthy person 20-34 dieing of covid is about 1 in 100,000 chance when they were advising on us of the AZ vaccine0 -
I agree. And the earliest opportunity is the one where we have some level of confidence that things won't get worse when they do end. We don't have that right now. We can say it "probably" won't, but that's gut feeling. If the actual experts are not confident, then we shouldn't be either.bucketybuck wrote: »The restrictions of peoples civil liberties should be ending at the earliest opportunity, they should not be in place a microsecond longer than the emergency requires. They are the last ****ing thing that should be subject to some civil servant "we'll chance it for a while longer" mentality.
No, and I've seen this brought up time and time again on Twitter. Once you start saying that hospitalisations are low enough to justify wider reopening and that younger cohorts can cope better with higher levels of infection, you immediately have a number of people jump up and ask, "But what about long covid?!".Long covid will likely be a significant impact on the health service and we will have to increase capacity in the health services to cope with it. Otherwise waiting lists for other services will also be impacted. Long covid though isn't really justifiable reason for lock down.
However, no matter what one's opinion on long covid may be, there is one solid fact; if long covid was the only consequence of covid-19, we would never have locked down at all. Therefore long covid is no justification for any continued lockdown.0 -
I would hope that one thing we can agree on is that re-opening should be based on objective criteria, so that people know what to aim for/expect.
Right now that isn't the case. As far as I know nobody in government or public health has stated what the tolerable level of infection, hospitalisation and death is.
So it's easy to see why some people assume their answer would be "zero".
Absolutely Lumen — to me this point about the tolerable level of infection, hospitalisation and death is the absolute key central issue because that is the fulcrum on which the proportionality of restrictions must always be set.
A few of the contributors on here who speak largely in favour of the Irish strategy — they make good points and they do so robustly. But where they constantly flounder in my eyes is this concept of the tolerable threshold, and I’ve had some long-ish discussions with people on here where this threshold seems to just move to whatever is handiest for justifying the status quo. It’s a kind of oscillating makey-uppy threshold which vacillates around from overwhelmed health service to minimising Covid outright to “maintaining a balance between reopening and infections” — whatever that means. It just seems like sitting on the fence in the context of a point which is absolutely central to how we determine the appropriate balance between rights and restrictions. How can any debate on restrictions be based on an honest, good faith basis if one constantly muddies the waters on the threshold you mention in your post?0 -
Timmy O Toole wrote: »Per capita is the only one relevant here. Our GDP is massively inflated by multinational tech companies using Ireland as an address. You know this though.
Per capita is a stupid measure in this context, and doesn't get used in a seriously by any economist when comparing borrowing.
You don't think there's a difference with Ireland borrowing €10,000 per person and Afghanistan borrowing €10,000 per person? Size of economy and outputs is clearly a more relevant factor than population size.0 -
And just on the young people getting serious illness or dieing, don't forget NIAC told us the chance of a healthy person 20-34 dieing of covid is about 1 in 100,000 chance when they were advising on us of the AZ vaccine
Just on this as it's been badly reported in the media as well some poor interviews by Karina Butler. NIAC based their guidance off MHRA and EMA. The one in hundred chance was based on a very low daily incidence rate of covid. (less than 5 per every 10,000* people in the population)
At higher incidence rates chances of death increases.
*I think this was the range it could even have been lower. If I get time later I'll try dig it up.0 -
Advertisement
-
Long covid will likely be a significant impact on the health service and we will have to increase capacity in the health services to cope with it. Otherwise waiting lists for other services will also be impacted. Long covid though isn't really justifiable reason for lock down. That's hospitalisations for which case numbers in various demographics are the best proxy. In time, as vaccinations increase higher case numbers can be tolerated. We can already see this in Ireland. Vaccination should also hopefully reduce the incidences of long covid too.
I thought at this stage given the number of people I know who had covid, I would know at least one still suffering long term effects.0 -
Just on this as it's been badly reported in the media as well some poor interviews by Karina Butler. NIAC based their guidance off MHRA and EMA. The one in hundred chance was based on a very low daily incidence rate of covid. (less than 5 per every 10,000* people in the population)
At higher incidence rates chances of death increases.
*I think this was the range it could even have been lower. If I get time later I'll try dig it up.
From the CSO's statistics, we cant work out death rate under 25 because deaths arent listed (just <5), but in 25-44 age bracket the chance of death is 0.05% or 5 in 10,000. (44 deaths vs 85000 cases) So you're kind of right there.
Assuming max of 5 deaths in 15-24 bracket, its 0.01% fatality rate, 1 in 10,000.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »Absolutely Lumen — to me this point about the tolerable level of infection, hospitalisation and death is the absolute key central issue because that is the fulcrum on which the proportionality of restrictions must always be set.
A few of the contributors on here who speak largely in favour of the Irish strategy — they make good points and they do so robustly. But where they constantly flounder in my eyes is this concept of the tolerable threshold, and I’ve had some long-ish discussions with people on here where this threshold seems to just move to whatever is handiest for justifying the status quo. It’s a kind of oscillating makey-uppy threshold which vacillates around from overwhelmed health service to minimising Covid outright to “maintaining a balance between reopening and infections” — whatever that means. It just seems like sitting on the fence in the context of a point which is absolutely central to how we determine the appropriate balance between rights and restrictions. How can any debate on restrictions be based on an honest, good faith basis if one constantly muddies the waters on the threshold you mention in your post?
What you're not taking account of is the speed at which it grows exponentially. We were at a completely tolerable threshold before Christmas, but when we opened the virus grew way faster than we were able to react to and was quickly at risk of overwhelming health services, and it ultimately left hundreds and hundreds of people dead, who would otherwise be enjoying the start of Summer now.
This is why we need to do thing in a phased manner and give ourselves time to measure the impact. We could have zero hospitalisations this week, open up 100% next week, and have thousands of hospitalisations locked in before we have a chance to react.
We can't just assume everything will be alright, we've done that before and we saw what happened. Vaccines give us a lot of reason to be more optimistic of course, but that's no excuse not to be careful and gradual and to continually monitor the data.0 -
The hospital admissions stats are fairly static and have been for some time, so I think you need to provide evidence that people aren't getting sick as it's not the most plausible explanation.
I never said people aren't getting sick.
I said 400 positive tests a day doesn't equate to 400 sick people.
We can only go by hospitalizations, which I acknowledge are occurring, fortunately in low numbers.
The ~400 cases per day are not diagnoses, they are based solely on the PCR tests rather than symptoms. Many of those 400 will be asymptomatic.0 -
What you're not taking account of is the speed at which it grows exponentially. We were at a completely tolerable threshold before Christmas, but when we opened the virus grew way faster than we were able to react to and was quickly at risk of overwhelming health services, and it ultimately left hundreds and hundreds of people dead, who would otherwise be enjoying the start of Summer now.
This is why we need to do thing in a phased manner and give ourselves time to measure the impact. We could have zero hospitalisations this week, open up 100% next week, and have thousands of hospitalisations locked in before we have a chance to react.
We can't just assume everything will be alright, we've done that before and we saw what happened. Vaccines give us a lot of reason to be more optimistic of course, but that's no excuse not to be careful and gradual and to continually monitor the data.
The Christmas plan assumed people would moderate their behaviour. They didn't, sufficiently.
Almost all of those dead people were in age groups which have now been vaccinated.
If you're looking for a valid comparison you'll need to look elsewhere than Ireland over Christmas, because that just doesn't hold any water.0 -
What you're not taking account of is the speed at which it grows exponentially. We were at a completely tolerable threshold before Christmas, but when we opened the virus grew way faster than we were able to react to and was quickly at risk of overwhelming health services, and it ultimately left hundreds and hundreds of people dead, who would otherwise be enjoying the start of Summer now.
This is why we need to do thing in a phased manner and give ourselves time to measure the impact. We could have zero hospitalisations this week, open up 100% next week, and have thousands of hospitalisations locked in before we have a chance to react.
We can't just assume everything will be alright, we've done that before and we saw what happened. Vaccines give us a lot of reason to be more optimistic of course, but that's no excuse not to be careful and gradual and to continually monitor the data.
Given that we know vaccinated people spread virus less (& also are less likely to need hospital or die) the virus has less opportunity to spread this time as a result. Everytime it hits a vaccinated person theres a chance it might not spread on to another person at all.
So we will not see anything close to the same growth rates we saw at christmas or before.0 -
Look, the most vulnerable are vaccinated. Hospitals will now never become overwhelmed - the whole bloody point of restrictions.
Open the hell up; enough with the "abundance of caution" for God's sake!
Enough is enough.
I don't buy the new argument that young people will now overwhelm the hospitals.
Pure and utter s***e!0 -
eskimohunt wrote: »Look, the most vulnerable are vaccinated. Hospitals will now never become overwhelmed - the whole bloody point of restrictions.
Open the hell up; enough with the "abundance of caution" for God's sake!
Enough is enough.
I don't buy the new argument that young people will now overwhelm the hospitals.
Pure and utter s***e!
Too many unknowns. Pfizer efficacy against one Indian strain is down to 75%. Still completely acceptable of course. However the more the virus spreads the more likely we are to get a variant which will cause problems. We open up faster we enhance the risk. With the virus is Asia currently surging it is far from over. It is not over anywhere until it is over everywhere. Expect more lockdowns in the next year or two or three.
Worldwide just 1 billion jabs have been administered. Still a long long long way to go.0 -
Too many unknowns. Pfizer efficacy against one Indian strain is down to 75%. Still completely acceptable of course. However the more the virus spreads the more likely we are to get a variant which will cause problems. We open up faster we enhance the risk. With the virus is Asia currently surging it is far from over. It is not over anywhere until it is over everywhere. Expect more lockdowns in the next year or two or three.
Worldwide just 1 billion jabs have been administered. Still a long long long way to go.
Jesus...:rolleyes:0 -
What you're not taking account of is the speed at which it grows exponentially. We were at a completely tolerable threshold before Christmas, but when we opened the virus grew way faster than we were able to react to and was quickly at risk of overwhelming health services, and it ultimately left hundreds and hundreds of people dead, who would otherwise be enjoying the start of Summer now.
This is why we need to do thing in a phased manner and give ourselves time to measure the impact. We could have zero hospitalisations this week, open up 100% next week, and have thousands of hospitalisations locked in before we have a chance to react.
We can't just assume everything will be alright, we've done that before and we saw what happened. Vaccines give us a lot of reason to be more optimistic of course, but that's no excuse not to be careful and gradual and to continually monitor the data.
Again though, I find myself somewhat dismayed by the constant presentation of a false binary choice of: Option 1- Government’s Current Strategy or Option 2: Open Everything Next Week. This simply is not the fair or helpful way of looking at it — nor do I think the majority of people on here are advocating “opening up 100%” immediately and, even where they are advocating allowing certain businesses to open, people still seem to be fairly cognisant of the fact that some restrictions are still needed even for reopened premises (i.e. not having pubs being 5 deep at the bar).
So I’ll put it to you, because I’ve struggled to get an answer on this, what is the tolerable threshold?
Now, without even getting into debate about the past, let’s focus on the here and now. The cohort of our population most likely to die or wind up in ICU due to Covid have largely been vaccinated — and even those who have only received a first dose have a significant level of protection in the interim window to the second dose. That is what the science tells us — that the vaccines work — and if the science is wrong then we are up **** creek without a paddle and we would have ended up there regardless.
With the vaccines rolled out to the vulnerable, the risk of the health service being overwhelmed for any indefinite period is far lower and the risk tolerance needs to go up. If I’m wrong about that then of course it would be nice of the government to present the metrics as to why, and explain how they are being proportionate rather than unreasonably cautious.0 -
Advertisement
-
Too many unknowns. Pfizer efficacy against one Indian strain is down to 75%. Still completely acceptable of course. However the more the virus spreads the more likely we are to get a variant which will cause problems. We open up faster we enhance the risk. With the virus is Asia currently surging it is far from over. It is not over anywhere until it is over everywhere. Expect more lockdowns in the next year or two or three.
Worldwide just 1 billion jabs have been administered. Still a long long long way to go.
It would make sense now to vaccinate those groups most responsible for spread of the virus to reduce the spread and break the chain. Say the 19-25age group this could be done alongside the age based system.0 -
Too many unknowns. Pfizer efficacy against one Indian strain is down to 75%. Still completely acceptable of course. However the more the virus spreads the more likely we are to get a variant which will cause problems. We open up faster we enhance the risk. With the virus is Asia currently surging it is far from over. It is not over anywhere until it is over everywhere. Expect more lockdowns in the next year or two or three.
Worldwide just 1 billion jabs have been administered. Still a long long long way to go.
1.8 billion jabs have been administered worldwide.0 -
Too many unknowns. Pfizer efficacy against one Indian strain is down to 75%. Still completely acceptable of course. However the more the virus spreads the more likely we are to get a variant which will cause problems. We open up faster we enhance the risk. With the virus is Asia currently surging it is far from over. It is not over anywhere until it is over everywhere. Expect more lockdowns in the next year or two or three.
Worldwide just 1 billion jabs have been administered. Still a long long long way to go.
I don’t think you’ve considered finances at all. Or human nature.0 -
Firstly you are making a big assumption there that most of the underlying conditions in younger people are hypertension o0r something that would be similarly undiagnosed.
From the study you linked, only 22% of people surveyed were under 45. it doesnt give a better age breakdown, however from CDC in America (which would likely have worse obesity and hypertension stats than here), we see that:
7.7% of 18-39s have high blood pressure
33% for 40-59s
63% for 60+
Incorrect. No idea where you're getting that from. The point is that there are those in the general population who are at risk and simply do not know it. Undiagnosed Hypertension in the "general population" is simply an example of this.
Btw the HSE data on underlying conditions for those diagnosed with Covid across all age groups including younger age cohorts further demonstrates that underlying conditions are an issue for all age groups across the general population. Albeit as I already pointed out decreasing with age.So again, the risk is overwhelmingly borne by the older groups - so even if they did not know about their hypertension, the age based rollout means they will be first to get vaxxed also. Right now we are vaccinating 50s? So approx 80% of all adults with hypertension are likely to have at least 1 vaccine by the time we do all 50s+ with a first dose, which is very soon.
The reality is, that you seem to want to dismiss, is that younger people are the healthiest of all age groups. Some will have conditions, some will die, but the vast vast majority are quite healthy.
Again you're trying to disprove the issue relevant to underlying conditions by thinking the only issue is undiagnosed Hypertension. It isn't. That's simply an example to show that undiagnosed underlying conditions are not uncommon. Interesting that you highlight underlying conditions in younger age groups as overall being a non issue in relation to Covid because "younger people are the healthiest of all age groups" That however doesn't negate undiagnosed underlying conditions as being an issue for these groups - but does perhaps suggest why such conditions may remain undiagnosed due to the presumption amongst individuals - that younger age groups are healthy and not participating in regular health screening common in older individuals.
And again its not just about 'death". Its about all those who may get seriously ill and require medical care.For hospital admission data & the risk of being overrun see https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcasesseries30/
For every 100 confirmed cases in each age group, hospitalisation rate is:
0-24 1.3%
25-44 2.4%
45-64 5.6%
65-79 21.3%
80+ 28.6%
This doesnt account for the previously mentioned underlying conditions either, which are disproportionately more likely to be hospitalised. So unless you think somehow covid is going to rip through the younger groups and infect more than 100k people, our hospitals will never be overrun with covid again.
None of that was said or implied - so you're simply having an argument with yourself on that. And funnily enough I never mentioned "hospitals been overrun" or covid ripping through younger age groups
It remains that risk to the general public not "miniscule" as you evidently believe and more importantly why we have restrictions in order to keep the infection rate down whilst the vaccination programme is being rolled out.0 -
Incorrect. No idea where you're getting that from. The point is that there are those in the general population who are at risk and simply do not know it. Undiagnosed Hypertension in the "general population" is simply an example of this.
Btw the HSE data on underlying conditions for those diagnosed with Covid across all age groups including younger age cohorts further demonstrates that underlying conditions are an issue for all age groups across the general population. Albeit as I already pointed out decreasing with age.
Again you're trying to disprove the issue relevant to underlying conditions by thinking the only issue is undiagnosed Hypertension. It isn't. That's simply an example to show that undiagnosed underlying conditions are not uncommon. And again its not just about 'death". Its about all those who may get seriously ill and require medical care.
None of that was said or implied - so you're simply having an argument with yourself on that. And funnily enough I never mentioned "hospitals been overrun" or covid ripping through younger age groups
It remains that risk to the general public not "miniscule" as you evidently believe and more importantly why we have restrictions in order to keep the infection rate down whilst the vaccination programme is being rolled out.
I proved my point with stats, you attempt to dismiss it with vague hand waving about undiagnosed conditions. You used hypertension as an example, trying to say that loads of people have undiagnosed hypertension - I then refuted that point by showing incidence of hypertension is incredibly low in younger cohorts relative to the older.
Undiagnosed conditions are the new variants excuse it seems to justify disproportionate restrictions.0 -
I proved my point with stats, you attempt to dismiss it with vague hand waving about undiagnosed conditions. You used hypertension as an example, trying to say that loads of people have undiagnosed hypertension - I then refuted that point by showing incidence of hypertension is incredibly low in younger cohorts relative to the older.
Undiagnosed conditions are the new variants excuse it seems to justify disproportionate restrictions.
You dont need undiagnosed conditions even to justify restrictions . A large number of cohort 7 have not yet been vaccinated
Cohort 7 which is deemed high risk has been largely forgotten by everyone and many left with no clue when they will be done0 -
I proved my point with stats, you attempt to dismiss it with vague hand waving about undiagnosed conditions. You used hypertension as an example, trying to say that loads of people have undiagnosed hypertension - I then refuted that point by showing incidence of hypertension is incredibly low in younger cohorts relative to the older.
Undiagnosed conditions are the new variants excuse it seems to justify disproportionate restrictions.
Nope. You attempted to use statistics irrelevant to the point I made that the risk to the general public now is not miniscule. I showed how underlying conditions exist in all age groups albeit decreasing in proportion by age.
And again your claiming things not said. Not one mention of the word "loads" btw. But no undiagnosed conditions are not new "variants excuse" used "to justify disproportionate restrictions"
And again hypertension is just one example of a common undiagnosed underlying condition. There are other conditions to add to that statistic.
So it remains we know Underlying conditions are a feature of covid infection for all age groups. See the linked report showing the statistics for those diagnosed with covid with underlying conditions by age
We know that underlying conditions are an serious issue with respect to conditions relative to comorbidities and covid. That remains unchanged for all those with diagnosdd / undiagnosed underlying conditions yet to be fully vaccinated.0 -
Too many unknowns. Pfizer efficacy against one Indian strain is down to 75%. Still completely acceptable of course. However the more the virus spreads the more likely we are to get a variant which will cause problems. We open up faster we enhance the risk. With the virus is Asia currently surging it is far from over. It is not over anywhere until it is over everywhere. Expect more lockdowns in the next year or two or three.
Worldwide just 1 billion jabs have been administered. Still a long long long way to go.
Do you know what efficacy means?
Just means people will catch it easier but still won't get seriously ill or end up in hospital.
The vaccines are working brilliantly against death and serious illness no matter how many scary variants they keep throwing at us.0 -
Any highlights from the briefing?0
-
Advertisement
-
Jinglejangle69 wrote: »The vaccines are working brilliantly against death and serious illness no matter how many scary variants they keep throwing at us.
For now.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement