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
13343353373393401586

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    It's a novel virus so anything goes. This time out a population-wide programme makes sense but not on this scale again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    The goal is to suppress the circulation of a dangerous new virus which represents a risk to the whole of society and threatens to overwhelm hospital systems if let circulate freely. No-one outside of the anti-lockdown campaigners has ever said the goal is to "prevent symptoms in those at risk". The Influenza virus back in 1918 started out as a largely benign virus which infected people without being noticed (until researchers looked back at their records), and then mutated into something which killed large numbers of the healthiest young people, and then mutated again into something which affected everyone before eventually receding.

    Covid itself may not have reached the same killing power as 1918, but this was mostly due to the interventions we made to break chains of transmission and now to vaccinate people. We have seen in some other unfortunate countries what can happen if the virus is left to circulate freely.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,255 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Is that died in June or deaths notified in June ?



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Waste of time. The doom merchants will let it roll on for a few pages and will look for one line, isolated and completely out of context in one news article and use it to spread misinformation about how we'll be back in lockdown in a week.

    They'll then ironically call NPHET and RTE scaremongers.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,205 ✭✭✭Lucas Hood


    Dr Glynn said there were 11 deaths with a date of death in June and ten in July.



    edit rte says 10 Deaths in July. Journal says 9. I think i heard Glynn on radio saying 9.



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    I don't think the maths of the modelling is the problem, it's what they put into it and the assumptions they make. TBF their models were more accurate when we were in the throes of the post-Christmas surge but they don't seem to be in periods of far lower infections.



  • Posts: 220 [Deleted User]


    Wasn't his assistant, Micheál Martin, in the news today saying there won't be any consideration of further easing of restrictions for six weeks at least?

    Seems likely that there has been some sort of breakdown in trust between NPHET and the elected Government, and that NPHET's dodgy data bouncing the Government into continuing the prohibition on eating a cheese sandwich in a cafe might have been the last straw.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭landofthetree




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    But if by and large only the vulnerable and being admitted to hospital in large numbers, once theyre vaccinated the risk of hospitals being overwhelmed is minimal.

    Covid never had anywhere near the mortality rate of Spanish Flu - any comparisons with it are incredibly disingenous.


    I'll ask again - if its not about protecting the vulnerable through vaccination, what is the end-goal? What is the exit strategy for this pandemic?



  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    That's the nature of modelling though. It's 'easier' (for want of a better word) when there is a larger sample size. The margin of error is much higher when the sample is smaller.

    I can't fully remember the last modelling (the one with all the different scenarios) but would I be correct in saying that it was based if the vaccine rollout was going as it was? Didn't they change the rollout completely following this by getting J&J in the pharmacies, approving J&J and AZ for younger cohorts and reducing the gap between AZ doses for the over 60s, which would have an impact?

    Modelling usually takes into account a certain scenario, and the only scenario that is logical is the current one in play.

    NPHET's modelling has been relatively accurate. Someone will reply to this that we never say the absolute worst scenarios after Christmas, but that was because we were in lockdown and with severe restrictions in place. If we had looser restrictions then we absolutely would have seen worse outcomes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    It's just being talked about, US has its own vaccination troubles.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The projected hospitalisations and deaths (incl vaccinations) where way off. Even the optimistic modelling was way off.

    The only thing Nolan got near right was the cases - except the scenario we are in now is Nolan's "optimistic pre-delta" scenario. Even so, the deaths and hospital admissions with that prediction were proven very wrong too. Effectively he got the conversion from "case -> hospital -> death" totally wrong post vaccine



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Not disputing part it plays but when it's the only determinant of actions, like now, it needs to be a whole lot more accurate



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,671 ✭✭✭Allinall


    Martin will be a lowly backbencher in November 2022, and will have no say.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭mollser


    Reading Richard Chambers tweets, that is the most optimistic sounding briefing imaginable, there was enough positivity there for the media outlets to be proclaiming the end of Covid is nigh!

    But nah, they've glossed over all the positivity and gone straight for the negative bits. I'm no fan of Holohan whatsoever, but he must be despair at the reporting of their message - its appalling - particularly from rte and the irish times. The journal have a bit of his good news.

    The media are a disgrace, and continue to be. Here's me just about to relent and pay my license fee...



  • Posts: 220 [Deleted User]


    I noticed a curious little pattern over the last week.

    RTÉ News website on today's numbers: "As of 8am, 152 Covid patients were in hospital, of which 26 are in ICU." Decrease in ICU numbers goes unmentioned.

    RTÉ News website on yesterday's numbers: "There are 142 people in hospital who have tested positive for coronavirus, up one since yesterday, 27 of whom are in ICU, a rise of two overnight." Increase in ICU numbers is mentioned.

    RTÉ News website on Monday's numbers: "The Department of Health has been notified of 1,345 new cases of Covid-19. There were 141 people being treated for the virus in hospital at 8am today, up 18 from yesterday. The number of coronavirus patients in intensive care units is 25, an increase of three.". Increase in ICU numbers is mentioned.

    RTÉ News website on Sunday's numbers: "The Department of Health has confirmed 1,126 new cases of Covid-19. There are 123 people in hospital, up 18, and 22 people in ICU, up one.". Increase in ICU numbers is mentioned.

    RTÉ News website on Saturday's numbers: "The Department of Health has confirmed 1,345 new cases of Covid-19. There are 105 people in hospital, 21 of whom are in ICU.". Decrease in ICU numbers goes unmentioned.

    RTÉ News website on Friday's numbers: "There are 106 people in hospital who have tested positive for the disease, a rise of 11 since yesterday, of whom 22 are in ICU, one less than yesterday.". Decrease in ICU numbers is mentioned.

    RTÉ News website on Thursday's numbers: "There are 95 people in hospital who have tested positive for coronavirus, down one since yesterday, of whom 23 are in ICU, a rise of one compared to yesterday.". Increase in ICU numbers is mentioned.

    RTÉ News website on last Wednesday's numbers: "The number of people in hospital who have tested positive for coronavirus is 96 - this is seven more than yesterday. Of these, 22 are in ICU, a rise of one over the past 24 hours.". Increase in ICU numbers is mentioned.

    A curious little pattern.

    So, over the last week, every single rise in ICU figures has been flagged prominently by RTÉ in the opening paragraph of the report, but a decrease in ICU figures is twice as likely to be ignored as to be reported.

    Curious indeed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,426 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    When Covid eventually fades into the rear view mirror RTE are going to have to actually produce creative, entertaining television rather than rely on further scaring a captive, institutionalised audience.

    God help them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,441 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    RTE have been pushing a clear and obvious narrative of fear for a long, long time now, it has been obvious to all and pointed out by many.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    RTE will not be looked on favorably after Covid given the atrocious behavior in reporting with their unbalanced reports and out and out scare mongering. Not that RTE is looked on favorably as it is.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That's not correct. There is no evidence that vaccines select for escape mutants. In fact it suggests that they reduce the diversity of mutations, potentially offsetting selective pressure and limiting evolution. As I've said many times vaccines may need an update eventually due to antigenic drift but that's a gradual process over time. It is extremely unlikely it will ever get to the point it will evade the vaccine entirely.

    Oh and FYI most vaccines we use are non-sterilizing. That's never been a problem. The only one used widely is for HPV.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    The end-goal is mass vaccination to ensure that most of the population will not encounter Covid, or variants, as a virus unknown to their immune system. This has always been the goal.

    I'm not going to bother challenging your "vulnerable" comments, that's just naive and has been debunked several times already by others.



  • Registered Users Posts: 983 ✭✭✭Mike3549


    Might be too late for reply, but my second jab is 18 days after 1st, for my missus 19. Others also reporting 18 days. 17 days minimum for pfizer



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    We actually exceeded the worst-case modelling at Christmas.

    Some people are now trying to argue that the modelling was wrong because we haven't seen predicted hospitalisations and deaths, and this is coming after we made a policy change not to proceed with reopening indoors because the modelling suggested it was risky. It's exhausting dealing with people who don't seem to understand that modelling predicts the future if you don't make a change, it's not a crystal ball and the future will be different if you make changes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,211 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Well thats not going to happen with vaccines that dont stop people becoming infected or transmitting the virus, is it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    If you are vaccinated Covid is no longer new to your immune system. If you get a headcold from the virus, or give someone else a headcold, it's not going to be the end of the world and we'll get on with our lives. Certain vulnerable groups and people working with them may need boosters. It sounds from the NPHET press conference today that we may be close to that point of normality thanks to the strong uptake of vaccines.



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    But how do you determine if it is a lot more accurate though? The reason why, for the most part, it hasn't got as bad as the modelling suggests is because there have been actions taken to prevent it from getting that bad.

    I would consider this to be quite accurate so far, would you?

    In fact, it's possible that the end result could be even lower than the modelling forecast - again because of the increased vaccine rollout.

    For any modelling you need a control. In this case, the control was the pace of the vaccine rollout as it was at the time because that was the plan of government at that time.

    The government used that modelling to find ways to improve the vaccine rollout, which in turn is now showing its impact.

    Holohan is talking now about easing more restrictions. When did you ever expect NPHET discussing this when cases are rising and are now in the thousands? That's because of the action taken to avoid the worst case scenarios in the modelling data, in this case a further vaccine ramp-up.

    Stephen Donnelly deserves a lot of flak for many reasons (including just being a bluffing dope) but, after a slow start, he's got the vaccine rollout absolutely spot on and, when people here were suggesting the rest of the world was laughing at us, our vaccine rollout has now on track to surpass the UK and Israel, and other EU countries are re-introducing restrictions (albeit of lesser significance than before) whereas we're not.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    Great model I think banks used same one prior every recession.



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    That's because the vaccine rollout was completely different at the time. There was no rollout of J&J in pharmacies, there was no rollout of J&J and AZ among young age cohorts (it wasn't even advised at the time) and there were many over 60s and FHCW who had yet to receive their second jab of AZ - even to the point that Luke O'Neill, Kingston Mills and Sam McConkey were all saying that they should all be given an mRNA booster. The gap between the two jabs of AZ was reduced significantly instead.

    Those projections were on the basis that literally nothing changed in the vaccine rollout (the control) but, in truth, a lot changed.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Oh Lord

    The modelling was insane, it didnt seem to take into account the hundreds of thousands of people who had covid but never got a PCR test.

    The modelling also seemed to predict too high a rate of sickness, assuming everyone unvaccinated would get covid when many people have natural immunity.

    Once the very frail elderly living in congregated settings were vaccinated you removed fifty per cent of people who wiuld die from covid, these people wouldnt be brought to hospital.

    The other vulnerable people, mainly the obese who have serious underlying conditions relating to their weight were vaccinated long before now. Hopefully these people have enough sense not to mix widely, we have protected them through vaccination and there in no more we can do for themnow.

    Very few people vaccinated in the last few weeks were st risk from covid so its nonsense to say the modelling was accurate and the world would have fallen in if we had opened indoor dining in July.

    Enough already, time to get back to normal.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


Advertisement