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

So the HSE says you're not a close contact if you're fully vaccinated. This should change, shouldn't it?

I'm very much open to correction on this, but arent the Delta cases an estimate at the moment with a percentage of positive tests getting sent off for sequencing to determine the variant?

I really think that anyone getting a vaccine should be tested for antibodies first.

To a layman it wouldnt seem to be an outlandish question to ask at least. After all a vaccine is meant to provoke an immune reaction. If you have antibodies you obviously already had one, no?

What's the cases today otherwise the thread will cave in on itself with an hours break.

Who cares... honestly

1,501 cases, 169 in hospital but ICU down from 26 to 23.

Exactly - it's none of your business if you get infected 🙄

Am I taking the view............ The whole world is, if you had covid and can proof it you're good to travel, dine indoors ect.

We have to stay at home

Why is there always someone saying people are in hospital for other things other than covid like it's that easy to downplay the disease as nothing.

If you're in a hospital for something else and have covid, surely you need extra care and monitoring in case you take a turn? After all, you're in a bad condition as it is if you need a hospital stay. Having covid won't help things and can easily take a turn.

It's extra hospital resources needed as well, i.e. healthcare staff wearing extra PPE just to see you. Taking up a room to isolate when you could be on a general ward.

Ok, there is obviously going to be differing opinions on some of this subject. Some of the people that disagree with me on this particular subject have regularly agreed with me on other aspects. The way it goes. And should go. It's not black and white. We all have varying opinions on the various aspects. I'm pretty confident that I had a reasonable and indeed not too cautious reaction to Covid, drinking and eating indoors when it was allowed - any time over the last 1.5 years that the pubs and restaurants opened, I was there and not worrying about this virus. Many others stayed at home and didn't risk it, which is their choice. I was first in the pub this week when indoor drinking was allowed. So please, don't féckin bullshít me and try to imply that I'm some sort of curtain twitcher. For my age group (50's plus) I'm pretty realistic in living my life and not allowing this shíte to dictate my life.

So forgive me for saying féck you to people that try to suggest "imagine being him". And I'd ask some of the people that 'thanked' that post, some of whom have had very similar opinions to myself over the last 18 months, to reconsider how quickly they are happy to thank a bullshít post that depends on emotion rather than fact.

WHEN I went out, and I tell you I am in the UPPER echelon in terms of people going out in this pandemic, I respected the rules. I didn't like most of them, but I followed them. When I was first in the pub indoors this week, I didn't like this mask bollóx on arrival etc., but I did it - if only to not make it unnecessarily difficult for staff who have to follow the rules too. So excuse me for saying don't suggest I am some sort of paranoid individual when it comes to this.

So, excuse me floppybits and b0nk1e for trying to dismantle my opinion, but I am confident that I played a part in repressing the spread of the virus, while dubious about many of the measures. It is not up to you, or me, to decide that there is "no need to wear a mask for 5 minutes or less" - I might not disagree with you, but if everyone decides for themselves what is correct, well then the rules become irrelevant.

It is pretty disappointing that you get dissed on here simply because you have the termerity to suggest that it's ok to call people out for blatently disregarding the rules. They might be flawed, and questionable in many cases, but we don't, or should't, get to decide. So Féck you.

(removed ú and replaced with é!as not meant as angrily as sounded!)

14 patients involved in those hospital outbreaks .

Majority of patients are hospitalised for Covid with a few testing positive on admission for something else , according to Paul Reid , at HSE briefing today.

There is a simple reason for that and I wold have thought that while some may not agree with the distinction the thought process behind is easily understood.

Infection numbers, hospitalisations and deaths from/with covid have been used throughout to drive home the severeness of this virus and this pandemic. Especially the latter two since nobody would care about infection numbers if the hospitalisations and deaths were obviously in the non-dramatic range. These latter two numbers have been used as a direct instrument to convince the population of the necessity of unprecedented restrictions on civil liberties and commercial and social life in general.

It has been formally (and somewhat grudgingly) confirmed that not every covid death is someone who actually died from covid or where covid has even been a contributing factor. So we call it died 'with' covid but in the news articles this distinction often gets forgotten about and anyone who 'pedantically' insists on this distinction gets dismissed to the 'grifter' corner.

Officially the reason for the 'with covid' definition is that it is not a black & white scenario and that we cant carry out autopsies on everyone and even that would often not give a definite answer. Even as a covid response critic I find it hard to argue with that, but I must also assume that if the vast majority of the covid deaths could relatively easily and convincingly be attributed to 'from covid' then we certainly would have done so. In fact it seems no attempt at a more granular definition has been made even. Conclusively the cynic (and lets be honest, realist) in me assumes most likely the opposite is the case and 'with covid' is a rather 'generous' definition.

Therefore critics have always suspected that the hospitalisation numbers show a similar pattern and in fact this has since also been confirmed. We also have found out that quite a large portion of covid 'hospitalisations' actually acquired the virus in hospital.

So in terms of legitimation of measures with hospitalisations as a yardstick it absolutely is relevant whether someone is in hospital with an appendicitis and happened to test positive upon admission or whether someone is in hospital because of and treated for covid.

It is also very important for medical reasons, especially with the narrative on the so-called 'variants'. It is vital to know whether a certain variant causes higher hospitalisations or whether hospitalisations are merely up because the incidence rate in the general populace is up and hospitalisation numbers simply reflect that. Whether some or many of those hospitalisations are merely normal hospital traffic that happens to test positive. Obviously a young person in hospital with appendicitis who happens to test positive is a lot less likely to be transferred to ICU than an actual covid case.

Muddying those waters does not help anyone it only makes people suspicious.