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

Sure when you’re on the handy PUP that’s not surprising the attitude of your post. If there’s another lockdown my taxes won’t be supporting it i can tell you that right now 😉.

Life is risk. I’d rather take a risk than a miserable existence of a life. If you’re vaccinated you shouldn’t have to worry about being dead or seriously ill.

Im not a massive fan of RTE, but im not a massive critic of RTE news i think they do a half decent job but there are some areas that lack.

However the entire RTE radio 1 morning news bulletin can be dominated by covid, the increases in cases across the country, with focus on the 5-12 year old cohort and what Ronan Glynn said about them questioning their needs to participate in so many activities and have two GP’s on about the other illnesses.

My question, how can RTE have all this bulletin and not mention deaths? How can they talk so much about a disease without mentioning the ultimate consequence of it.

If they are going to lead with a bulletin on 5-12 years old cases increasing why dont they tell us how many 5-12 year olds have died or needed to be hospitalized????

No

Yes it's wrong and he did not read even the abstract of the paper, but rather read a bad pop-science article about the paper. In turn, posters here who only read Luke's tweet are now getting even his tweet wrong and are saying "vaccines are 63% effective against transmission". The paper did not say this in any way whatsoever.

I told you already, it's posted on medRxiv. This is a preprint repository, papers are not peer reviewed, and papers can NOT be retracted or withdrawn. They're permanent.

The quote I posted from the paper is the key finding in the paper. Their goal of their study, months of work, was to arrive at these "small parts of data".

Under the age of 44, I counted 12 people admitted to icu with covid in the 4 months of September to December 2020, before there were vaccines, or 36 in a year Before vaccines. That's around 60% of the population that are under 45.

As I said, the point still stands; covid is negligible to the under 40s as a disease even before vaccines but with vaccines it's amazing we even try to restrict this age group at all and instead should be telling the vulnerable and hypochondriac to hide. Highlighting a sob story (in sorry but that's all that is) does not give you permission to make a statement regarding the general population. It's emotional manipulation tactics, not grounded in hard facts.

Firstly, I appreciate that you're the only person to actually read the paper before posting.

It's hopefully obvious that vaccination reduces symptoms for some people and in turn may reduce transmission. The extent of this reduction is unknown, and this paper is one attempt to model it, in a household setting.

The question (for me) is whether vaccination programmes are a sufficient primary measure to reduce burden on hospitals, remove restrictions, etc.

The results from this paper give us a resounding "No", the reason:

1) Unvacc -> unvacc is irrelevant when up to 99% of adults in some counties are vaccinated, however the added risk of even unvacc -> unvacc is marginal.

2) Unvacc -> vacc has the same risk as: vacc -> vacc, and vacc -> unvacc. If you're vaccinated, you're as likely to be infected by a vaccinated person as by an unvaccinated person. Also, you're equally likely to infect people, as be infected by an unvaccinated person.

3) They note waning in vaccine effectiveness against transmission after only 60 days

These findings demonstrate that the covid cert is utterly senseless, as is the demonisation of unvaccinated people ("pandemic of the unvaccinated" etc).

Findings such as these should shift attention towards hospital capacity, and towards protection of the vulnerable only and removal of all restrictions. However instead, our "experts" are misinterpreting the paper entirely and this misinterpretation is bleated across all channels.

Hospital numbers down to 487 this morning and starting to look like their projections on that are way off.

It's a decent drop to be sure, I wouldn't count your chickens just yet though. Of the ~130 admissions in the last 48 hours, half of them come from that mystery "New covid case that wasn't admitted today" cohort. A new outbreak or two could easily scupper the numbers.

Soon they'll run out of people to be infected in the hospitals - maybe that was their plan all along - hospital acquired herd immunity!

That was a very long post you made to admit you were wrong and then reverting to your dogmatic position that only the vulnerable should be vaccinated.

Truthfully, I had read the paper and just wanted to see what depths you would plumb to twist the narrative (knowing that quoting where you were wrong from the paper would not deter you) and Professor Moriarty has undone it all on you anyway.

Now that that's out of the way.

Are you vaccinated? If not, why not?

One good thing about the vaccine uptake is that it will eventually happen, however, it's probably at least another 6 months to a year at current case rates to get there.

Absolutely we need better transparency with the admissions, why not have 2 symptoms breathing difficulties, high temperature and that’s one person admitted with the virus, person breaks both legs tests positive none of the 2 symptoms not a virus admission.

same with ICU could be there from a farming accident and test positive not a virus ICU case.

Yeah I saw that article and was fairly baffled by the logic, surely children presenting with respiratory issues results in more of them being tested and more covid cases being caught. Though I'm not sure the article actually follows the ridiculous headline

The HSE are now launching antigen tests for close contacts .Its no longer snake oil so then ?