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

At least he's been more honest than the CMO.

No surprise at all. The more transmissible covid gets the more you'll expect it to spread within a hospital setting. All it takes is one nurse/doctor to infect a whole ward.

What was surprising was the CMO and his 95%. Completely disingenuous comment and a poor attempt to gaslight against all common sense

CMO was using a different definition which is the meaning of incidental generally used in public health .

The fact that the HSE are using a broader definition gets lost in translation here , and leads to accusations of lies from the CMO ., which is neither fair nor correct .

One could argue that the HSE are giving incorrect figures , as infectious patients are not strictly " incidental " , but in fairness Paul Reid does not mention the word , but just the fact that they are asymptomatic and admitted for something else ,and that these patients are infectious .

So this situation being clarified will still be used as a stick to beat a public servant with one way or another it seems .

It's a no win situation really .

Hmm, not sure about this.

lots of points could be made but loads of people don’t seem to be too bothered about their obese kids yet it’s masks, masks, masks etc.

18,904 new cases, 1,011 in hospital and 92 in ICU

So one last attempt to be fair and civil even though I’m not receiving the same in return. Who I was actually referencing which I have told you already btw.

You mentioned not bothering to read my posts, which is fair enough, I don’t read, engage with, respond or quote yours either, if you did though you would have noticed I’ve mentioned, referenced and quoted the bold olive a few times. Hence the fact I’ve referenced “on Twitter, not so much here” in my original post

Now scroll up this twitter feed and 24 hours ago or so you will see reference to NPHEt being told what to say etc etc, again what I referenced in my post, which coincided with me reading it and posting what I did!

So what’s most likely here. The fact when I reference twitter in my post, that I’m actually talking about someone from twitter who I have actually referenced or quoted numerous times before as I think she’s bonkers to be honest.

Or that I’m covertly quoting some obscure text you said in a post some time ago, someone I don’t engage with, don’t respond to, don’t quote, don’t read your contribution to troll someone again who I have never quoted, responded to, engaged with and I just luckily happened to come across the exact same phrase from a person on twitter that I have quoted before, that you happened to say somewhere but secretly it’s all about having a go at you!

The term “I don’t trust Varadkar/Leo” is not a term copyrighted to you or anything in fairness to the extent if anyone else is using it they must be referencing you!

Seriously it’s noting to do with you and not all about you.

Tony used a very narrow definition of what an incidental case is. He mentioned someone who tests positive but is asymptomatic and non-infectious, which would seem to go against public health guidelines for the general population since the start of this.

The latest HSE figures would more closely match similar definitions from the NHS which would be covid positive but the primary care they are receiving is not for covid.

I hope that makes sense.

It completely makes sense but the poster I was responding to stated that the CMO was using “the meaning of incidental generally used in public health.”

I’m asking the poster if there’s any source indicating this is the generally agreed upon definition in public health.

Sigh. This is all a bit boring and defensive tbh.

you have apparently reported it to the boards police so leave it there please.

One recovered from Covid . Look it up yourself . It was posted a couple of nights ago.

I have looked up the meaning of “incidental” with regard to medical conditions and it doesn’t coincide with the much more narrow one used by the CMO. Can you please share a link to a source? I don’t see how “incidental” can legitimately be defined as only being someone who tests positive but has fully recovered from symptomatic infection but I’m open to correction from a legitimate source.

If I am not that source you can ask someone else tbf .

It is in a 79 page IPC document from Gov.ie if you want to go read through and find it . I referenced it the other night .

Good luck !

Is there any way of finding out how many cases are in each EA of a county? The covid tracker hasn't been updated since before Christmas.

You're not the source because you're just someone on the Internet. :-) I was asking what the actual source of your claim is. Somewhere in a "79 page IPC document" isn't helpful as it doesn't really narrow down the search. I doubt you would accept someone making the claim that the CMO outright lied if they offered you the same lack of evidence. In this case, I can point you to the dictionary definition of the word "incidental" which is much more general than what the CMO used. I can point you to a research paper attempting to quantify the number of incidental cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Los Angeles that doesn't use as narrow a definition as our CMO did, which would seem to contradict the claim you made that he was using a generally accepted definition within the sphere of public health.

You're claiming that there is a much more specific definition of the word "incidental" than is generally understood somewhere in an "79 page IPC document" that you can't or won't point me to. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I'm questioning this, as I imagine you would if someone made a claim that you found questionable without providing any evidence.