Ireland to move to Level 3 from 1st December

[Paul O Mahoney]

Can you spare me the patronising drivel? You knock my secondary statistic and then quote secondary data yourself. The likes of you should stop assuming that the rest of us cant do basic research or read what the likes of Professor Donal Brennan, Dr Risterard O Laoide or Professor Jack Lambert, to mention just three, have to say.

I'm well capable of reading and interpreting secondary statistics, and conducting primary research if needs be but thanks for your concern.

The notion that there are no consequences to covid being the only show in town is farcical.

Fwiw my father died of pancreatic cancer and my mother survive bowel cancer after extensive treatment. The notion that that makes me more qualified to comment on secondary statistics is embarrassing.

Patronising? You were the one who decided to mitigate the effect of covid 19 with your initial statistic.
If you want to at least try an make a case why not show the statistics in age groups, or those with underlying health issues or any statistics that actually reflect the impact that this disease has had on the lives of the 2099 who have died?
Reading what you wrote it would easily to assume that those lives aren't important.

Your post is biased in the extreme and lacks basic empathy towards those have died.

Your experience of cancer, if true , doesn't give you a right to use it to make another deadly disease less important.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

Thank you Paul , much appreciated.
I still remember getting a half day when the Waterford All Ireland winning team of 1959 visited St Declan’s national school hopefully another good day is in the offing

Look it would great for ye, and even better for the game, Limerick won't lay down but anyone who has the scalps of the cats will be a bit more up for it.

 

[Leo]

The risk of dying from Covid in Ireland is 0.0004

That's not true for a start...

We have never put in place anything approaching the restrictions or levels of investment to address any single health issue in the history of the state, yet we are still at a point where 1 in 35 people with confirmed cases of this highly-contagious virus have died.

The pertinent point is that the vast majority of people will walk away unscathed from Covid. Untreated they won't from cancer.

I'm sure you understand that for anyone diagnosed with cancer, there is no walking away unscathed. The Lancet published a study on the impacts of the pandemic on cancer mortality in England.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

Cancer isn't an infectious disease.
Ebola has a case fatality rate of 90%.
There's a reason why covid has had a huge impact globally and ebola did not - how infectious it is.
So to merely look at what % of people will survive something untreated entirely misses the threat that covid represents to public health systems.

The low covid fatality rate here is a function of the restrictions deployed to keep the case count down, and in spring, the increase in hospital capacity brought about by the cancellation of other routine operations, including unfortunately screenings.
Those screenings have now been reinstated.

And surely the last thing someone undergoing treatment for cancer needs is to contract covid, the chances of which would be greatly increased if covid is allowed to become prevalent in the community.

So I don't see how your current comments are in any way pertinent to the conversation in December 2020.

I know of 3 people who are still getting treatment and they are more fearful of covid than their cancer, as if they get covid or anything that reduces their ability to fight their cancer and it would probably reduce massively any chances of surviving .

We still don't know what the long term effects of covid will be, we know from small studies that there has been evidence of scaring of lungs, untreatable fatigue, sleep deprivation and some getting the virus twice.

Cancer is a deadly disease but so is covid and neither needs to be pitted against each other.

 

[Leper]

Opportunity lost - Wet pubs allowed to serve take away alcohol and we haven't learned from recent outdoor congregations of groups. Restaurants to be allowed some indoor dining - realistically unpoliced. Gastro pubs to be allowed to open provided the food is prepared within - but in a "controlled environment." I wonder why I don't trust most publicans and most restauranteurs?

Too much trust being placed on the vaccines roll-out but the virus will not disappear overnight. The government has just handed Covid-19 a platform to increase it's dreadful toll of death and infection. And the controlled environments of pubs and restaurants are going to save us? Not a chance! We'll be staying indoors, self distancing and wearing masks for a long time yet to come.

The hope was when the last restrictions were imposed was to reduce the death rate, the daily infections to under 50 (currently 200+ and lowest for some time, but nowhere near <50). Our R number was to be reduced to less than 0.5 and we're not near that.

Two weeks since I reported the above we have had 310 infections today and our R figure is in excess of 1.20. It is my opinion that somebody should shout "Halt" immediately and return to Level 5 asap. Covidwise our situation is getting worse.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

Two weeks since I reported the above we have had 310 infections today and our R figure is in excess of 1.20. It is my opinion that somebody should shout "Halt" immediately and return to Level 5 asap. Covidwise our situation is getting worse.

Our R figure is really in excess of 1.2 its about 1 per yesterday's briefing....

Coronavirus live updates

Ireland and Northern Ireland's coronavirus updates from March 2020 - February 2021.

www.irishcentral.com

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

*isn't

 

[Leo]

*isn't

You can edit the original....

 

[Leper]

*isn't

I didn't make up the R figure, I got it from "Breaking News" about 6.00pm yesterday where it was stated the R number was in excess of 1.20. The other figures I got were from RTE News at 6.00pm. But, I'm not getting uptight about "about 1" and in "excess of 1.2."

Let's hope the figures drop, but I don't think they will. When we moved to Level 3 it had been mooted that the infection rate should have been between 50 and 100. We're still a long way from that number and yesterday we were greater than 3 times the higher number. Something's not adding up correctly.

 

[Leo]

I didn't make up the R figure, I got it from "Breaking News" about 6.00pm yesterday where it was stated the R number was in excess of 1.20. The other figures I got were from RTE News at 6.00pm. But, I'm not getting uptight about "about 1" and in "excess of 1.2."

Looking at yesterday's report on the briefing on BreakingNews, they did report it as close to 1.0, but quoted Stephen Donnelly on the consequences if the rate rose above 1.2.

Yesterday's NPHET briefing stated "The reproduction number is now estimated to be close to 1.0." They did not report the number in the pervious briefings this week.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

I didn't make up the R figure, I got it from "Breaking News" about 6.00pm yesterday where it was stated the R number was in excess of 1.20. The other figures I got were from RTE News at 6.00pm. But, I'm not getting uptight about "about 1" and in "excess of 1.2."

Let's hope the figures drop, but I don't think they will. When we moved to Level 3 it had been mooted that the infection rate should have been between 50 and 100. We're still a long way from that number and yesterday we were greater than 3 times the higher number. Something's not adding up correctly.

I wasn't implying you did make it up, just there is an awful lot of figures floating about and its easy to hear something from days ago or its muddled in someone's speech.

But a R of 1.2 would add significant figures to the daily cases, and those numbers have been fairly stable, that's the only reason I thought to check it.

 

[demoivre]

Cancer isn't an infectious disease.
Ebola has a case fatality rate of 90%.
There's a reason why covid has had a huge impact globally and ebola did not - how infectious it is.
So to merely look at what % of people will survive something untreated entirely misses the threat that covid represents to public health systems.

The low covid fatality rate here is a function of the restrictions deployed to keep the case count down, and in spring, the increase in hospital capacity brought about by the cancellation of other routine operations, including unfortunately screenings.
Those screenings have now been reinstated.

And surely the last thing someone undergoing treatment for cancer needs is to contract covid, the chances of which would be greatly increased if covid is allowed to become prevalent in the community.

So I don't see how your current comments are in any way pertinent to the conversation in December 2020.

They're very relevant. How do asymptomatic people pose a threat to the public health system? Asymptomatic transmission of covid has never been empirically established and there are no documented cases of asymptomatic transmission of covid.
People with symptoms absolutely need to quarantine and the vulnerable need to be protected but the rest of us should be getting on with it.
I'd like to see a flattening of the unemployment curve, the depression curve, the bankruptcy curve, the domestic violence curve etc.

 

[demoivre]

Patronising? You were the one who decided to mitigate the effect of covid 19 with your initial statistic.
If you want to at least try an make a case why not show the statistics in age groups, or those with underlying health issues or any statistics that actually reflect the impact that this disease has had on the lives of the 2099 who have died?
Reading what you wrote it would easily to assume that those lives aren't important.

Your post is biased in the extreme and lacks basic empathy towards those have died.

Your experience of cancer, if true , doesn't give you a right to use it to make another deadly disease less important.

Resources are finite so it's entirely appropriate that we should question the extraordinary lengths and costs involved in fighting a virus that is deadly for so few people. The opportunity cost of dealing with this virus is very important.
It is appalling that up to 2019 public patients with cervical cancer were denied pembrolizumab because of the cost of it yet we can whip up €16m in overtime payments for the gardai in the recent lockdown to cause nothing but havoc on the likes of the M11 and delay people going to work.

Can you not look up the facts yourself?
Median age of covid death is 83 according to CSO. Dr Ronan Glynn thinks it;s closer to 90.
93% of those who died have underlying conditions.

I'd have concerns about the PCR test too, especially when ct>35 and the amount of false positives it throws up. Have a look at what happened with the Cambridge students recently. Every single positive test was found to be a false positive after a second test.

 

[demoivre]

That's not true for a start...

We have never put in place anything approaching the restrictions or levels of investment to address any single health issue in the history of the state, yet we are still at a point where 1 in 35 people with confirmed cases of this highly-contagious virus have died.

If my number is incorrect show the correct calculation. Of course I was generous in including people with pre existing conditions in my calculation. I suspect that to calculate the probability of a healthy person in Ireland dying of Covid would require use of the exponential function on the calculator, because of the amount of zeros !

Covid is deadly for very few people ie the very old and having comorbidities.

 

[Purple]

If my number is incorrect show the correct calculation. Of course I was generous in including people with pre existing conditions in my calculation. I suspect that to calculate the probability of a healthy person in Ireland dying of Covid would require use of the exponential function on the calculator, because of the amount of zeros !

Covid is deadly for very few people ie the very old and having comorbidities.

It's very hard to put accurate numbers on the number of people who are dying from Covid or dying with Covid. At what point does having it not matter as the person will die anyway and at what point does having Covid combine with an underlying condition to cause their death?

It is true to say that only 9 people under the age of 65 with no underlying condition have died from Covid19 but how many with an underlying condition would still be alive today if they hadn't contracted the disease?

That said it is undeniable that if you are healthy and under 65 the chances of dying from it are extremely remote.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

Resources are finite so it's entirely appropriate that we should question the extraordinary lengths and costs involved in fighting a virus that is deadly for so few people. The opportunity cost of dealing with this virus is very important.
It is appalling that up to 2019 public patients with cervical cancer were denied pembrolizumab because of the cost of it yet we can whip up €16 in overtime payments for the gardai in the recent lockdown to cause nothing but havoc on the likes of the M11 and delay people going to work.

Can you not look up the facts yourself?
Median age of covid death is 83 according to CSO. Dr Ronan Glynn thinks it;s closer to 90.
93% of those who died have underlying conditions.

I'd have concerns about the PCR test too, especially when ct>35 and the amount of false positives it throws up. Have a look at what happened with the Cambridge students recently. Every single positive test was found to be a false positive after a second test.

Still didn't show any further statistics to back up your initial assertion or even a link .

You also seem to think that people with underlying conditions are expendables as " they were going to die anyway "

Ill not be wasting my time trying to verify the unsubstantiated claims you make, if you want those claims to be considered links would be the minimum requirement afterall they are your assertions.

 

[odyssey06]

They're very relevant. How do asymptomatic people pose a threat to the public health system? Asymptomatic transmission of covid has never been empirically established and there are no documented cases of asymptomatic transmission of covid.
People with symptoms absolutely need to quarantine and the vulnerable need to be protected but the rest of us should be getting on with it.
I'd like to see a flattening of the unemployment curve, the depression curve, the bankruptcy curve, the domestic violence curve etc.

The vulnerable can't be protected if everyone 'gets on with it', if by that you mean, ignoring and lifting all restrictions.
It's fantasy stuff, it is not a slogan of practicable policy.

If you can point me to a study that shows people without symptoms are not infectious, please cite.
People without symptoms can transmit covid, the split between pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic is unclear.
Pre-symptomatic & asymptomatic people shed viral load.

Factsheet on COVID-19

Factsheet on the COVID-19 pathogen, surveillance, clinical features, epidemiology, transmission, case management, and public health control measures.

www.ecdc.europa.eu

 

[Purple]

You also seem to think that people with underlying conditions are expendables as " they were going to die anyway "

We target resources at younger people in preference to older people all the time. Men are as likely to die of Prostate Cancer as women are to die of Breast Cancer but we spend vastly more on Breast cancer screening. That's nothing to do with gender (despite what some men think). It is to do with the fact that the men who die of Prostate Cancer usually do so in their 80's and 90's whereas women start dying of breast cancer in their 30'd and 40's. If you need a transplant age is one of the selecting factors. In a world of finite resources things have to be prioritised. I'm not suggesting that we callously cast aside old people who are sick but lets not pretend that the life of a chronically ill 85 year old is the same as a healthy 10 year old.

 

[Purple]

Resources are finite so it's entirely appropriate that we should question the extraordinary lengths and costs involved in fighting a virus that is deadly for so few people. The opportunity cost of dealing with this virus is very important.

But they are questioned and a balance is struck. You may think it's the wrong balance but it is undeniable that the Government is taking everything into account when making decisions.

 

[odyssey06]

I'd have concerns about the PCR test too, especially when ct>35 and the amount of false positives it throws up. Have a look at what happened with the Cambridge students recently. Every single positive test was found to be a false positive after a second test.

There is no evidence that PCR testing in Ireland is creating some sort of false 'casedemic'.
The level of variability in in our daily positive rate demonstrates this.

The Cambridge student situation is explained here and no it doesn't mean what you suggest it does:
Cambridge Covid-19 test results don’t mean PCR tests are inaccurate - Full Fact