Corona Virus

[Oldschoolsocks]

What I’d like to hear from the WHO is what they can say about whether recovery confers immunity or not.

They're dodging that question and you'd like to think they've been asked about it, in detail.
The fudge answer seems to stress more that we're not sure for how long immunity lasts for.
....

do you know how science and medicine works?

the question you have asked does not make sense, the correct question which is being addressed is does recovery from this virus confer immunity for any significant time.

The reason that this is the correct question is that if one of the assumptions underpinning an exit strategy is that person cannot be reinfected turns out to be incorrect then the entire strategy is undermined from the beginning. Before this all kicked off i had assumed that if you had a virus and recovered you would be immune because of antibodies and all the stuff, well it turns out that this is not necessarily the case - for example recovery from SARS seems or have conferred immunity for about 2 years, i have linked a study below which you can read at your leisure.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/

[Ruckedtobits]

My occasional annoyance at the attitude of Dr Holohan and Minister Harris ("leave the detail to us, just do what you're told") has hardened into downright distrust as I read the composition and titles of the 33 members of NPHET in today's paper.

Rarely have I come across any organisation who can effectively emerge from a crisis through the guidance of a group of more than 7 or 9 people. To find that we are currently being guided through a major societal emergency by a group of 33 individuals, who comprise 30 from a single discipline with individual representatives from Communications, Mathematics and Human Resources as makeweights in the Group, really concerns me.

It is almost a certainty, and entirely predictable, that this group is dominated by 'Group Think' and are consequently liable to make further elemental mistakes, as already demonstrated in the manner that they ignored the incidence and effect of the pandemic in Nursing & Care Homes, as they focused all of their attention on protecting and preparing the Public Hospital network.

Varadker, Coveney, Donoghue & Humphries are bright people and have generally been advised well and acted wisely in their handling of this challenge. However, the time is now opportune for them to reassess their total reliance on medical & scientific advisors and take counsel from a broader-based and smaller group.

NPHET has discharged a valuable role but are not suitable for the next steps.

[Oldschool]

What I’d like to hear from the WHO is what they can say about whether recovery confers immunity or not.

They're dodging that question and you'd like to think they've been asked about it, in detail.
The fudge answer seems to stress more that we're not sure for how long immunity lasts for.
....

do you know how science and medicine works?

the question you have asked does not make sense, the correct question which is being addressed is does recovery from this virus confer immunity for any significant time.

The reason that this is the correct question is that if one of the assumptions underpinning an exit strategy is that person cannot be reinfected turns out to be incorrect then the entire strategy is undermined from the beginning. Before this all kicked off i had assumed that if you had a virus and recovered you would be immune because of antibodies and all the stuff, well it turns out that this is not necessarily the case - for example recovery from SARS seems or have conferred immunity for about 2 years, i have linked a study below which you can read at your leisure.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/

I'm splitting hairs here a bit I know.
But
If the there was global herd imunity for two years the virus wouldn't come back.
That's why countries stop immunisation programs.
Furthermore two years is enough time to develop a vaccine.
I except that we've no guarantee for two years but it seems highly unlikely that the human immune system doesn't give immunity for some period of time.
The WHO should be open handed and give both sides of the "story"
In very simplistic terms.
The first cases of CV have come and gone and recovered.
Where's the evidence that they've been reinfected
If WHO had it they'd be or should be putting it on the table.
Re your posted article.
Thanks for the information.
It seems that the obvious thing to do is take a sample of people (approx 1000) who have had CV and monitor them. This would give advance warning of the longevity of immunity nearing its end.
Obviously people selected would be volunteers.
Even now samples could be collected and,when the tools are available, be analysed.

[Oldschool]

My occasional annoyance at the attitude of Dr Holohan and Minister Harris ("leave the detail to us, just do what you're told") has hardened into downright distrust as I read the composition and titles of the 33 members of NPHET in today's paper.

Rarely have I come across any organisation who can effectively emerge from a crisis through the guidance of a group of more than 7 or 9 people. To find that we are currently being guided through a major societal emergency by a group of 33 individuals, who comprise 30 from a single discipline with individual representatives from Communications, Mathematics and Human Resources as makeweights in the Group, really concerns me.

It is almost a certainty, and entirely predictable, that this group is dominated by 'Group Think' and are consequently liable to make further elemental mistakes, as already demonstrated in the manner that they ignored the incidence and effect of the pandemic in Nursing & Care Homes, as they focused all of their attention on protecting and preparing the Public Hospital network.

Varadker, Coveney, Donoghue & Humphries are bright people and have generally been advised well and acted wisely in their handling of this challenge. However, the time is now opportune for them to reassess their total reliance on medical & scientific advisors and take counsel from a broader-based and smaller group.

NPHET has discharged a valuable role but are not suitable for the next steps.

Absolutely 100% agree.

[Logorrhea]

My occasional annoyance at the attitude of Dr Holohan and Minister Harris ("leave the detail to us, just do what you're told")

If we've learned anything from Trumps daily car crashes its the danger of offering complex information to people incapable of processing it. I'm pretty happy with how Holohan is managing the release of information. I think they are doing an excellent job and the simple, digestible communication strategy is entirely appropriate.

Rarely have I come across any organisation who can effectively emerge from a crisis through the guidance of a group of more than 7 or 9 people. To find that we are currently being guided through a major societal emergency by a group of 33 individuals, who comprise 30 from a single discipline with individual representatives from Communications, Mathematics and Human Resources as makeweights in the Group, really concerns me.

An emergency team in a pandemic dominated by scientists and medical professionals. Who exactly should be running it?

It is almost a certainty, and entirely predictable, that this group is dominated by 'Group Think'

No. This is a collection of some of the best Medical professionals in the country, all experts in their fields, and all with differing personalities, strengths and weaknesses. Working in the same industry does not mean you suddenly throw your personality and opinions out the door ffs.

and are consequently liable to make further elemental mistakes, as already demonstrated in the manner that they ignored the incidence and effect of the pandemic in Nursing & Care Homes, as they focused all of their attention on protecting and preparing the Public Hospital network.

Very much remains to be seen whether the decision to focus on our hospitals and front line care facilities, a decision they didn't really have a choice about, was a mistake. You also imply there was a choice to be made. I don't think there was.

Varadker, Coveney, Donoghue & Humphries are bright people and have generally been advised well and acted wisely in their handling of this challenge. However, the time is now opportune for them to reassess their total reliance on medical & scientific advisors and take counsel from a broader-based and smaller group.

So you are suggesting that everything is now rosie so we should get rid of the medical experts and scientists that have done a good job (despite there being so many of them), and replace them with between 7 and 9 non-medical experts? In a pandemic? Are you mental?

Absolutely 100% agree.

I rest my case

[Oldschool]

While you're having a rest.
Just watch as people start to vote with their feet and the government loses control of the situation.
If that happens then what.
There are real people out there with mortgages and bills to pay and they know doing nothing (to move out of lockdown) is not a sustainable solution.
We have experts but are they still the right ones.
The mix needs to be changed and decisions need to be challenged.
If 80% of the population doesn't get sick why are we not leveraging that and still protect the at risk 20%.
Now open your case and don't be such a smartass.

[Oldschoolsocks]

While you're having a rest.
Just watch as people start to vote with their feet and the government loses control of the situation.
If that happens then what.
There are real people out there with mortgages and bills to pay and they know doing nothing (to move out of lockdown) is not a sustainable solution.
We have experts but are they still the right ones.
The mix needs to be changed and decisions need to be challenged.
If 80% of the population doesn't get sick why are we not leveraging that and still protect the at risk 20%.
Now open your case and don't be such a smartass.

funny story, I was chatting with a friend from around the corner who deals with a lot of anti social behaviour as part of his job, would you believe my shock when he told me that most anti social behaviour is way down except amongst the senior citizens where it is in fact going up.

[Oldschool]

While you're having a rest.
Just watch as people start to vote with their feet and the government loses control of the situation.
If that happens then what.
There are real people out there with mortgages and bills to pay and they know doing nothing (to move out of lockdown) is not a sustainable solution.
We have experts but are they still the right ones.
The mix needs to be changed and decisions need to be challenged.
If 80% of the population doesn't get sick why are we not leveraging that and still protect the at risk 20%.
Now open your case and don't be such a smartass.

funny story, I was chatting with a friend from around the corner who deals with a lot of anti social behaviour as part of his job, would you believe my shock when he told me that most anti social behaviour is way down except amongst the senior citizens where it is in fact going up.

You'd want to be clear about what he meant by anti social behaviour.
If it's suggesting that older people are breaching guidelines on social distancing then the first thing you would have to ask yourself is why.
Why would anybody (in the 20%) put themselves (knowingly and willingly) at risk of catching CV19.

[Oldschoolsocks]

While you're having a rest.
Just watch as people start to vote with their feet and the government loses control of the situation.
If that happens then what.
There are real people out there with mortgages and bills to pay and they know doing nothing (to move out of lockdown) is not a sustainable solution.
We have experts but are they still the right ones.
The mix needs to be changed and decisions need to be challenged.
If 80% of the population doesn't get sick why are we not leveraging that and still protect the at risk 20%.
Now open your case and don't be such a smartass.

funny story, I was chatting with a friend from around the corner who deals with a lot of anti social behaviour as part of his job, would you believe my shock when he told me that most anti social behaviour is way down except amongst the senior citizens where it is in fact going up.

You'd want to be clear about what he meant by anti social behaviour.
If it's suggesting that older people are breaching guidelines on social distancing then the first thing you would have to ask yourself is why.
Why would anybody (in the 20%) put themselves (knowingly and willingly) at risk of catching CV19.

C’mon, don’t be pretending. You know what anti social behaviour is, basically a more malevolent form of what used to be called “acting the goat”. You know, the same old “the rules don’t apply to us because reasons” combined with “I’ve paid taxes all my life and I’ll do what I bloody well want.”

[Oldschool]

Begrudgery Alert.
You're old and you've paid your taxes all your life means you are anti social and should be locked away or even put down.
OOS, Make sure you keep your distance when you are out and about, talking to your anti social behaviour expert associates.

[Peg Leg]

Question I'd like to hear an answer from WHO on.
Is there any (you'd expect a few simply because of testing errors etc) or preferably and far more significantly a lot of evidence to suggest that a LOT of people have become contaminated, meant infected for a second time?

It seems to be relapse, rather than being infected for a second time.

[Peg Leg]

My occasional annoyance at the attitude of Dr Holohan and Minister Harris ("leave the detail to us, just do what you're told")

If we've learned anything from Trumps daily car crashes its the danger of offering complex information to people incapable of processing it. I'm pretty happy with how Holohan is managing the release of information. I think they are doing an excellent job and the simple, digestible communication strategy is entirely appropriate.

Rarely have I come across any organisation who can effectively emerge from a crisis through the guidance of a group of more than 7 or 9 people. To find that we are currently being guided through a major societal emergency by a group of 33 individuals, who comprise 30 from a single discipline with individual representatives from Communications, Mathematics and Human Resources as makeweights in the Group, really concerns me.

An emergency team in a pandemic dominated by scientists and medical professionals. Who exactly should be running it?

It is almost a certainty, and entirely predictable, that this group is dominated by 'Group Think'

No. This is a collection of some of the best Medical professionals in the country, all experts in their fields, and all with differing personalities, strengths and weaknesses. Working in the same industry does not mean you suddenly throw your personality and opinions out the door ffs.

and are consequently liable to make further elemental mistakes, as already demonstrated in the manner that they ignored the incidence and effect of the pandemic in Nursing & Care Homes, as they focused all of their attention on protecting and preparing the Public Hospital network.

Very much remains to be seen whether the decision to focus on our hospitals and front line care facilities, a decision they didn't really have a choice about, was a mistake. You also imply there was a choice to be made. I don't think there was.

Varadker, Coveney, Donoghue & Humphries are bright people and have generally been advised well and acted wisely in their handling of this challenge. However, the time is now opportune for them to reassess their total reliance on medical & scientific advisors and take counsel from a broader-based and smaller group.

So you are suggesting that everything is now rosie so we should get rid of the medical experts and scientists that have done a good job (despite there being so many of them), and replace them with between 7 and 9 non-medical experts? In a pandemic? Are you mental?

Absolutely 100% agree.

I rest my case

Agree with Logo here

[Oldschoolsocks]

Begrudgery Alert.
You're old and you've paid your taxes all your life means you are anti social and should be locked away or even put down.
OOS, Make sure you keep your distance when you are out and about, talking to your anti social behaviour expert associates.

not even close to what I said - you're either can't actually read and comprehend the language or you're just totally dishonest and will literally say anything to try and win a point. I know which one you are

[Oldschool]

The survey on restrictions that the public would like to see lifted in order of preference is interesting.

[Oldschool]

Interesting article by David McWilliams on "helicopter money"
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/health-cr ... -266216753

[Ruckedtobits]

One of the short-comings of the current decision-making process is that all those involved in it are totally devoid of the experiences of those who have become the subjects of their decisions. Few, if any, of those in those roles can understand the effects of having no anticipation of a meeting tomorrow with family, or a long-awaited business meeting, or seeing your friends or school mates.

Each of these moments and multiple other once daily events, which give rise to anticipation cause small bursts of andrenaline and are vital to the human condition and the adrenaline itself gives a small kick to the immune system which serves to protect each one of us. Yes, there are those whose immune system is compromised in some way but the vast majority are still operating, even if at less than optimal capacity. We need stimulation in our daily lives and that is one of the reasons that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

However it is brought about and justified, I have come around firmly to the viewpoint that Government must find ways to change the current restrictions for the overall physical and mentality health of the society that they are leading. Our society and each individual in it needs the prospect of stimulation of some form, of anticipation of some longed-for interaction with others, events which they have been deprived of for these past weeks.

I hope those in such positions recognise, or remember, how debilitating is life without anticipation.

[Logorrhea]

I hope those in such positions recognise, or remember, how debilitating is life without anticipation.

Have you considered how debilitating it can be when you're dead? Just one post ago you were talking about how the government made a mistake in ignoring the care homes and now your willing to throw the vulnerable under the bus so you can get some kind of rush at a meeting? Hold on for another few weeks mate. Just be patient, accept that your not special, and a lot more people will still be alive at the end of this.

[mfjoc]

I preface these comments by saying I am in a vunerable group and really don't want to get this virus.
BUT
I understand totally where RTB is coming from and I do believe we are being dictated to by an organisation consumed by groupthink.
They have let us down in two key areas:
Nursing homes and testing
Every healthcare worker should be tested weekly wheather they are symptomatic or not. The only way the virus got into the nursing homes was via the staff.
It now looks likely that they are now going to extend the lockdown because of their failings.
We need to look at the overall economic and social cost of what we are doing to the country.
If by the by year end, say 2000 people have died of covid 19 related illnesses. Median age of these people will be over 80 and the vast majority of those who die have some either diagnosed or undiagnosed health condition.
Against that:
We have the economic cost of somewhere between 20 and 40 Billion euros.
The cripling of normal economic activity.
The shutdown of the whole private healthcare system.
The number of people who are dying of strokes and heart attacks because they are afraid to access the normal healthcare system.
The undiagnoised cancers and other illnesses that will both shorten and reduce peoples quality of life going forward.
The mental health issues arising from the lockdown and unemployment which will increase the already unacceptable suicide rate.
Other countries would appear to handled it much better.
Like the populust nonsense about raising the pension age the cost of the way we have handled this pandemic will fall on the younger generation to pay the bill, not the people who benefit most.

[Oldschool]

It's better not to get into a blame game.
I wouldn't be an advocate of the HSE but there are constraints.
Take the nursing homes.
Mistakes were made and must be learned from, it's far more important that we learn from them than that we have an enquiry, lay blame and it's job done.
That's the experience from the past.

The next steps have to be driven the prime objective to be seen to be NOT stuck in a minefield of indecision.
Lives are at stake either way.
On the one hand the very evident new deaths every day, on the other the collateral damage that isn't being reported or can't be because it's down the line.
For example the mild stroke that goes untreated or gets attended far too late and ultimately results in a shortening of lifespan or the man who commits suicide in a years time because his business has been extinguished with no hope of recovery or alternative.
It's easy to take the high moral ground, do nothing and say because we did nothing we saved lives ie we had a free lunch.
In reality there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Every day we don't move we damage the economy, we damage the wealth creation.
We therefore damage our ability to create that universal health care system that we aspire to or the provision of housing or etc.
We can only borrow so much and our capacity to do so will be dependent on how quickly we can restore a semblance of normality.
Life is all about risk and risk management, every time you cross a road or get into a car you put your life at risk.

WE ARE WHERE WE ARE:- Next Move
Part of the decision making has to be guide by known and hopefully controllable constraints.
1. Testing - have we the necessary capacity
2. Tracing - ditto
3. Health staff and potential fatigue
4. Public Awareness
5. Public Preparedness.
6. No doubt there are others.
1, 2 and 3 the public are ignorant of the true position so we can only hope.
4. The public are very aware but talking down to them as happened last week was bad and evidence that some of the people at the top were out of touch.
5. This is the biggee.

How prepared are the public for a loosening of restrictions.
I have my doubts or certainly fears.
While we are fiddling on a decision as to whether we should be wearing masks other countries are making the wearing of masks compulsory.
Luke O'Neill says we should all be wearing masks and he mentioned some of the situations in which it is appropriate to do so, public transport as an example.
As of last week the DOH should have established a list of local suppliers who can supply face masks of a reasonable quality and design.
That list should have been posted on their web site and a TV campaign via news snippets etc launched.
A week has been wasted while our experts continue to recommend doing nothing.
That is just not good enough and the government and the DOH are culpable too.
The lockdown should be means to an end and not an end in itself.
The opportunity that the lockdown was there to create is being wasted because the people making the decisions aren't looking past a lockdown.

Something needs to change and quickly because PEOPLE WILL DIE IF IT DOESN'T - That's the other side of the coin.
It will be 2008 all over again, the collateral damage never got a mention, suicides, lives shortened, lives ruined (why, in part, we now have a housing crisis), mental health etc.
Never reported and never given a mention but still a reality.

Footnote- Put your money where your mouth is and lead by example.
Get face masks and start wearing them, if you aren't already.
Encourage your friends and family to do the same.
Send a message and Stay Safe.

[Oldschool]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52470838