Covid-1 To Covid-18

at

Remember this is coronavirus Covid-19, that means there’s been eighteen other coronaviruses and I don’t think they’ve successfully found a vaccine for any.

Minister for Health Simon Harris on RTÉ Radio 2FM earlier.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), COVID 19 stands for, Corona (CO) Virus (VI) Disease (D) and 19(2019).

Good times.

Coronavirus in Ireland – Simon Harris criticised for ‘eighteen other coronaviruses’ gaffe during RTE radio interview (The Irish Sun)

Rollingnews

Thanks Piece of Pi55

Meanwhile…

Update:

68 thoughts on “Covid-1 To Covid-18

  1. GiggidyGoo

    What an abject idiot. My god. This is what passes as a Health Minister. The fellow signing laws restricting movements of people, and he hadn’t a clue about what the 19 stood for? Rat-a-tat

    1. some old queen

      And the day before yesterday he was saying pubs and restaurants wouldn’t be opening before a vaccine was found?

      1. GiggidyGoo

        It’s worse than disappointing that the Health Minister doesn’t actually know why this is called Covid-19. A soundbite gobpoo

        1. Rosette of Sirius

          It’s damming. Incredibly so. I reckon he got reamed out of it by Leo after that. It’s pretty incredible that a Health Minister could find himself so extraordinarily compromised. Under other circumstances he should be demoted to the back benches for that. He probably will should FG end up back in government.

        2. SOQ

          The teeth ‘n tits brigade are on their last legs but what worries me is what next.

          I am no shinner but mehole slithering in smacks of ‘back to the future’.

  2. Finnster

    Absolutely scarlet for your ma, Simon. Seriously though, as acting minister for health, shouldn’t he really step down – immediately – after that gaffe?

  3. baz

    lordy lord, the emperor doth stand naked

    Time to go Simon Harris.

    Spoofers need to stand aside

  4. DOC

    It is called Covid-19 because the Virus was only discovered in 2019
    But Harris is too uneducated to know that

  5. GiggidyGoo

    I see the would-be Taoiseach, Mickey Martin is keeping a very low profile at the moment. Not many leadership qualities there. Maybe he needs to employ a photographer and a personal Concannon?

    1. SOQ

      He’s from Cork- Irish Water’s meter epicentre.

      They still expect people to travel from Belfast for interview without allowance?

    1. Daisy Chainsaw

      Covid 19
      FG Nil.

      The shinners aren’t responsible for Harris’ stupidity, but I’m sure concannonbots in the fraperoom will find a way for it to happen.

    2. GiggidyGoo

      I haven’t seen any shinnerbots on. You’re the first #concannonbot (or is that #concannotbot?) I’ve seen so far. Cian is eagerly twitching to post something – I get the vibes – but nothing coming through.

        1. GiggidyGoo

          Sorry – it’s been a long day and it was hard to find anything to post or anyone to attack. And then this came along. Ye wind up merchant.

  6. Covid V

    reminds me;

    back in the Ch.com dial up days, we had a skirmish that became known as “the Kennys”
    An early FG fraperoom user name “Young Kenny”

    they got it into a fierce mess, and for days lads were logging in under a version of a young Kenny
    so in that memory, here’s a taste for the millennials and the wifi era bloggards like meself

    I can’t believe its not Covid -19
    CaliforniCovid-19
    Now that’s what I call Covid 19
    Under Covid 19s playoff
    Fast and Covid 19
    Covid 19ers
    Covid 19 varieties
    Diet Covid 19
    The Summer of Covid 19
    Sham Covid 19

    ye get the gist

    Speaking of internet skirmishes, in fairness Broadsheet will be 10 this year, AFAIK,
    And its only had two that go down in memory
    I can honestly say we’d get off lightly back then if we got away with that many in a season

  7. Matt Pilates

    BFD – the man goofed. So what? He’s more important things to worry about – and so do you…

    1. Daisy Chainsaw

      While the rest of us worry that the Minister for Health doesn’t know the basics of Covid 19?

    2. D

      Yeah it’s a funny gaffe, worth laughing at. I’d rather that he worry about the more important things.

      I don’t think the Irish lads are doing too bad at all, considering what the various neighbours are up to. You can thank the public servants advising the politicians, and I would have expected people to figure out that these politicians are only really figureheads in a crisis by and large.

      The ‘brains’ behind the Swedish reponse is here at 13m34s giving his rationale, and the number 0.1% for a fatality rate, a number which has been surpassed in four major cities and one US state already. i.e. the figure is totally wrong.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

      1. f_lawless

        With respect, I think his reasoning is very solid.

        Generally accepted facts:
        – 80% of COVID-19 cases are either asymptomatic or have mild disease
        – there’s been a lack of widespread testing in much of the world including the US
        – The people who do not feel seriously ill stay home, recover quietly, and are never counted in official stats

        The calculation for fatality rate is made as follows:

        Numerator (number of deaths) divided by the denominator (number of people infected) x 100 = the infection fatality rate.

        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/

        “instead of counting everyone who has been infected in the denominator, in many countries – including the US – only people sick enough to go to the hospital are counted

        ..by only counting people who go to the hospital, we are overestimating the percentage of infected people who die of COVID-19. It’s a dangerous message that is causing fear – and it is all driven by a false denominator..”

        1. D

          No it’s not actually respectful to read my comments about death rates and then talk about asymptomatic cases. Those facts are irrelevant to the calculation I am doing.

          He is wrong on the figure and much else, and the weforum.org you now link are wrong too.

          The case fatality rate of 0.1% cannot be correct.
          For one, it does not cover all age ranges.

          As examples, apply it to:
          – the Diamond Princess cruise ship with 13 deaths, 0.1% implies a population of 13000 infected.
          – the State of New York, with 20,000 deaths, implies a population of 20,000,000 infected.
          – Madrid with 7,500 deaths, implies a population of 7,500,00 infected
          – Lombardy with 12,000, implies a population of 12,000,000 infected
          – Brussels with 980 deaths, implying a population of 980,000 infected
          – London with 4211 deaths in hospitals, and perhaps double that again in other places, implying a population of approx 8 million affected.

          All above basically exceeding the populations based on the confirmed deaths alone.

          The formulation you show for calculating fatality rate is correct, but once you plug in the 0.1% figure, this figure is easily proven false. The real figure must be many times higher.

          It’s kind of cruel as well to use one fatality rate for whole populations as it is very different for over 45s, over 65s and over 85s etc.

          His reasoning is based on a terrible grasp of the situation.

          1. f_lawless

            But aren’t you cherry-picking known hotspots whereas he’s speaking in an overall global context?

            I note that 2 studies were recently conducted in California using antibody tests to assess how many people have been infected with the coronavirus in the region. The studies were conducted by public health officials and scientists at Stanford University and the University of Southern California.

            The reports indicated that “the coronavirus may be much less deadly than originally expected, with a fatality rate more closely resembling that of a seasonal flu strain than a pandemic of profound lethality.”

            Dr John Ioannidis, a prominent scientist in the field of epidemiology, and author of one of the reports, noted that “Antibody studies in other countries have produced similar figures”

            https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html

          2. D

            It is not cherry picking, it is falsifying a claim based on the most accurate data.

            There cannot be an ‘global figure’ until everyone is infected, when we are talking about a case fatality rate.

            These places have the highest infection rates and therefore provide the best data for calculating/proving/verifying the claimed case fatality rates.

            Tens of millions of sample points in my very simple calculations, only thousands in these serology tests.

          3. f_lawless

            I’m just reading this comment again

            “No it’s not actually respectful to read my comments about death rates and then talk about asymptomatic cases. Those facts are irrelevant to the calculation I am doing.”

            If you are really trying to assert that asymptomatic cases are irrelevant to establishing the true fatality rate, then sorry to say, but you’re coming across as a waffler.

          4. D

            If you can’t see why your asymptomatic cases are irrelevant to your formula and your assumed correct case fatality rate of 0.1%, then I can’t help you. Read your formula again and again until you can understand it. There is no room in the formula for asymptomatic cases and you are not in a position to call anyone a waffler.

            The 0.1% figure the Swedes are assuming is totally wrong, reality has proven it wrong several times over. It cannot ever be right, as it does not reflect age groups.

          5. D

            Or if you like, it is the very fact that there has to be asymptomatic cases, that proves that the case fatality rate of 0.1% is totally wrong. The data from these areas proves it as such, the death rate is too high for 0.1% to be correct.

          6. Donnchadh

            Isn’t is possible that you are both correct? As f_lawless points out, Giesecke is speaking of an average global fatality rate, but it is possible that a low global fatality rate will contain local clusters which, for various reasons, have significantly higher fatality rates?

            As regards informing public policy, the fact that there can be local clusters with higher fatality rates (where ‘local’ includes cities or regions with millions of people) is extremely significant. It means that even if the average global IFR is 0.1%, it cannot be assumed in advance that the IFR for a given city or region will be 0.1%, or even very close to it. You would need to know the upper bound and the specific circumstances which might cause the disease to have a higher IFR in a specific locale.

          7. D

            At the present rate of growth, in 16 days time, Sweden will join the other areas that have exceeded Giesecke’s estimate of 0.1% average global fatality rate. Maybe then they will start to reconsider.

            You are correct, right now this instance, it is possible that this average global fatality rate is correct, and all the major incidences of infections are total ~10x outliers.

            However, based on the terrible experience of several major population centres, thousands upon thousands of deaths, it is highly unlikely that it will continue to be possibly correct. It is not too early to make a prediction based on this data.

            0.1% as a case fatality rate, will most probably get more and more wrong over time, and there is a giant pile of evidence to support this. i.e. the upper bound appears to be 1% or more.

            Furthermore I would like to reiterate that it is heinous to use single figure averages to describe a phenomenon that is quite ageist.

    3. GiggidyGoo

      If he couldn’t be bothered to educate himself about Covid-19 why would he even be bothered to read the laws he signed just before the bank holiday weekend?
      He’s a waster. Big show of knowledge about the Covid-19 situation (mar dhea), only to show his ineptitude.
      (……Looks in a staring manner and frowns to try give a semblance of knowledge ….) A gobpoo installed by a photo op gobpoo. )

    4. Covid V

      Goof

      That NCH is some Goof alright
      Taking over 30 days from the first confirmed case to address the Nursing and Care homes exposure – a meh of a Goof, shur’ they weren’t going anywhere else anyway
      No PPE; another Goof, but shur’ they only go into the bin anyway so saving the planet a bit
      115m of private beds but no Clinicians or Nursing etc;- the silly Goof, but it’s putting a few bob into a friendlys paw, so there’s that
      Idle testing sites; ara’ tis a bitta’ve a Goof is’ all
      Test results; just a temporary Goof

      Here’s the goofiest thing
      A Minister for Health not paying a bitta notice to the Science of the biggest Healthcare crisis this country has ever seen
      and one that will be responsible for bringing an even bigger economic crisis on the State than the Banks

      Goof
      Are ye seriously going to spin it as a Goof

      What would Frilly Say huh

  8. f_lawless

    Our Minister for Health can now count himself in the prestigious ranks of the following group of public figures (all of whom have made the same gaffe on air). The later the date you join, the more prestigious you are, surely?

    1. Trump administration senior advisor, Kellyanne Conway, “Fox & Friends” (15/04/20)
    2. US media personality, Dr. Drew, “A Dose of Dr. Drew” (16/03/20)
    3. US right-wing shock jockey, Rush Limbaugh, ‘The Rush Limbaugh Show’ (11/03/20)

    .(there may be more, I’m not sure)

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-covid-19-meaning-coronavirus-trump-who-funding-a9467561.html

  9. Praetorian.

    Mentioned it tonight when he tweeted he had a lot to do tomorrow…places to go people to see…excetera,excetera.

    Blocked.
    The self indulger.

Comments are closed.