Coronavirus Pandemic Information- Local and Worldwide

greysides

Do the number of 'cases' correspond with mortality, or not?

What's going on?

Here's a different perspective.





https://youtu.be/8UvFhIFzaac

ruwithme

Be good to hear how many were tested on daily basis positive/negatives

Undoubtedly alot of people thinking they have it if getting tested.

Media driving quite a bit to say the least of anxiety among people

_Brian

Water John wrote: »

Oxford won't be happy with you confusing them with Cambridge, but they might be, in this case.

Ahhh..
All the same.. both places full of auld brit toffs :rolleyes:

NcdJd

Strange times. Apart from one cousin that works as a nurse I've known no one really that has had to be tested for covid during the lockdown. In the last 48 hours one of my relations whole family are down with symptoms, got tested tonight and won't get results for another 3 days. My cousin is in her early 40s and her symptoms are getting worse. Another cousin who lives in norther Ireland are also awaiting results. That's 7 people including children that I know in the last 24 hours.

My aunt was telling me today that a nursing home beside her is under some form of lock down due to a carer testing positive.

My own take on it is that even though alot of younger people are getting it it will eventually get back into nursing homes and places where vulnerable people reside. 4 wards in Beaumont hospital were closed down recently.

whelan2

Pupil in secondary school in drogheda tested positive today too

yosemitesam1

greysides wrote: »

Do the number of 'cases' correspond with mortality, or not?

What's going on?

Here's a different perspective.





https://youtu.be/8UvFhIFzaac

Sweden are the clear winner. The sooner the rest of the world accepts they overreacted the better

gozunda

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Sweden are the clear winner. The sooner the rest of the world accepts they overreacted the better

Found that report made a lot of assumptions and glossed over findings tbh.

Swedens has one of the highest death rates relative to population size in Europe, and by far the worst among the Nordic nations. Looks like they haven't achieved anything like "herd immunity" either

Reckon we haven't seen half of it yet. The local GP says he is not looking forward to this winter

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251615-is-swedens-coronavirus-strategy-a-cautionary-tale-or-a-success-story/

wrangler

whelan2 wrote: »

Pupil in secondary school in drogheda tested positive today too

Not surprising
A lot of 40 - 50 age group testing positive now and they're the age group with children in school.

dzer2

Alright to have 30 kids in a classroom ut noy alright to have to siblings puck a ball to one another at break. Country is gone mad

Dinzee Conlee

dzer2 wrote: »

Alright to have 30 kids in a classroom ut noy alright to have to siblings puck a ball to one another at break. Country is gone mad

Some of the rules are strange...

But it’s all about trying to reduce the exposure or overlap between classes I guess... they have to have some rules around keeping them separate as best they can...

Read a good tweet from someone last week who commented on ‘it’s ok to send kids back to school but still not allow big gatherings’
Will try to find it...

Water John

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Some of the rules are strange...

But it’s all about trying to reduce the exposure or overlap between classes I guess... they have to have some rules around keeping them separate as best they can...

Read a good tweet from someone last week who commented on ‘it’s ok to send kids back to school but still not allow big gatherings’
Will try to find it...

These decisions are trade offs on risk. So in order to open schools, seen as a priority, other types of gatherings were restricted. This will always continue to be tweaked.
Seems while pubs will open, house gatherings will be restricted, esp in Dublin. One can police the public spaces.

whelan2

Communion and confirmation parties. I think these are ridiculous at this time. It's not as if many of the kids actually go to mass regularly.

dzer2

whelan2 wrote: »

Communion and confirmation parties. I think these are ridiculous at this time. It's not as if many of the kids actually go to mass regularly.

Youngest one here us mad for mass since the lockdown. She gets to see her friends

_Brian

Fear and particularly fear of litigation drives some of the odd rules were seeing.

I think it’s ignorant to say we overreacted. Initial stages of the pandemic saw a very virulent virus making patients extremely sick and death rates initially were high.

Plans were made in this evidence and also recommendations coming out of Italy as the first European country affected. Italy made many mistakes and made recommendations based on those de mistakes. Countries had to act quickly as the worst case scenarios were truly apocalyptic, but With hindsight poor management of cases in Italy exasperated their situation. Hindsight is fine to review things but criticism through hindsight is stupid.

So initial patients were desperately sick with Covid, over the summer patients seemed less affected which indicated either a general weakening of the virus or a seasonal weakening. There are small indications that current patients are again beginning to be more affected but it’s too early to be sure, if that’s the case it could be a hard period ahead.

There is a growing argument for “just getting on with life and living with it”. There is some argument to be made there. But emerging evidence of the systematic damage that covid does to even healthy people is a real concern, if we drop all precautions and massive numbers of people develop serious heart, lung and brain damage as a result where will we be.

I think we need a balanced approach. Tightening rules where needed and making exceptions where needed. The importance is communication of our plans so people understand rather than second guess what is being done.

Opening pubs in my mind is a luxury and can wait as long as is needed.
Where schools aren’t a luxury and we need to manage and mitigate risks as much as possible, as is being done.


Last thing. The “just get on with life” brigade need to be honest and say they are happy with people dying as a result of their actions. People with conditions who could manage them perhaps for decades will be killed by letting covid rampant through our society. If your calling for something at least stand behind the repercussions and own the outcome of what you want. You want to sacrifice at risk people so you don’t have to wear a mask, miss a few nights at the pub or watching sports.

yosemitesam1

gozunda wrote: »

Found that report made a lot of assumptions and glossed over findings tbh.

Any examples in particular?

emaherx

_Brian wrote: »

Fear and particularly fear of litigation drives some of the odd rules were seeing.

I think it’s ignorant to say we overreacted. Initial stages of the pandemic saw a very virulent virus making patients extremely sick and death rates initially were high.

Plans were made in this evidence and also recommendations coming out of Italy as the first European country affected. Italy made many mistakes and made recommendations based on those de mistakes. Countries had to act quickly as the worst case scenarios were truly apocalyptic, but With hindsight poor management of cases in Italy exasperated their situation. Hindsight is fine to review things but criticism through hindsight is stupid.

So initial patients were desperately sick with Covid, over the summer patients seemed less affected which indicated either a general weakening of the virus or a seasonal weakening. There are small indications that current patients are again beginning to be more affected but it’s too early to be sure, if that’s the case it could be a hard period ahead.

There is a growing argument for “just getting on with life and living with it”. There is some argument to be made there. But emerging evidence of the systematic damage that covid does to even healthy people is a real concern, if we drop all precautions and massive numbers of people develop serious heart, lung and brain damage as a result where will we be.

I think we need a balanced approach. Tightening rules where needed and making exceptions where needed. The importance is communication of our plans so people understand rather than second guess what is being done.

Opening pubs in my mind is a luxury and can wait as long as is needed.
Where schools aren’t a luxury and we need to manage and mitigate risks as much as possible, as is being done.


Last thing. The “just get on with life” brigade need to be honest and say they are happy with people dying as a result of their actions. People with conditions who could manage them perhaps for decades will be killed by letting covid rampant through our society. If your calling for something at least stand behind the repercussions and own the outcome of what you want. You want to sacrifice at risk people so you don’t have to wear a mask, miss a few nights at the pub or watching sports.

Pretty much agree with every word of that _Brian.

yosemitesam1

emaherx wrote: »

Pretty much agree with every word of that _Brian.

Not much evidence to back any of it up unfortunately.
There is a very very small amount of people who died with covid who potentially had decades left to live. The average age of a covid death is pretty much average national life expectancy except the vast majority of covid deaths are carrying multiple underlying conditions also, which one would assume would make the individuals life expectancy lower than the national average.

In the start, the experts misinterpreted incomplete and biased data. It was just assumed that the vast majority of cases were going to be fairly severe and we're still waiting for a non biased population monitoring program which would very quickly say that there is nothing to worry about.

_Brian

It wasn’t “just assumed”.

Actual evidence from those infected showed it was an extremely dangerous condition.
There was no indication at the time that this would lesson at time progressed.

The very same people looking back and saying “sher look it was all a big misunderstanding” are the ones that if it had maintained its trajectory would be shouting from the rooftops that not enough was done even though there was evidence how severe it was.

Public health decisions typically take years of evidence to form and having to make these decisions based on only weeks of data is always risky, that’s why additional caution was taken.

The next few months will see if the virus remains weak or gains strength again. If the former is the sleaze then some of current restrictions on people will have been redundant precautions, but if the latter is the case and it gains strength during typical flu season these current precautions will save lives.

Killing someone 2, 5 or 10 years early isn’t a nice stance to take. If the precautions prevent these deaths then they are worth it.

emaherx

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Not much evidence to back any of it up unfortunately.
There is a very very small amount of people who died with covid who potentially had decades left to live. The average age of a covid death is pretty much average national life expectancy except the vast majority of covid deaths are carrying multiple underlying conditions also, which one would assume would make the individuals life expectancy lower than the national average.

In the start, the experts misinterpreted incomplete and biased data. It was just assumed that the vast majority of cases were going to be fairly severe and we're still waiting for a non biased population monitoring program which would very quickly say that there is nothing to worry about.

Yawn

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

It wasn’t “just assumed”.

Actual evidence from those infected showed it was an extremely dangerous condition.
There was no indication at the time that this would lesson at time progressed.

The very same people looking back and saying “sher look it was all a big misunderstanding” are the ones that if it had maintained its trajectory would be shouting from the rooftops that not enough was done even though there was evidence how severe it was.

Public health decisions typically take years of evidence to form and having to make these decisions based on only weeks of data is always risky, that’s why additional caution was taken.

The next few months will see if the virus remains weak or gains strength again. If the former is the sleaze then some of current restrictions on people will have been redundant precautions, but if the latter is the case and it gains strength during typical flu season these current precautions will save lives.

Killing someone 2, 5 or 10 years early isn’t a nice stance to take. If the precautions prevent these deaths then they are worth it.

Where was the evidence to back it up so?
Only the worst cases were actually tested long after it was known a large portion could be asymptomatic.
We still don't get reports on what percentage of people are asymptomatic and/or have very mild symptoms from testing.
Further still we don't have any sampling to give indications of what those numbers would be with an actual representative sample of the population.
All we know is it's nowhere near as deadly as the models predicted.

The common cold kills people every year and leaves people with long-term side effects but we don't lose our sh1t over it, because on the whole it is relatively harmless at a population level.

Restrictions cost lives as well, if there isn't a sufficiently deadly virus out there to warrant all these restrictions, it means people's lives have been sacrificed over hysteria. People die either way, is an 80 year old getting 5 more years worth more than a 40 year old getting 45 more years?

emaherx

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Where was the evidence to back it up so?
Only the worst cases were actually tested long after it was known a large portion could be asymptomatic.
We still don't get reports on what percentage of people are asymptomatic and/or have very mild symptoms from testing.
Further still we don't have any sampling to give indications of what those numbers would be with an actual representative sample of the population.
All we know is it's nowhere near as deadly as the models predicted.

The common cold kills people every year and leaves people with long-term side effects but we don't lose our sh1t over it, because on the whole it is relatively harmless at a population level.

Restrictions cost lives as well, if there isn't a sufficiently deadly virus out there to warrant all these restrictions, it means people's lives have been sacrificed over hysteria. People die either way, is an 80 year old getting 5 more years worth more than a 40 year old getting 45 more years?

The evidence from Euromomo you spouted about all case mortality in the beginning, but went quite about when the death numbers increased quite rapidly?

gozunda

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Any examples in particular?

I only listened to it briefly - but just one example was where he goes on about mask use and yet flu season was normal. Mask wearing by the general population came in well after the flu season was over.

The other point is this pandemic is not just about deaths. The restrictions were put in place to stop essential services being overwhelmed as they were in Italy.

There were several other points he made which relied on a fairly glib analysis of the charts he was using. He seems to rely a lot on arguing from the particular to the general. If that was a FYP he'd have to do a hell of a lot better imo

_Brian

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Where was the evidence to back it up so?
Only the worst cases were actually tested long after it was known a large portion could be asymptomatic.
We still don't get reports on what percentage of people are asymptomatic and/or have very mild symptoms from testing.
Further still we don't have any sampling to give indications of what those numbers would be with an actual representative sample of the population.
All we know is it's nowhere near as deadly as the models predicted.

The common cold kills people every year and leaves people with long-term side effects but we don't lose our sh1t over it, because on the whole it is relatively harmless at a population level.

Restrictions cost lives as well, if there isn't a sufficiently deadly virus out there to warrant all these restrictions, it means people's lives have been sacrificed over hysteria. People die either way, is an 80 year old getting 5 more years worth more than a 40 year old getting 45 more years?

The common cold is round long enough to follow predicable patterns. Covid19 is not. Initial reports and advice from experts in Italy were stark and had to be followed.

It’s the fun to your head scenario, the virus is so contagious and was spreading so fast that there was no other option but swift action and far reaching action.

Your still making judgments with hindsight which is a narrow minded perspective. You have to be objective and look at the information there was from
Mainstream science advisers and it was bleak.

Even yet, without even one full season of Covid19 nobody knows it’s actual trajectory. We’re all hoping that it’s on IFA way out but I’d rather we take precautions and not be caught out by sudden surge in winter cases.

If you can’t objectively look back without using hindsight your not being just to those that had to make immediate decisions based on little data about a new and potentially shocking disease. In that scenario any sane human errors on the side of over action.

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

The common cold is round long enough to follow predicable patterns. Covid19 is not. Initial reports and advice from experts in Italy were stark and had to be followed.

It’s the fun to your head scenario, the virus is so contagious and was spreading so fast that there was no other option but swift action and far reaching action.

Your still making judgments with hindsight which is a narrow minded perspective. You have to be objective and look at the information there was from
Mainstream science advisers and it was bleak.

Even yet, without even one full season of Covid19 nobody knows it’s actual trajectory. We’re all hoping that it’s on IFA way out but I’d rather we take precautions and not be caught out by sudden surge in winter cases.

If you can’t objectively look back without using hindsight your not being just to those that had to make immediate decisions based on little data about a new and potentially shocking disease. In that scenario any sane human errors on the side of over action.

"A few things to consider,
The testing is not anywhere near perfect, how many false positives or negatives there are, we don't know.
What testing is carried out it is focused on those with severe symptoms.
Normal (pre covid 19) coronavirus can cause mortality of up to 5-7% in elderly/at risk groups
Normal coronavirus makes anywhere between 7-15% of the average virus load across pneumonia/flu symptoms
There is no proof of what point we are at in this epidemic, we could be much further along than thought, the only proof that any course of action is valid will come from antibody testing"

Posted that at the end of March, hadn't really posted anything on this thread before that.
The only thing that has changed in my view since is that I now know that a detectable antibody response is short lived and t cells/other types of immunity have a large role to play in immunity (something I would have expected our experts to have known).

Neddyusa

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Where was the evidence to back it up so?
Only the worst cases were actually tested long after it was known a large portion could be asymptomatic.
We still don't get reports on what percentage of people are asymptomatic and/or have very mild symptoms from testing.
Further still we don't have any sampling to give indications of what those numbers would be with an actual representative sample of the population.
All we know is it's nowhere near as deadly as the models predicted.

The common cold kills people every year and leaves people with long-term side effects but we don't lose our sh1t over it, because on the whole it is relatively harmless at a population level.

Restrictions cost lives as well, if there isn't a sufficiently deadly virus out there to warrant all these restrictions, it means people's lives have been sacrificed over hysteria. People die either way, is an 80 year old getting 5 more years worth more than a 40 year old getting 45 more years?

The bit in bold is what I cannot understand.

Every evening we are informed of a rising number of cases.
Yet there is never any mention of the rate of positive cases per test, or the ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic cases.

All the focus on the numerator with no mention of the denominator.
A primary school maths child would tell you that's not how you compare fractions, but yet supposedly very intelligent people in NPhet and DOH are basing decisions solely on the numerator.
Its baffling at this stage.

6600

The first attachment shows the death statistics published by the HPSC in their weekly report dated 07/09/2020.

It shows that of the 1,777 reported deaths that 1,677 had underlying conditions. The average number of other causes of deaths was 2.6.
It also shows that the median age of those who died was 84. This means than half of the people who died were over this age. NUI Maynooth have conducted a study which concluded that 3 weeks was the average reduction in life expectancy in deaths attributed to Covid-19.

Here is the source.
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/

The third graph is from the UK and shows the rate of hospitalization for every 100,000 new positive 'cases'. The answer is 0.58 people per 100,000 positive cases and they are testing way over that number every day.

Source
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-covid-19-surveillance-reports

Just for a much needed laugh, just to show that the PCR tests they are using do not isolate for Covid-19..
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/africa/covid-19-pawpaw-and-goat-test-positive-for-virus-president-magufuli/ar-BB13AJWO

NcdJd

Update from Dr Mike Ryan from the WHO for anyone who wants the real current status of Covid19.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0910/1164378-ryan-who/

_Brian

NcdJd wrote: »

Update from Dr Mike Ryan from the WHO for anyone who wants the real current status of Covid19.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0910/1164378-ryan-who/

Doesn’t link to anything for me on mobile.

whelan2

Was talking to another mother last night. There was a positive case in the secondary school her kids go to. There was a pupil going around yesterday coughing on people and saying his mother has covid. He was sent home. I hope he gets expelled. What a dick

yosemitesam1

NcdJd wrote: »

Update from Dr Mike Ryan from the WHO for anyone who wants the real current status of Covid19.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0910/1164378-ryan-who/

They come out with these statements that aren't backed up by any facts and shows their lack of understanding.
Through april-late May, a young person was highly unlikely to even be considered for a test while testing focused largely on nursing homes and healthcare settings.
Now anyone can get a test, so just because there's more younger people being given positive results now means nothing. The cases diagnosed earlier in the year were in no way representative of what was happening in the population as a whole