Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

  • 08-04-2020 2:32pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ ShineOn7


    Let’s round up the Republic’s population to 5 million, it’s only 100,000 shy of this number

    The amount of people expected to get it (whether they show symptoms or not) is anything from 30% to 70%, depending on the source you read. Huge differences there but let’s say 50% because it’s somewhere in between

    That’s 2.5 million who’ll get it (remember; not all will show symptoms)

    Reported mortality rates on this have been 0.5 to 2%. It’s just too early to tell

    Let’s be optimistic and say 1%

    1% of 2.5 million is 25,000 Irish fatalities in the Republic

    This is more than double how many the HSE worker doing the Ask Me Anything thinks in his Best Case Scenario. He mentioned 10,000 people in this instance

    So hopefully he’s actually right in this case and it’s “only” 10,000

    For this to happen;

    - The amount of carriers of this will have to be much lower than 50%, and

    - mortality rate would need to be closer to 0.5%

    How does 10,000 compare to a normal 12 months in Ireland when you combine the pneumonia and flu fatalities?

    I’d love to hear your thoughts on the maths of it all and what it means to Ireland


«13456733

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 58,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    My maths is nonexistent S, but my hunch is that when the numbers are finally in this virus will prove to have an overall mortality rate of 0.5% or maybe lower. Way worse than a seasonal flu, even a bad one, but not 2% and certainly not 10% or above as some commentators have suggested. I also suspect it will hit different demographics and populations differently, not just by age and underlying conditions, but by wealth status, geography(hotter countries less) and maybe even genetics, up to population level.

    Overall it will most look like we temporarily lost the advantages of 21st century healthcare and technology. Say if you imagine if tomorrow all antibiotics stopped working. It would make Covid19 look like a picnic on a sunny day.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 62,403 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ Beasty




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ ShineOn7


    Beasty wrote: »


    Thanks for the link

    So Covid - in the best case scenario laid out by the HSE worker doing the AMA - will cause about a third of what we get fatalities wise in a normal year?

    Actually; we need to add the 10k to the average 30k for 40,000 dont we? So Covid - in this scenario - will account for 25% of all fatalities in Ireland this year


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭ Heres Johnny


    There's assumptions in every mathematical model and these assumptions could be way out, resulting in a vastly different death rate prediction from what happens in reality.
    I don't believe we will have anything even in same ballpark as 25000 deaths, never mind even 10,000

    But then again I'm using certain assumptions too that could be incorrect


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ ShineOn7


    Wibbs wrote: »
    My maths is nonexistent S, but my hunch is that when the numbers are finally in this virus will prove to have an overall mortality rate of 0.5% or maybe lower. Way worse than a seasonal flu, even a bad one, but not 2% .


    Thanks Wibbs, great insights as ever

    Does anyone know: How many fatalities in Ireland - in an average year - does flu and pneumonia combined account for?

    I've read anything from 500 people to 1,000, but that was just from comments on Boards threads. A link to a credible source on the above stats (specifically for flu and pneumonia) would be useful to compare


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 62,403 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ Beasty


    ShineOn7 wrote: »

    Does anyone know: How many fatalities in Ireland - in an average year - does flu and pneumonia combined account for?
    97 reported in 2018/19


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,086 ✭✭✭✭ Harry Palmr


    Given the current morbidity levels I've gone with a thumbnail of 3000.

    30 dead x 100 days with the large assumption that there is no fresh upswing later in the year.

    I see an American origin report which estimates 900 by August which seems very optimistic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ ShineOn7


    Given the current morbidity levels I've gone with a thumbnail of 3000.

    30 dead x 100 days with the large assumption that there is no fresh upswing later in the year.

    I see an American origin report which estimates 900 by August which seems very optimistic.

    The HSE worker doing the AMA said that 80% of the fatalities in Ireland will likely be in the second wave of it this Winter

    I think the timeline could go:
    • Now till June - wave one
    • June till October - the calm before the second storm
    • October till ?? - wave two

    But who the hell knows anymore. This thing will probably come and go in surges and drops till a vaccine comes along in mid 2021. And even then it'll still take some people out every year, but to a much lesser degree


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,514 ✭✭✭ paleoperson


    Wibbs wrote: »
    My maths is nonexistent S, but my hunch is that when the numbers are finally in this virus will prove to have an overall mortality rate of 0.5% or maybe lower. Way worse than a seasonal flu, even a bad one, but not 2% and certainly not 10% or above as some commentators have suggested. I also suspect it will hit different demographics and populations differently, not just by age and underlying conditions, but by wealth status, geography(hotter countries less) and maybe even genetics, up to population level.

    Sorry Wibbs, we agreed on another thread but this is totally false.

    There is zero reason to believe it will hit 0.5% of people when the numbers keep saying at least 2%, taking everything into account. I mean are you talking 0.5% of the entire population or of who get the virus? Of the entire population I could get on board with.

    It's annoying how people keep making optimistic predictions right throughout this with no basis. If you want to keep holding onto hope that's fine, but assuming optimistic things without any basis for it is biased and will only end in disappointment.

    And as for this part of your statement:
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Overall it will most look like we temporarily lost the advantages of 21st century healthcare and technology. Say if you imagine if tomorrow all antibiotics stopped working. It would make Covid19 look like a picnic on a sunny day.

    Wow!

    Humans survived very well for hundreds of thousands of years in the savanna in Africa. They did not get diseased only extremely rarely, they did not get viruses. Your idea that a large amount of the population would be dying if there was no antibiotics is absolute farce.

    The other great apes living in Africa today only very rarely get sick. Your idea of them getting sick a lot of the time is totally erroneous. Without medical science? You must be joking. Medical science rarely helps, only a few times in your whole lifetime. Yeah there's blood pressure medication, but that's offset by the fact of what we're eating to begin with - totally unnatural foods.

    Additionally, this virus is a remarkable example of something that has happened due to modern civilization. It starts off with the highly unnatural close contact between humans and animals in the wet markets. After that the entire spread of it - it would still have been confined to a small region China and died out there. At worst it would never have gotten past a place where it took more than two weeks to travel - eg. across a desert by boat from one island to another.

    What's more - something that is often a worry with viruses like this is if it would mutate to a more virulent form. This was a huge concern with the bird flu type viruses including swine flu - apparently this isn't such a concern with this one (we hope). But if it was one, then it has 7.3 billion potential opportunities to mutate, as opposed to the original human population of 100,000 humans or so.

    It's the modern world and globalization and people being so close to each other that caused all of this. Poorly calibrated immune systems and so on.

    Really, I don't know how you came up with that howler.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,897 ✭✭✭✭ Boggles


    This is a "perfect" virus.

    The mortality rate for them is between 1 and 2.5 %.

    I think Germany with world class health care and spare capacity is running between 1 and 1.5%

    So that is probably the figure.

    Remove mitigation and the figure balloons.

    Maybe a 75,000 - 200,000 dead in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,514 ✭✭✭ paleoperson


    Boggles wrote: »
    This is a "perfect" virus.

    The mortality rate for them is between 1 and 2.5 %.

    I think Germany with world class health care and spare capacity is running between 1 and 1.5%

    So that is probably the figure.

    Remove mitigation and the figure balloons.

    Maybe a 75,000 - 200,000 dead in Ireland.

    Authorities in the western world are already moving to try to underreport the numbers, in the same systematic way China is. They are desperate to re-open their economies. New York stated yesterday that the number of suspected coronavirus death was another 200 per day than is being recorded, in the UK it has been estimated as up to 24% higher according to the central statistics office.

    There's going to be a lot more suspicious-sounding deaths that are handwaved away as not being coronavirus in the coming few weeks and months as they try to get the economy moving again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,808 ✭✭✭ Jurgen Klopp


    Go to world meters and the percentage of deaths recorded as having C19 against confirmed cases is a death rate of 5.3% or thereabouts

    Now however factor that the Italians have said whatever your confirmed cases are you need to assume there's 5x that due to lack of testing and asymptomatic carriers

    That would give us a death rate of 1.17% however some places are saying it be 10x confirmed cases so that would be coming to what China thinks is a rate of circs 0.65%

    However who knows at this stage there so many variables. How many are dying anyways and are infected, Italy health advisor has confirmed anyone that tested positive and died is labeled as dying from it

    Italy has an older population and got caught on the hop, Japan has the oldest and have been doing better

    Now to mention when you look at nations with the BCG vaccine they all seem to be doing better than those who didn't so there may be something in it

    Some places are poorer, some are richer etc

    The only thing I'm kinda confident on from both Iceland and the Diamond Princess is circa 50% are asymptomatic


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,514 ✭✭✭ paleoperson


    .

    There are many more people dying in Italy and especially in other places without ever having being tested from coronavirus - and hence that not on the death certificate - than are being put down as dying from coronavirus because they appeared to have it but may not have it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,896 ✭✭✭✭ Cuddlesworth


    Say 50% of cases are asymptomatic, based on recent reports.

    We are "managing" right now, during a lockdown.

    Roughly 400 cases a day right now, maybe 800 including those not showing symptoms.

    Let's say 12k infected so far. It's only going to take us 13 and a half years to get to 80% infected of the population.

    We bump up ICU space rapidly, lets say 10 times the amount. We might be able to cut that down to over a year of varying stages of "lockdown" with a not insignificant amount of deaths along the way.

    Pretty sure only options we really have are vaccines, effective drug treatments or large scale deaths over a short time frame.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭ Andrew00


    When people say oh thousands of people die in Ireland every year due to the flu

    So how come we never hear of it? "oh did ya hear Tommy down the road died of flu"

    Or you never see it on death notices


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,546 ✭✭✭ Blaaz_


    Id be suprised if it tops 1,200 by october

    They were estimating 800 to 1000 for ireland,which is horrendous enough.......unless they get overrun to state,where they cant treat any.cases


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,211 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Thanks for the link

    So Covid - in the best case scenario laid out by the HSE worker doing the AMA - will cause about a third of what we get fatalities wise in a normal year?

    Actually; we need to add the 10k to the average 30k for 40,000 dont we? So Covid - in this scenario - will account for 25% of all fatalities in Ireland this year

    The last part would assume that all those who die from C19 would not have otherwise died, which is certainly not the case given the demographic and medical status of many of those dying. It will be interesting to see the death rate for the next 12 months, it might not be significantly above other years if C19 takes a lot of people who didn't hbig life expectancy left anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ ShineOn7


    It's only going to take us 13 and a half years to get to 80% infected of the population.


    Eh?

    You think it'll be this strong a virus for over a decade?

    No chance


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,234 ✭✭✭ Jizique


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The last part would assume that all those who die from C19 would not have otherwise died, which is certainly not the case given the demographic and medical status of many of those dying. It will be interesting to see the death rate for the next 12 months, it might not be significantly above other years if C19 takes a lot of people who didn't hbig life expectancy left anyway.

    Might lead to a 2% increase in death rates for the year; it seems s bit overblown really


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 288 ✭✭ citysights


    Andrew00 wrote: »
    When people say oh thousands of people die in Ireland every year due to the flu

    So how come we never hear of it? "oh did ya hear Tommy down the road died of flu"

    Or you never see it on death notices

    Yeah true we don’t hear of it but yes people do actually die of flu, it wasn’t something I was aware of either till a few years back and even stats bear it out.

    As regards death notices I don’t think they ever ever state the cause of death. Isn’t that done at the post Mortuem stage if there is one. You do raise a good question though as to what is put on death certificate ( if there is such a thing) as regards cause of death. But don’t think regular flu can be dismissed as something that isn’t very serious especially to elderly.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭ s1ippy


    Everyone in here, correct me if I'm wrong, is assuming that we will find a vaccine and there will be an end to this. If we don't we're looking a many more fatalities than even the worst-case scenario. With the RNA profile and mutations possible, combined with never having vaccinated against a coronavirus, I'm expecting that there will be no end to this, while obviously hoping there will be.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,808 ✭✭✭ Jurgen Klopp


    s1ippy wrote: »
    Everyone in here, correct me if I'm wrong, is assuming that we will find a vaccine and there will be an end to this. If we don't we're looking a many more fatalities than even the worst-case scenario. With the RNA profile and mutations possible, combined with never having vaccinated against a coronavirus, I'm expecting that there will be no end to this, while obviously hoping there will be.

    Oh for sure if no vaccine is found your looking at Corona season if you will each year. However you have consider it could likely well mutate into being something less deadlier like bird and swine flu, they never bothered with vaccinations for it as they got on top of it but they are still floating around


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ ShineOn7


    s1ippy wrote: »
    Everyone in here, correct me if I'm wrong, is assuming that we will find a vaccine and there will be an end to this.


    If that vaccine doesn't come in 18 months then we are indeed really up shít creek. But I'm confident we will

    It's the next 18-24 months that will be tough (18 months for the vaccine and 6 months to distribute it worldwide)

    Keep in mind too (although I'm sure you're aware), that a vaccine for anything doesn't give you 100% immunity against it. It just helps keep it at bay a lot more


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭ threeball


    Given the current morbidity levels I've gone with a thumbnail of 3000.

    30 dead x 100 days with the large assumption that there is no fresh upswing later in the year.

    I see an American origin report which estimates 900 by August which seems very optimistic.

    Why on earth would we have 100 days of 30 deaths when we only had one or two days with that so far and we're nearing the peak. That makes zero sense. Somewhere between 500 and 750 is more realistic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,211 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    s1ippy wrote: »
    Everyone in here, correct me if I'm wrong, is assuming that we will find a vaccine and there will be an end to this. If we don't we're looking a many more fatalities than even the worst-case scenario. With the RNA profile and mutations possible, combined with never having vaccinated against a coronavirus, I'm expecting that there will be no end to this, while obviously hoping there will be.


    The longer it goes on, the more the fatality rate will drop. As the most vulnerable continue to die, the less vulnerable people there are to die later. I know it's not a nice way to put it but we may have to get used to a lower life expectancy.

    As for mutations, what I have read is that virus mutations are generally to a less deadly form. It mutates to ensure its survival and killing all its hosts doesn't achieve that. Darwin was on to something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭ threeball


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The longer it goes on, the more the fatality rate will drop. As the most vulnerable continue to die, the less vulnerable people there are to die later. I know it's not a nice way to put it but we may have to get used to a lower life expectancy.

    As for mutations, what I have read is that virus mutations are generally to a less deadly form. It mutates to ensure its survival and killing all its hosts doesn't achieve that. Darwin was on to something.

    Generally yes. The Spanish flu was the exception due to a swine flu carrier getting the original virus that was in europe earlier that year and mutated to become worse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,755 ✭✭✭ timsey tiger


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »

    As for mutations, what I have read is that virus mutations are generally to a less deadly form. It mutates to ensure its survival and killing all its hosts doesn't achieve that. Darwin was on to something.

    Why do people believe this, the opposite is true, unless it is a virus that is passed form parent to offspring?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,149 ✭✭✭ normanoffside


    In Spain, officials think at least 15 out of every 16 cases have not been recorded. They estimate at least 40% of the population of Madrid have been infected.

    https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-04-08/spain-to-test-30000-families-for-the-coronavirus.html

    It'll be hard to get an accurate estimate of mortality until a functioning antibody test is developed IMO


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 58,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    There is zero reason to believe it will hit 0.5% of people when the numbers keep saying at least 2%, taking everything into account. I mean are you talking 0.5% of the entire population or of who get the virus? Of the entire population I could get on board with.
    I'm talking entire population, before it burns out through vaccines, effective contagion controls and better treatments.
    It's annoying how people keep making optimistic predictions right throughout this with no basis. If you want to keep holding onto hope that's fine, but assuming optimistic things without any basis for it is biased and will only end in disappointment.
    As will presuming the sky is falling down from the same massively incomplete numbers, or pessimistic predictions right throughout this with no basis.

    Wow!

    Humans survived very well for hundreds of thousands of years in the savanna in Africa. They did not get diseased only extremely rarely, they did not get viruses. Your idea that a large amount of the population would be dying if there was no antibiotics is absolute farce.
    Clearly and in spite of your handle you've not that much info on palaeolithic(or later) human populations. While "stone age" man could make it to 60, or even above in some rarer cases, the average age of death was more like 50. If you made it to adulthood in the first place. Their child mortality rate was off the scale. Palaeolithic finds and later burials have a scary number of dead children. In earlier Neandertals we have slightly more children's bones than adults. Oh and there isn't one example of an adult Neandertal without some pathology or other. Modern humans show similar, though we started to live slightly longer, or more older people were buried and preserved, around 40,000 years ago. The once type specimen for Cro Magnon modern humans was covered in facial cysts and died in his early 40's. Walk around any older graveyard and look at the ages and then look at the all too usual additions of children. Hell, my maternal grandparents lost two kids in childhood, my paternal, one. And they had a few bob for the time.
    The other great apes living in Africa today only very rarely get sick. Your idea of them getting sick a lot of the time is totally erroneous. Without medical science? You must be joking. Medical science rarely helps, only a few times in your whole lifetime.
    I've never had an antibiotic. At 52. When I tell doctors that they're usually WTF? really? I'm a fairly rare example of that in the West. Never had a flu save for the swine variety and I brushed that off handily enough. No vaccinations other than for polio. Caught all the other childhood doses and a few funky ones on top. However, do a straw poll on Boards and you will find a remarkable number of people posting here, that would be dead long ago without modern medicine. That goes across the board. We've never lived longer on average in the history of the human species.
    Yeah there's blood pressure medication, but that's offset by the fact of what we're eating to begin with - totally unnatural foods.
    Here comes the so called "paleo" diet bro science.... 1) yes eating the modern paleo type diet is significantly better than the all too usual cakes and pasta and chinner dinners with oodles of salt and sugar of many. That goes without saying, but you can say that for every single other decent diet out there. Eat less and better, move more. Why, I can't believe I feel better!! No sh1t Sherlock. 2) Almost nothing you can buy in a modern shop today resembles the available foods in the palaeolithic. This goes quadruple for fruit and veg. Pick any you like and a palaeolithic bloke or blokess(they were usually getting the lion's share of grub calories in, particularly fruit and veg) and the majority of the time they'd ask you WTF are we looking at here?
    Additionally, this virus is a remarkable example of something that has happened due to modern civilization. It starts off with the highly unnatural close contact between humans and animals in the wet markets. After that the entire spread of it - it would still have been confined to a small region China and died out there. At worst it would never have gotten past a place where it took more than two weeks to travel - eg. across a desert by boat from one island to another.
    I hate to break it to you, but palaeolithic folks had way more up and closer contact with wild animals. Domestic animals mixed with wild are the issue. It also depends on what you consider modern civilisation. Plagues are among the very first things recorded when we invented writing.
    What's more - something that is often a worry with viruses like this is if it would mutate to a more virulent form. This was a huge concern with the bird flu type viruses including swine flu - apparently this isn't such a concern with this one (we hope). But if it was one, then it has 7.3 billion potential opportunities to mutate, as opposed to the original human population of 100,000 humans or so.
    Coronaviruses mutate at much slower rates than influenza viruses and tend to get milder with time. Flu is a bit of an outlier here, though only slightly as it seems it's down to dumb luck when a very nasty one comes along.
    Really, I don't know how you came up with that howler.
    by reading a lot.
    Andrew00 wrote: »
    When people say oh thousands of people die in Ireland every year due to the flu

    So how come we never hear of it? "oh did ya hear Tommy down the road died of flu"

    Or you never see it on death notices
    True, though both my parents died of hospital acquired pneumonia and that wasn't on their death notices.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭ Hmmzis


    Why do people believe this, the opposite is true, unless it is a virus that is passed form parent to offspring?


    Natural selection. If the virus kills off the host, it can't replicate anymore and infect other hosts. Therefore a less deadly version has a higher chance to spread to more hosts.
    Compare ebola to flu.

    Even getting the host very sick is a disadvantage as a sick host won't move around as much as an asymtomatic or a mildly symptomatic host. Therfore reducing potential of infecting other hosts. Remember, any virus requires compatible living cells to replicate.

    Also, viruses are different. SARS-cov-2 is quite stable, similar to its predecessor. Survivors of that one still have effective quantities of antibodies in their blood even today (after 17 years). Comparing it to the myriad of common cold viruses or the flu is a rather bad approach.

    The flu is so 'succesfull' because of the way it creates new strains by combining genetic material of different strains in a single cell. Therefore avoiding the antibodies for the previous strains and its very low host mortality rate, so it's able to jump to more hosts.

    SARS-cov-2 doesn't have that molecular machinery to do so, no coronavirus has that. Not sure if any RNA virus can do that (will read up on it). The 'strains' you might hear being talked about are not really much different from each other, the changes are miniscule and would not affect the virus's properties all too much (if at all). For all practical intents and purloses, it's the same nasty thing now as the one that appeared in China orignally.


Advertisement