The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

ShineOn7

From the Reddit user who digests all the daily Irish stats and updates into one easy read



_____________________


New Cases: 401 Germany: N/A
Total Cases: 15652
New Death: 77
Total Deaths: 687
Male: 31
Female: 42 * waiting for info on 4 of cases
Median Age: 84
Underlying conditions: 54

• Deaths: 687
• Hospitalised + died in hospital: 348
• Died in ICU: 45
• Underlying conditions: 564
• Male: 377
• Female: 306
• Median age: 83
• Mean age: 69 Range: 23-105

Of 307 in ICU

• Remain in hospital: 152 (50% - slight reduction)
• Discharged: 109 (36% - slight reduction)
• Died: 45
• Underlying conditions: 252 (80%)
• Median Age: 60

As of Saturday 18th

• Cases: 15185
• In Hospital: 2272 (15% - slight reduction)
• In ICU: 306
• Deaths: 642
• Clusters: 478
• Account for 3139 cases
• Median age infected: 46
• Healthcare workers: 26%

Clusters
Residential Homes: 1171
Nursing Homes: 1204
Death Nursing Homes: 337
Deaths Residential:406
Nursing Homes

• Lab confirmed in Residential: 329
• Probable or Suspect cases in Residential: 77
• Lab confirmed in Nursing homes: 276
• Probable or Suspect cases in Nursing homes: 61
• Census commenced over the weekend - intellectual disability, mental health, disability, nursing homes
• Hope to have further information back on mortality on next few days
• Gives a stronger idea about the pattern of disease in these settings

Questions

• No update on vaccine
• All of these deaths did not occur overnight, or even in the same period - has to be notified to relative public health department, who then puts it onto a computerised infections disease database, and then a report
• Largest number of deaths on a given day is 18
• There is a lag time, so can't be certain those are the totals for every day, because the process of notifying is not complete
• Change in percentage growth on deaths in a given day is falling.
• More solid update on Thursday when Philip Nolan is present
• Nursing homes Oxygen is available, you need to contact the health authority

Jurgen Klopp

You know I went back to the Diamond Princess study there just out of interest, I found a breakdown of the number of people aboard by age group as well as the numbers that were asymptomatic or had systems



Just double checked and it's still 13 deaths out of 3,711 aboard total

That's 0.35%

What's more interesting tho the high concentration of older age groups, not just from a deaths perspective but also the asymptomatic,

wakka12

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

You know I went back to the Diamond Princess study there just out of interest, I found a breakdown of the number of people aboard by age group as well as the numbers that were asymptomatic or had systems



Just double checked and it's still 13 deaths out of 3,711 aboard total

That's 0.35%

What's more interesting tho the high concentration of older age groups, not just from a deaths perspective but also the asymptomatic,

Its 14 deaths, and not everyone on board was infected. Total infected is 785.
Diamon Princess statistics are 13 dead and 712 infected but those numbers dont include one death of an Australian who died in Japan and 73 other repatriated citizens.

Diamond Princess: Cases are not included in the Japanese government’s official count. 380 of the 712 were asymptomatic. 14 are U.S. citizens whose test results weren’t known until they left the ship. The total does not include 3 employees of Japan’s Health Ministry and 1 staff member of Japan’s Cabinet Secretariat, all of whom were infected while working on the ship. It does also not include people who tested positive upon their return home: 45 in the U.S., 10 in Australia (one of whom died), 4 in the UK, 5 in Hong Kong, 3 in Israel, and 2 in Japan.

BNO news

So mortality rate on the ship is 14/785 =1.78%

7 remain in ICU, with 55 cases still active.

It is interesting and strange that the rate of asymptomatic patients doesnt appear to be any higher among the older infected than the younger ones, on the ship at least.

normanoffside

wakka12 wrote: »

Its 14 deaths, and not everyone on board was infected. Total infected is 785.
Diamon Princess statistics are 13 dead and 712 infected but those numbers dont include one death of an Australian who died in Japan and 73 other repatriated citizens.

Infected at the time of testing....how do you know the others hadn’t been infected (and recovered) before testing?
Seems likely in a crowded environment like a cruise ship.

normanoffside

Off the back of the previous- are there also people who are just not prone to infection from this for one reason or another?
Maybe it requires an extremely high viral load for them to be infected or have some natural genetic immunity?

Van.Bosch

Blut2 wrote: »

Some more maths for Ireland here:

https://www.gov.ie/en/news/041fd1-update-on-payments-awarded-for-covid-19-pandemic-unemployment-paymen/



"Over a million" adults, out of our working population of 2.3 million, are now receiving unemployment payments. Thats an unemployment rate of 43%.

Our highest unemployment rate during the last recession was 16%, for reference.

This is pretty horrifying. The economy is going to be completely destroyed if this lockdown goes on much longer.

Unemployment isn’t 43%. People who are working 2 day weeks or 3 day weeks are in that figure, they’re not unemployed.

wakka12

normanoffside wrote: »

Infected at the time of testing....how do you know the others hadn’t been infected (and recovered) before testing?
Seems likely in a crowded environment like a cruise ship.

Patient zero borded the ship 17 days before every passenger on board was tested. Its very unlikely anyone would have gone through the entire incubation and recovery period in that time and tested negative.

normanoffside

wakka12 wrote: »

All passengers were tested within 17 days of patient zero being found. Its very unlikely anyone would have gone through the entire incubation and recovery period in that time and tested negative.

But surely when patient zero was found he/she had already been infecting people?

Also it doesn’t incubate for a week in everyone. I know someone who presented symptoms after 3-4 days of infection (through contact tracing) and was full recovered 5 days after that.

wakka12

normanoffside wrote: »

But surely when patient zero was found he/she had already been infecting people?

Also it doesn’t incubate for a week in everyone. I know someone who presented symptoms after 3-4 days of infection (through contact tracing) and was full recovered 5 days after that.

Emphasis on some people. Average incubation period is longer than that, as is recovery period.Also, recovered and testing negative are different things, nobody will test negative after 5 days even if not showing any symptoms. Average clinical recovery time in mild cases is 2 weeks, 4-6 weeks in severe cases.

Anyway 17 days is absolute longest time between contact with patient zero occurred and being tested that anyone could possibly experienced in this scenario. The vast majority did not become infected immediately upon patient zero entering, and also the vast majority were tested before the 17 day period ended.

Likely extremely few slipped between the cracks here in reality, and certainly not enough to have any large impact on the overally mortality rate

normanoffside

wakka12 wrote: »

Emphasis on some people. Average incubation period is longer than that, as is recovery period.Also, recovered and testing negative are different things, nobody will test negative after 5 days even if not showing any symptoms.

You mean after 5 days of showing symptoms? Or 5 days after recovering from symptoms? Possibly, not definitely in both cases and from the experiences I know of.

Also I would imagine that asymptomatic carriers would ‘beat it’ much quicker.

On all points, more research is needed.

Jurgen Klopp

Wow, just wow, following straight after the Santa Clara study. This is LA County this time

Hundreds Of Thousands In LA Infected With Coronavirus: Study

https://www.google.com/amp/s/patch.com/california/los-angeles/amp/28703719/hundreds-thousands-la-infected-coronavirus-study

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/20/coronavirus-antibody-testing-shows-la-county-outbreak-is-up-to-55-times-bigger-than-reported-cases.html

wakka12

normanoffside wrote: »

You mean after 5 days of showing symptoms? Or 5 days after recovering from symptoms? Possibly, not definitely in both cases and from the experiences I know of.

Also I would imagine that asymptomatic carriers would ‘beat it’ much quicker.

On all points, more research is needed.

I mean 5 days after recovering from symptoms. They will still not be considered 'clinically recovered' in hospital as they will still test positive for around 2 weeks even though they no longer feel ill

normanoffside

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Wow, just wow, following straight after the Santa Clara study. This is LA County this time



https://www.google.com/amp/s/patch.com/california/los-angeles/amp/28703719/hundreds-thousands-la-infected-coronavirus-study

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/20/coronavirus-antibody-testing-shows-la-county-outbreak-is-up-to-55-times-bigger-than-reported-cases.html

It definitely spreads like wildfire that’s for sure.

normanoffside

wakka12 wrote: »

I mean 5 days after recovering from symptoms. They will still not be considered 'clinically recovered' in hospital as they will still test positive for around 2 weeks even though they no longer feel ill

Yeah but that’s people in hospital.
You don’t know it’s the case for very mild or asymptomatic cases.

As i said, more research needed.

wakka12

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Wow, just wow, following straight after the Santa Clara study. This is LA County this time



https://www.google.com/amp/s/patch.com/california/los-angeles/amp/28703719/hundreds-thousands-la-infected-coronavirus-study

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/20/coronavirus-antibody-testing-shows-la-county-outbreak-is-up-to-55-times-bigger-than-reported-cases.html

The fact it arrived at a very similar figure to the Santa clara study is very encouraging

niallo27

wakka12 wrote: »

Patient zero borded the ship 17 days before every passenger on board was tested. Its very unlikely anyone would have gone through the entire incubation and recovery period in that time and tested negative.

Do they know who patient zero was, its impossible to know who it was and when it the virus first appeared on the cruise.

Jurgen Klopp

Actually did anyone see the CMO this evening saying they not believe the R number was actually 4 or 5 when they initially thought it started at 2.4/2.6

At the beginning of the epidemic, it was thought that the reproductive rate of the new coronavirus, or the ‘R naught’, was 2.4 or 2.6. That has now been revised to be closer to four or five (meaning that for every person infected, it’s passed on to another four or five people).

“This is a very transmissible virus,” Dr Holohan said this evening. “It’s more transmissible than the flu

wakka12

niallo27 wrote: »

Do they know who patient zero was, its impossible to know who it was and when it the virus first appeared on the cruise.

Well the man thought to be patient zero, the 80 yo Hong Kong man, experienced symptoms before he boarded the ship. Days later hundreds of people experienced symptoms on the ship

It is likely he is patient zero, but again given the timeline, its very unlikely any positive cases are unaccounted for

niallo27

wakka12 wrote: »

Well the man thought to be patient zero, the 80 yo Hong Kong man, experienced symptoms before he boarded the ship. Days later hundreds of people experienced symptoms on the ship

It is likely he is patient zero, but again given the timeline, its very unlikely any positive cases are unaccounted for

Most reports are blaming crew members for the initial outbreak. It's impossible to know.

The link below is interesting, 73% of this prison has tested positive.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/20/838943211/73-of-inmates-at-an-ohio-prison-test-positive-for-coronavirus?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates

ShineOn7

niallo27 wrote: »

Most reports are blaming crew members for the initial outbreak. It's impossible to know.

The link below is interesting, 73% of this prison has tested positive.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/20/838943211/73-of-inmates-at-an-ohio-prison-test-positive-for-coronavirus?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates

This and many more links showing studies of 50% or more of those tested are coming back positive and yet WHO claims this to be at 3%

Fúck off WHO

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

This and many more links showing studies of 50% or more of those tested are coming back positive and yet WHO claims this to be at 3%

Fúck off WHO

A study in a confined population such as prison or ship is not representative of wider population. LA study referenced earlier found 2.8 - 5.6%. Consistent with WHO

ShineOn7

Deleted User wrote: »

A study in a confined population such as prison or ship is not representative of wider population. LA study referenced earlier found 2.8 - 5.6%. Consistent with WHO

A study of the Los Angeles population found only 2.8 - 5.6% of it to be affected?

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

A study of the Los Angeles population found only 2.8 - 5.6% of it to be affected?

https://patch.com/california/los-angeles/hundreds-thousands-la-infected-coronavirus-study

ShineOn7

So based on this study only 5% of the general population, at best, are immune to it?

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

So based on this study only 5% of the general population, at best, are immune to it?

Seems to be what its saying. Study is ongoing, and not yet peer reviewed

normanoffside

ShineOn7 wrote: »

So based on this study only 5% of the general population, at best, are immune to it?

Seems to be early April, going to be a bit higher now.

Meanwhile in Ireland we have gone about things arseways.
There is likely minimal spread in the community but high spread in enclosed vulnerable settings such as care homes.

Is the raw data available anywhere. Have about 50% of my normal workload and a statistical software package sitting idle

millb

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the raw data available anywhere. Have about 50% of my normal workload and a statistical software package sitting idle

https://data.humdata.org/dataset/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-cases

https://www.tableau.com/covid-19-coronavirus-data-resources

wakka12

ShineOn7 wrote: »

So based on this study only 5% of the general population, at best, are immune to it?

That is many more than originally thought, so hardly a bad thing?
The studies in Santa Clara and LA showed 2-5%, they are very urban areas, when you take into account rural and suburban areas then WHO's estimate of around 3% is probably bang on

ShineOn7

wakka12 wrote: »

That is many more than originally thought, so hardly a bad thing?
The studies in Santa Clara and LA showed 2-5%, they are very urban areas, when you take into account rural and suburban areas then WHO's estimate of around 3% is probably bang on

But just upto a few days ago I thought the consensus was that upto 50% was asymptomatic

This changes the mortality rate hugely