The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

normanoffside

normanoffside wrote: »

Here's another interesting study:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1


Universal testing in a Homeless shelter on Boston (408 homeless people) revealed that 36% were Positive (147) but only one had a temperature and 2 had shortness of Breath, and 13 had a cough.

Everyone else was Asymptomatic.

None required Hospital treatment.

That would roughly simialr to what china is claiming for testing of quarantined people arriving into the country


80% of positive cases showing no sythoms

ShineOn7

Seen this online

253 deaths confirmed in nursing homes.

More than half of Ireland's known #COVID19 death toll. Shocking figure, mostly in their 80s

Can anyone confirm that more than 50% of Ireland's fatalities have been in nursing homes?

normanoffside

Anyone watching Prime time there?

The conclusion was that reported infections are vastly under reported.
80% of cases are Asymptomatic and most of the others are unreported.
The actual mortality rate is somewhere between 0.1%(best case scenario) and 0,5%(worst case scenario)

normanoffside

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Seen this online




Can anyone confirm that more than 50% of Ireland's fatalities have been in nursing homes?

yes that was confirmed in today's briefing

ShineOn7

normanoffside wrote: »

Anyone watching Prime time there?

The conclusion was that reported infections are vastly under reported.
80% of cases are Asymptomatic and most of the others are unreported.
The actual mortality rate is somewhere between 0.1%(best case scenario) and 0,5%(worst case scenario)

:):)


Who said that? I hope it was someone extremely qualified

Jurgen Klopp

normanoffside wrote: »

Anyone watching Prime time there?

The conclusion was that reported infections are vastly under reported.
80% of cases are Asymptomatic and most of the others are unreported.
The actual mortality rate is somewhere between 0.1%(best case scenario) and 0,5%(worst case scenario)

Wow, who was giving the info was it HSE etc? This is a big thing to be acknowledged by them

normanoffside

ShineOn7 wrote: »

:):)


Who said that? I hope it was someone extremely qualified

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Wow, who was giving the info was it HSE etc? This is a big thing to be acknowledged by them

Not the HSE but Luke O'Neill was in studio and another British Epidemiologist was on video link.
I only caught the end of it but the fact it was on RTE Primetime suggests a shift in 'Official' policy/information.

normanoffside

normanoffside wrote: »

Not the HSE but Luke O'Neill was in studio and another British Epidemiologist was on video link.
I only caught the end of it but the fact it was on RTE Primetime suggests a shift in 'Official' policy/information.

Last 10 minutes here.
https://www.rte.ie/player/series/prime-time/SI0000000825?epguid=IH000382978

The British expert is Dr John Lee, Pathologist

ShineOn7

From the Redit user again who has an abundance of stats and info. I'm going to take a deeper dive into their post history tomorrow.

They've been on Reddit 6 years with over 24,000 upvotes (the equivalent of Boards thanks system). All words below the line are theirs. There's some cautiously optimistic stuff in here. I've highlighted in bold and red the stuff that stood out most to me;


______________________________________________


New Cases: 629 (Germany: 95)
Total Cases: 13271
New Death: 43
Total Deaths: 486 (One death de-notified)
Male: 22
Female: 21
Median Age: 84
Underlying conditions: 27

Of the death

• Deaths: 486
• Hospitalised + died in hospital: 298 (61%)
• Died in ICU: 44
• Underlying conditions: 403
• Male: 283
• Female: 203
• Median age: 82
• Mean age: 69
• Age Range: 23-105

Of 290 in ICU

• Remain in ICU: 156
• Discharged: 90
• Died: 44
• Underlying conditions: 238
• Median Age: 60

As of Tuesday 14th

• Cases: 12425
• In Hospital: 2026
• In ICU: 284
• Deaths: 480
• Clusters: 425 - Account for 2451 cases
• Median age infected: 48
• Healthcare workers: 25%

Clusters

• Clusters In Community: 254 - 4 additional from yesterday occurred in nursing homes
• Residential Homes: 163
• 302 deaths in community residential settings
• Nursing Homes: 253 deaths in nursing homes

Modelling with Philip Nolan

• Models are useful and powerful, but the output depends on the assumptions. We have many assumptions - proportion of people who are asymptomatic, and data used to calibrate the model. German results are being fed back in to help recalculate. They are good for making decisions, but shouldn't read too much into them Because we are constantly re-calibrating based off of the data, the numbers will change every time the model is presented.

• Most results back from Germany, and backdated into graphs

• Cases were growing at 33% a day (cumulatively) at the beginning. Now, while its not flat, growing very slowly.

• Hospitalised cases growing very slowly.

• ICU rate of growth is also very slow

• Number of people dying increases, but the rate of growth is decreasing. They are watching this number very closely.

• As modellers, need to look at all of the data we have, not just confirmed cases. Overall seeing slow growth Percentage growth in total number of cases, against previous day, averaged over 5 days, is about 5% growth rate. Number of new cases per day is noisier.

• Since 3rd April, growth rate of new cases with German cases backdated, growth rate is very close to 0.

• Number of people reported to be in ICU has been stable since 3rd April. One would imagine that is beginning to decline at this point.

• Final indication we have of the growth rate of the virus is the reproduction number. We have 4 ways to calculate this. All 4 showed that R0 = 0.7-1. Needs to be below 1 to show that we are in control of the virus.

• We can compare the R0 against a number of different European countries - model knows when we imposed different social distancing measures.

• In early stages of epidemic, R0 = 2-4. Immediately after early interventions (28 March), R0 = 1.5-3. High confidence now that R0 < 1

• We need to be very careful that if we relax measures, that we don't go back to R0 = 1.5-3

• Unmitigated epidemic would have had 120,000 infections by this week (Using R0=3.7)

• If we had reduced to R0=2.4, we would have still seen a huge number of cases - approximately 70,000 cases at the peak. Would have approx had 7800 new cases today. Approx 17000 deaths

• At the reduced rate, low R0, peak would be 5000 cases, and would see virus pushed out to August

• Where are we now? We are hopeful/ confident that our R0 is below one. Model predicts we are in peak now, and will reduce. In reality, things are slightly different. Prudent to take a look at the actual data, rather than rely on the data. We need experience to tell us that measures are working, not just the model telling us that. We need more data.

• What might happen if measures are eased around May 5th?

• Most optimistic - R0 = 0.8, cases reduce near the end of the month

• Relax measures for 3 weeks, and reimpose if needed - THIS IS JUST MODEL, NOT WHAT HE'S SUGGESTING

• If more relaxed measures are containing the disease (R0=1.1) we will see a small increase in numbers
• R=1.2, still managing. Reintroducing measures will suppress disease
• R=1.6 (every second person infects 2 people) would see a significant peak at this point. Reimpose numbers to gain control
• R0=>2, we get a very sudden and unmanageable spike on disease. Clearly wouldn't leave relaxed measure in place for 3 weeks and allow that to happen
• Whatever happens after May 5th needs to be managed very carefully

• Symptoms in elderly may not be the same symptoms in the young - cough or fever may not be present, but lack of appetite is

wakka12

normanoffside wrote: »

Anyone watching Prime time there?

The conclusion was that reported infections are vastly under reported.
80% of cases are Asymptomatic and most of the others are unreported.
The actual mortality rate is somewhere between 0.1%(best case scenario) and 0,5%(worst case scenario)

0.11% of the population of Lombardy has already died over the last 6 weeks so that is impossible

0.1% of the population of Madrid has also died in the last 6 weeks also, but most likely 0.2% of the city population has died when counting home and nursing home deaths. Similar story for Lombardia

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103955/deaths-related-to-coronavirus-by-region-spain/

0.5% mortality rate is likely the best case scenario rather than the worst.

ShineOn7

wakka12 wrote: »

0.11% of the population of Lombardy has already died over the last 6 weeks so that is impossible

I remember in school as a kid, when we working out averages, we were told to remove abnormalities. I wonder if we need to do that with Italy here

Whereas China doesn't even come into it for me, they're flat out lying about their numbers

normanoffside

wakka12 wrote: »

0.11% of the population of Lombardy has already died over the last 6 weeks so that is impossible

Not really.
If the majority of the population have contracted the virus (as shown in some surveys of blood donors in the area) and given the fact that in Lombardy the average age of the population is much higher than other nations, then it's not that far off.

0.1% is best case scenario by the way. No-one is saying it's not a bit higher than that.

Some of the 0.11% will also have died of other causes.

I'm not saying we should ignore this disease and we should definitely try to protect the more vulnerable.

wakka12

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I remember in school as a kid, when we working out averages, we were told to remove abnormalities. I wonder if we need to do that with Italy here

Whereas China doesn't even come into it for me, they're flat out lying about their numbers

Its not an anomally though

0.2% of the populationof Brussels has died
Over 0.1% of the population of Madrid has died
0.15% of the population of NYC has died
0.1% of the population of London has died
0.05% of the population of the Ile de France region has died

And that is just what it is currently, still all right in the thick of an epidemic.

All within the space of 5-6 weeks, in the case of London and MAdrid, this figure includes only hospital deaths

Its not an anomally, it is clearly simply a dangerous disease. I seriously dont know how many people have to die before there is consensus that its...not flu..like jesus christ..its literally killed about 20x times more peple than flu does in an entire year in several major western cities

ShineOn7

I don't like this stat at all

Ireland on Wednesday recorded 38 deaths, including that of a 23-year-old

Why won't HSE give more details about cases like this? Had the victim got underlying symptoms? etc

2u2me

wakka12 wrote: »

0.11% of the population of Lombardy has already died over the last 6 weeks so that is impossible

You're equating apples with oranges here. What happened in Italy was horrible they lost many people because their hospitals were over run, people that they could have otherwise been saved.


This lower figure certainly reflects the figure estimated by Imperial College London a few weeks back, which was just a projection.

across all 11 countries between 7 and 43 million individuals have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 28th March, representing between 1.88% and 11.43% of the population.

wakka12

2u2me wrote: »

You're equating apples with oranges here. What happened in Italy was horrible they lost many people because their hospitals were over run, people that they could have otherwise been saved.


This lower figure certainly reflects the figure estimated by Imperial College London a few weeks back, which was just a projection.

Why do posters keep refrring to Italy so specifically, as if it is way harder than the rest of the western world. At this stage, Belgium, UK , Spain and New York have higher rates of death per capita, far higher in some cases

2u2me

wakka12 wrote: »

Why do posters keep refrring to Italy so specifically, as if it is way harder than the rest of the western world. At this stage, Belgium, UK , Spain and New York have higher rates of death per capita

Countries that overburden their health systems are obviously going to have more fatalities. Italy specifically had a really hard hit of it, when they were the least prepared, when no-one could help.

But a lot of data is now coming out as more testing is available that the fatality of this is perhaps as low as mentioned. 0.10-0.5%.

That means how many people that contract the virus will die from it(In a fully functioning health care system). That is the statistic I believe many are interested in.

wakka12

2u2me wrote: »

Countries that overburden their health systems are obviously going to have more fatalities. Italy specifically had a really hard hit of it, when they were the least prepared, when no-one could help.

But a lot of data is now coming out as more testing is available that the fatality of this is perhaps as low as mentioned. 0.10-0.5%.

That means how many people that contract the virus will die from it(In a fully functioning health care system). That is the statistic I believe many are interested in.

Thats fair enough. It just seems extremely unlikely given the evidence..

Death rate in Germany is 2.95% It has tested more than 1 in every 50 citizens of the entire country, serological tests in Gangelt (one of Germany's hardest hit epicentre towns) showed 15% of that population had it. So that is the very highest of anywhere in Germany most likely. So Germany's mortality rate is likely quite representative, it's healthcare is not overwhelmed..South Korea the other country doing the highest number of tests in the world and without an overwhelmed healthcare system also reports a death rate of similar around 2.15%

As I said before, I dont understand how many people would need to die before there is still people saying it is like the flu. There is a lot of proof that is a lot more dangerous than flu. Literally every 1 in 400 residents in london has died from this virus over the last 4 weeks...

ShineOn7

wakka12 wrote: »

As I said before, I dont understand how many people would need to die before there is still people saying it is like the flu. There is a lot of proof that is a lot more dangerous than flu. Literally every 1 in 400 residents in london has died from this virus

I respect your points but absolutely no one with a semblance of intelligence now thinks this is "just a flu", a flu has a mortality rate of 0.01 as far as I'm aware

wakka12

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I respect your points but absolutely no one with a semblance of intelligence now thinks this is "just a flu", a flu has a mortality rate of 0.01 as far as I'm aware

Two posters just above you 2u2me and normanoffside claimed it could be 0.1%! And, shockingly the doctor or whomever qualified person was speaking on primetime claimed it could be as low as that

No flu is actually around 0.1%, flu is in itself a major cause of death worldwide
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

McGiver

2u2me wrote:

But a lot of data is now coming out as more testing is available that the fatality of this is perhaps as low as mentioned. 0.10-0.5%.

Not it's not - can you link it?

The Austrians ran a large scale testing to see how prevalent it is in the population. Turned out that it's not that widespread. The asymptomatic % of population is clearly overestimated and not supported by evidence.

The Czechs are going to run large scale testing too in largest cities. We should know the results in May. I don't expect a high % prevalence in general population.

Mortality will likely be 1% minimum. No way it can be 0.1% that's impossible.

2u2me

wakka12 wrote: »

Two posters just above you 2u2me and normanoffside claimed it could be 0.1%! And, shockingly the doctor or whomever qualified person was speaking on primetime claimed it could be as low as that

No flu is actually around 0.1%, flu is in itself a major cause of death worldwide
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

0.1% is 10 times greater than .01%

joe_99

wakka12 wrote: »

0.1% of the population of Madrid has also died in the last 6 weeks also, but most likely 0.2% of the city population has died when counting home and nursing home deaths. Similar story for Lombardia

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103955/deaths-related-to-coronavirus-by-region-spain/

1% of Spain's population dies each year. Every 6 weeks this is about 0.1% of the population.

wakka12

joe_99 wrote: »

1% of Spain's population dies each year. Every 6 weeks this is about 0.1% of the population.

Mortality rates are 5-7x times higher than usual in areas of the world currently deeply affected by this virus

wakka12

2u2me wrote: »

0.1% is 10 times greater than .01%

Thanks...I was aware

2u2me

wakka12 wrote: »

Ah come on. Mortality rates are 5-7x times higher than usual in areas currently deeply affected by this virus

Again you're not refuting what the poster said. Mortality rates could well be much higher currently without what he said being false.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove a lockdown, or prove flu is better or worse or anything like that.

My point of interest here is that the Imperial College london report I linked earlier has been proven correct more and more ever since it's release. They estimated lower mortality rate then the 1% that was being guessed at at the time.

Hopefully it's right as this means more and more lives are saved with every slight drop in that percentage.

Jurgen Klopp

wakka12 wrote: »

Thats fair enough. It just seems extremely unlikely given the evidence..

Death rate in Germany is 2.95% It has tested more than 1 in every 50 citizens of the entire country, serological tests in Gangelt (one of Germany's hardest hit epicentre towns) showed 15% of that population had it. So that is the very highest of anywhere in Germany most likely. So Germany's mortality rate is likely quite representative, it's healthcare is not overwhelmed..South Korea the other country doing the highest number of tests in the world and without an overwhelmed healthcare system also reports a death rate of similar around 2.15%

As I said before, I dont understand how many people would need to die before there is still people saying it is like the flu. There is a lot of proof that is a lot more dangerous than flu. Literally every 1 in 400 residents in london has died from this virus over the last 4 weeks...

Yet despite this you are completely leaving out the fact that these deaths rates your talking are based completely off official confirmed cases v deaths

Any 0.5% or the 0.37% we've mentioned are from discussing the German and Icelandic studies which are based off the possible numbers of people infected who are asymptomatic or minor symptoms who wouldn't even qualify for a test here or in the UK for example. The UK only test those presenting to hospital, here we only test hospital or a high symptom threshold. It's more than 0.1% for god's sake norman and shine were just posting what was on prime time, tweet them if it upsets you no one here has claimed it.

Google gives the population of London as 8,982,000 the UK has 13,729 deaths. Even if you applied her entire national death count to just the London population it's 1 in 654, where are you getting your figure of 1 in 400?

ShineOn7

Via Kermit in another thread;




What Merkel told the German population today to prepare them for the long haul

If one person infects one other person, we can cope with that. If one person infects 1.1 people, our system collapses in October. If one person infects 1.2 people, it will collapse in July. And if one person infects 1.3 people, it will collapse in June.

Jaysus. There goes my short filled optimism from earlier

Hibernation till a vaccine arrives anyone?

BloodBath

wakka12 wrote: »

Its not an anomally though

0.2% of the populationof Brussels has died
Over 0.1% of the population of Madrid has died
0.15% of the population of NYC has died
0.1% of the population of London has died
0.05% of the population of the Ile de France region has died

And that is just what it is currently, still all right in the thick of an epidemic.

All within the space of 5-6 weeks, in the case of London and MAdrid, this figure includes only hospital deaths

Its not an anomally, it is clearly simply a dangerous disease. I seriously dont know how many people have to die before there is consensus that its...not flu..like jesus christ..its literally killed about 20x times more peple than flu does in an entire year in several major western cities

Do you ever stop with your fail mathematics. You have proven time and again that you don't have a clue how to calculate percentages or use statistics.

I'll take 1 example as I'm not going to waste my time calculating everything you have done wrong here but I'm guessing every single 1 of your figures has made the same mistake.

You said 0.15% of the population of NYC has died.

The current population of new York is roughly 9 million people. 16 thousand have died. That's 0.018. A pretty massive difference.

wakka12

BloodBath wrote: »

Do you ever stop with your fail mathematics. You have proven time and again that you don't have a clue how to calculate percentages or use statistics.

I'll take 1 example as I'm not going to waste my time calculating everything you have done wrong here but I'm guessing every single 1 of your figures has made the same mistake.

You said 0.15% of the population of NYC has died.

The current population of new York is roughly 9 million people. 16 thousand have died. That's 0.018. A pretty massive difference.

Well that is pretty embarassing ..

0.018% of 9 million is 1620

Thankfully you didnt waste your time on further wrong calculations!