The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

BloodBath

wakka12 wrote: »

Well that is pretty embarassing ..

0.018% of 9 million is 1620

Thankfully you didnt waste your time on further wrong calculations!

Whoops. Easy to leave a 0 off isn't it Time for bed. You win this time.

Widdensushi

surely the new York figure is for new York state 20 million population ?

wakka12

Widdensushi wrote: »

surely the new York figure is for new York state 20 million population ?

It is, Bloodbath is the one who divided that figure of 16,000 by the 9 million

11,500 have died in NYC. Which is 0.13% of the population of the city

Deaths in New York state overally are 16500 which is 0.085% of the state population

igCorcaigh

https://twitter.com/GeorgeLeeRTE/status/1251064522938474496?s=19

ShineOn7

How accurate has Professor Nolan been so far?

iguana

wakka12 wrote: »

Well that is pretty embarassing ..

0.018% of 9 million is 1620

Thankfully you didnt waste your time on further wrong calculations!

Embarrassing all round. The 16k figure is for New York state not city. Population 19.45m.

wakka12

iguana wrote: »

Embarrassing all round. The 16k figure is for New York state not city. Population 19.45m.

OMG. Go read my last post before wrongly calling me out thanks, the figures are correct

wakka12 wrote: »

It is, Bloodbath is the one who divided that figure of 16,000 by the 9 million

11,500 have died in NYC. Which is 0.13% of the population of the city

Deaths in New York state overally are 16500 which is 0.085% of the state population

As a mod I hope youll remove your post, I never ever claimed 16,500 died in NYC. Another poster who wrongly interpreted my original post created this incorrect figure

IAMAMORON

wakka12 wrote: »

Literally every 1 in 400 residents in london has died from this virus over the last 4 weeks...

If you take the population of London at 8.9 million, 1 in 400 is over 22,000. That does not seem correct? I respect that London is an epicentre, but at this point all major UK conurbations have a problem. There is currently almost 14,000 deaths in the UK as a whole, so 1 in 400 cannot be correct?

I fairness I am finding it difficult to track down official London figures currently, I have checked the ONS website but their stats are only end of March. Either way 1 in 400 cannot be correct.

IAMAMORON

I think it is also worth stating that bickering over statistics is very counterproductive. There is a complete phuckfest of data out there on the web, it is easy to be misinformed.

Given the infancy of the outbreak and Chinese porkies it is easy to see how info can be misrepresented. I try to look at everything twice and add a couple of tablespoons of gut and gumption before I post anything, you really need to fathom stuff before posting, there is too much scope for over and under estimations.

Currently I am looking for patterns and I am interested in possible viral dilutions through mutations, it has to be a factor. I also think that the Swedish non lockdown is intriguing and I am also interested in seeing how the virus is surviving at high temperatures. It certainly could not and has not cut its' teeth yet in equatorial countries, if heat was not a factor it surely would be rampant in the southern hemisphere? It isn't yet? Or … more worryingly are developing countries simply ill prepared and a sitting duck for this pandemic? It is all well and good smugly bashing the UK and the US for mishandling the epidemic, but if they got it wrong I would hate to imagine Russia, Brazil, Nigeria, the Congo or Indonesia down the line?

Cupatae

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I think it is also worth stating that bickering over statistics is very counterproductive. There is a complete phuckfest of data out there on the web, it is easy to be misinformed.

Given the infancy of the outbreak and Chinese porkies it is easy to see how info can be misrepresented. I try to look at everything twice and add a couple of tablespoons of gut and gumption before I post anything, you really need to fathom stuff before posting, there is too much scope for over and under estimations.

Currently I am looking for patterns and I am interested in possible viral dilutions through mutations, it has to be a factor. I also think that the Swedish non lockdown is intriguing and I am also interested in seeing how the virus is surviving at high temperatures. It certainly could not and has not cut its' teeth yet in equatorial countries, if heat was not a factor it surely would be rampant in the southern hemisphere? It isn't yet? Or … more worryingly are developing countries simply ill prepared and a sitting duck for this pandemic? It is all well and good smugly bashing the UK and the US for mishandling the epidemic, but if they got it wrong I would hate to imagine Russia, Brazil, Nigeria, the Congo or Indonesia down the line?

The bottom line is we (People on boards) dont need to know most of the statistics. I dont get why people obsess over them, its weird tbh.

normanoffside

Cupatae wrote: »

The bottom line is we (People on boards) dont need to know most of the statistics. I dont get why people obsess over them, its weird tbh.

Then maybe best you keep out of the thread and let people who are interested in them discuss it?

IAMAMORON

Cupatae wrote: »

The bottom line is we (People on boards) dont need to know most of the statistics. I dont get why people obsess over them, its weird tbh.

Well this thread is titled

" The maths of it all and what is means to Ireland"

I think it is safe to assume that the thread is going to encompass some statistical data.... sorry to disappoint you.

Also , it is a mathematical fact that you cannot speak for " we " as in the "people on boards" collectively, it is poor grammar for starters.... but also a virtual impossibility that you can speak for the current 3,595 other users.

Given you find it " weird " that other people would be interested in stats I suggest you investigate your own assumptions? TBH.

Like it or not maths will be a very important factor in getting this country out of this crisis.

Jurgen Klopp

normanoffside wrote: »

Then maybe best you keep out of the thread and let people who are interested in them discuss it?

Same lads running around with their 21% death rate :pac:

alwald

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Same lads running around with their 21% death rate :pac:

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would understand the difference between projected death rate and closed case death rate.
While the projected death rate is meant to be low, in the context of lifting restrictions, looking at various figures, including closed case death rate which is 21% unless you can prove otherwise, is an important figure as it shows the death rate of those infected and tested, in other words those with symptoms/vulnerable population tested...I would add an emoji as they are trendy but I am on my phone.

millb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

If you take the population of London at 8.9 million, 1 in 400 is over 22,000. That does not seem correct? I respect that London is an epicentre, but at this point all major UK conurbations have a problem. There is currently almost 14,000 deaths in the UK as a whole, so 1 in 400 cannot be correct?

I fairness I am finding it difficult to track down official London figures currently, I have checked the ONS website but their stats are only end of March. Either way 1 in 400 cannot be correct.

FT newspaper has a lot of London and NY etc type data and graphs.

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

SOURCES
The data for these maps come from a dashboard maintained by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering, which has combined data from the World Health Organization, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It also incorporates data from the Chinese medical community website DXY, which aggregates live situation reports from the Chinese National Health Commission and local CCDC. Additional data are also supplied by Worldometers.

Hmmzis

Some modelling scenarios for the most likely outcomes of this all and some long term prognosis modelling on the subject. The main takeaway: even if this thing becomes seasonal it's far from being an apocalypse.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/14/science.abb5793

It's varying shades of ugly though, getting paler over time.

BloodBath

alwald wrote: »

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would understand the difference between projected death rate and closed case death rate.
While the projected death rate is meant to be low, in the context of lifting restrictions, looking at various figures, including closed case death rate which is 21% unless you can prove otherwise, is an important figure as it shows the death rate of those infected and tested, in other words those with symptoms/vulnerable population tested...I would add an emoji as they are trendy but I am on my phone.

The closed death rate of hospitalised flu patients is around 10% as well. Seems high but we know the total death rate is around 0.1%.

It's also artificially inflated by recoveries not being tested as much. It's not a very useful figure at all to be honest.

alwald

BloodBath wrote: »

The closed death rate of hospitalised flu patients is around 10% as well. Seems high but we know the total death rate is around 0.1%.

It's also artificially inflated by recoveries not being tested as much. It's not a very useful figure at all to be honest.

That's the key difference, we know for the seasonal flu as it happens every year and we have plenty of data, unlike C-19.

in around mid February, before the EU wave of C-19, the death rate of closed cases was 6% only but it jumped quite significantly to 21%. We can take this further if we analyse this figure as of today for Italy (35%), Spain (21%) and France (35%).

I think there is some learning from these figures as they can be impacted by the climate, the genes, the treatment given, age groups, previous vaccines that were mandatory in one country but not another...and the list is long.

Let's round up some figures, the world population is 7.8 billion and we will consider that there is 100% infection. 6% (or 468 million people) of those who contract the virus will have a severe illness, and thus will be part of the cases tested, Taking the 21% death rate on closed cases means that 98 millions will die.

On the other hand if we take the projected death rate of 0.3% then the total death should be 23.5 millions and 1% will give us 78 millions deaths which are both lower than than the death rate of closed cases.

I am certainly not saying that one figure is more accurate than the other, but discarding some figures just because we don't see any value in them isn't wise as we can learn something from all of them.

recyclebin

Why are all those aged 65+ all grouped into one statistic on the government website (gov.ie)?
Why not put them in groups of 10 years like everyone else? 65-74, 75-84, 85-94, 95-105, 105+.

IAMAMORON

alwald wrote: »

That's the key difference, we know for the seasonal flu as it happens every year and we have plenty of data, unlike C-19.

in around mid February, before the EU wave of C-19, the death rate of closed cases was 6% only but it jumped quite significantly to 21%. We can take this further if we analyse this figure as of today for Italy (35%), Spain (21%) and France (35%).

I think there is some learning from these figures as they can be impacted by the climate, the genes, the treatment given, age groups, previous vaccines that were mandatory in one country but not another...and the list is long.

Let's round up some figures, the world population is 7.8 billion and we will consider that there is 100% infection. 6% (or 468 million people) of those who contract the virus will have a severe illness, and thus will be part of the cases tested, Taking the 21% death rate on closed cases means that 98 millions will die.

On the other hand if we take the projected death rate of 0.3% then the total death should be 23.5 millions and 1% will give us 78 millions deaths which are both lower than than the death rate of closed cases.

I am certainly not saying that one figure is more accurate than the other, but discarding some figures just because we don't see any value in them isn't wise as we can learn something from all of them.

I would be careful what you are extrapolating there. Given that we have currently just under 150,000 global deaths your estimation of 98 million is just not working for me.

You could not be possibly speculating that amount of deaths at this point? On Irish figures alone using either extrapolation you are talking 61,000 deaths in the Republic, not tonight Josephine. I have no idea how or where you are arriving at the 78 million either? Sorry no sale.

alwald

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I would be careful what you are extrapolating there. Given that we have currently just under 150,000 global deaths your estimation of 98 million is just not working for me.

You could not be possibly speculating that amount of deaths at this point? On Irish figures alone using either extrapolation you are talking 61,000 deaths in the Republic, not tonight Josephine. I have no idea how or where you are arriving at the 78 million either? Sorry no sale.

Those figures are based on a 100% infection of the world population just to make the maths simple, but the same logic and same difference apply regardless of the percentage of infection worldwide.

IAMAMORON

alwald wrote: »

Those figures are based on a 100% infection of the world population just to make the maths simple, but the same logic and same difference apply regardless of the percentage of infection worldwide.

I seriously doubt it. Far too pessimistic.

What are you basing your estimation on exactly? What figures?

normanoffside

More than 1,000 french sailors test positive on board a navy Ship (2,000 +population)

1 in ICU (0.1% of those infected or 0.05% of those on the ship)
20 Hospitalised (2% of those infected or 1% of those on the ship)

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2020/04/17/breaking-news/france-finds-more-than-1000-coronavirus-cases-on-aircraft-carrier/

https://www.france24.com/en/20200417-france-reports-40-of-aircraft-carrier-group-crew-test-positive-for-covid-19

ShineOn7

Hmmzis wrote: »

Some modelling scenarios for the most likely outcomes of this all and some long term prognosis modelling on the subject. The main takeaway: even if this thing becomes seasonal it's far from being an apocalypse.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/14/science.abb5793

It's varying shades of ugly though, getting paler over time.

Huge, huge article. What's the short version of it breakdown wise?

alex_cronin

Without a vaccine we will be playing the long game based on the number below, I would welcome additional links to models and details on hospital beds, ICU beds, average lengths of patient stay. If someone is kind maybe they could PM me and I can send them some links to post related to below. Please let me know any errors.

So with a death rate of between
* 0.37% (German study - does not appear to be peer reviewed)
* 1.38% (lancet.com)
and a population of 4.9 million - central statistics office

And an R0 between 2.2 and 5.7 (worst case) and 70 to 82% to achieve heard immunity (US CDC)
We are at day 69 since our first case (RTE News) -*** should had said 49 days **

If we do not wait for a vaccine and we want the current level of patient care
* 55’200(4.9m*82%*1.38%) to 12’691 (4.9m *70%*0.37%) dead to achieve heard immunity and
* 160'720 (4.9m*82%*4%) to 137'200(4.9m*70%*4%) ICU beds assuming 4% goes through ICU
* 642'880 (4.9m*82%*16%) to 548'800(4.9m*70%*16%) non ICU beds assuming an additional 16% goes to hospital

Health Minister Simon Harris has stated that his priority is to save lives which is a very ambiguous statement which could mean a number of things not limited to
* Stay inside as long as we can and wait for the vaccine - unlikely as we will get civil unrest
* Some increased in our ICU beds and increase our R0 until they are approaching full - likely as it is a balance between the two
* Dramatically increase our ICU beds and increase our R0 until they are approaching full - unlikely at the beginning as it will take time for us to become comfortable with higher death number

I think our nation currently value preserving current life over economic recovery and death via poverty/mental heath and so the number of ICU and hospital beds will dictate how much we lift restrictions as people dying without being able to access these facilities will be unpalatable to us. If there are another forums discussing this please kindly direct me.

normanoffside

alex_cronin wrote: »

Without a vaccine we will be playing the long game based on the number below, I would welcome additional links to models and details on hospital beds, ICU beds, average lengths of patient stay. If someone is kind maybe they could PM me and I can send them some links to post related to below. Please let me know any errors.

So with a death rate of between
* 0.37% (German study - does not appear to be peer reviewed)
* 1.38% (lancet.com)
and a population of 4.9 million - central statistics office

And an R0 between 2.2 and 5.7 (worst case) and 70 to 82% to achieve heard immunity (US CDC)
We are at day 69 since our first case (RTE News)

If we do not wait for a vaccine and we want the current level of patient care
* 55’200(4.9m*82%*1.38%) to 12’691 (4.9m *70%*0.37%) dead to achieve heard immunity and
* 160'720 (4.9m*82%*4%) to 137'200(4.9m*70%*4%) ICU beds assuming 4% goes through ICU
* 642'880 (4.9m*82%*16%) to 548'800(4.9m*70%*16%) non ICU beds assuming an additional 16% goes to hospital

Health Minister Simon Harris has stated that his priority is to save lives which is a very ambiguous statement which could mean a number of things not limited to
* Stay inside as long as we can and wait for the vaccine - unlikely as we will get civil unrest
* Some increased in our ICU beds and increase our R0 until they are approaching full - likely as it is a balance between the two
* Dramatically increase our ICU beds and increase our R0 until they are approaching full - unlikely at the beginning as it will take time for us to become comfortable with higher death number

I think our nation currently value preserving current life over economic recovery and death via poverty/mental heath and so the number of ICU and hospital beds will dictate how much we lift restrictions as people dying without being able to access these facilities will be unpalatable to us. If there are another forums discussing this please kindly direct me.

Clearly the most important thing to do right now is to protect the vulnerable, especially those in nursing homes.

Everything else is under control.

IAMAMORON

alex_cronin wrote: »

Without a vaccine we will be playing the long game based on the number below, I would welcome additional links to models and details on hospital beds, ICU beds, average lengths of patient stay. If someone is kind maybe they could PM me and I can send them some links to post related to below. Please let me know any errors.

So with a death rate of between
* 0.37% (German study - does not appear to be peer reviewed)
* 1.38% (lancet.com)
and a population of 4.9 million - central statistics office

And an R0 between 2.2 and 5.7 (worst case) and 70 to 82% to achieve heard immunity (US CDC)
We are at day 69 since our first case (RTE News)

If we do not wait for a vaccine and we want the current level of patient care
* 55’200(4.9m*82%*1.38%) to 12’691 (4.9m *70%*0.37%) dead to achieve heard immunity and
* 160'720 (4.9m*82%*4%) to 137'200(4.9m*70%*4%) ICU beds assuming 4% goes through ICU
* 642'880 (4.9m*82%*16%) to 548'800(4.9m*70%*16%) non ICU beds assuming an additional 16% goes to hospital

If you could elaborate on your core data here, the 4.9 m is fine ( republic population ) , but what probabilities are you basing the other percentages on?

The .037% German number is only one hot spot in one country in the world over a finite 5 week period. Any extrapolations thereof are ignoring the propensity for scenarios deviation, this virus is not a constant, any historical data used to forecast future scenarios need to anticipate change.

Day 69 is not correct either. I have sunday 1st of March, which puts us currently on day 49. You're missing 20 days?

normanoffside

Another study in California suggests that the infection rate is at least 50 times higher than the official figures meaning the mortality rate is 0.2% at worst.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/antibody-study-suggests-coronavirus-is-far-more-widespread-than-previously-thought

IAMAMORON

normanoffside wrote: »

Another study in California suggests that the infection rate is at least 50 times higher than the official figures meaning the mortality rate is 0.2% at worst.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/antibody-study-suggests-coronavirus-is-far-more-widespread-than-previously-thought

The sooner we can introduce Antibody testing in Ireland the better. It is the only way out if no vaccine becomes available. @ 50 x we have had 700,000 infections and @ 80 x we have had just over under 1.1 million. I am basing this on our current infected at 13,980 This is just an assumption using the Stanford extrapolation but at such infections rates we get a current death rate of between 4 ticks and 7 ticks. Seems very low but would give a absolute national rate in the Republic of between 2,322 and 3,715. I have had these figure ballpark in my head. That is still a lot of dead people to come regrettably, even at such a low rate.

Put it this way I would be more comfortable with these numbers given what we currently have, we will know in a couple of weeks. This could all change dramatically however if the reversal of the lockdown is mishandled. Ireland will not have anything like the Herd immunity which the US, UK, Brazil or Sweden have built up in how they have manged the initial phases of the virus. The argument over timing of lockdowns will go on for ever.

normanoffside

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ireland will not have anything like the Herd immunity which the US, UK, Brazil or Sweden have built up in how they have manged the initial phases of the virus. The argument over timing of lockdowns will go on for ever.

That's the thing. Long term there are pros and cons to each approach