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 :)

ICU Figures

  • 25-08-2020 12:56pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,641 ✭✭✭ Sweet.Science


    When i looked this morning there was 5 . 5 in a population of 5 million

    This is even after a significant increase in numbers in the last 3 weeks.

    First it was that we would see the affects of these increases after 7-10 days, then 2-3 weeks. Now its a month

    If in 2 weeks time the figures in ICU haven't increased significantly can we all agree this virus has weakened and get on with our lives?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,101 ✭✭✭✭ Zaph


    It hasn't weakened, it's simply that most of the people contracting it now are younger and healthier, and are therefore more able to fight the infection than an elderly person would be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,120 ✭✭✭ lee_baby_simms


    Zaph wrote: »
    It hasn't weakened, it's simply that most of the people contracting it now are younger and healthier

    So its exclusively young people and not the at risk that are now getting it in Spain, France, UK, Ireland, New York, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,089 ✭✭✭✭ Oranage2


    When i looked this morning there was 5 . 5 in a population of 5 million

    This is even after a significant increase in numbers in the last 3 weeks.

    First it was that we would see the affects of these increases after 7-10 days, then 2-3 weeks. Now its a month

    If in 2 weeks time the figures in ICU haven't increased significantly can we all agree this virus has weakened and get on with our lives?

    Just agree to it a don't bother listening to all those egg heads studying it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭ Sconsey


    So its exclusively young people and not the at risk that are now getting it in Spain, France, UK, Ireland, New York, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden?

    You can read the recent infection stats as well as anyone else, what do they say?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,357 ✭✭✭ jacdaniel2014


    The illness is nowhere near as bad as was predicted back in Jan. The models and the experts were predicting doomsday more or less. I remember people talking about deaths in ireland and mentioning figures like 30000 - 100000 dead.

    I think we can all see by now that thats not the case. The illness is mainly dangerous to the nursing home community and elderly people in poor health.

    Some people will try to act like lockdown prevented all of those deaths. It didn't. Countries that didn't lockdown at all didn't have body bags piling up in the streets. Perhaps we'd have a few more deaths without lockdown. But we would have been better balanced in lots of other areas.

    Our over reaction looks outrageous in hindsight.

    We could let this illness rip through the population and death rate will be extremely low.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭ froog


    It shouldn't be too hard to compare current ICU rate versus expected ICU rate of that age group from back in april/may.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭ gozunda


    The illness is nowhere near as bad as was predicted back in Jan. The models and the experts were predicting doomsday more or less. I remember people talking about deaths in ireland and mentioning figures like 30000 - 100000 dead.

    I think we can all see by now that thats not the case. The illness is mainly dangerous to the nursing home community and elderly people in poor health.

    Some people will try to act like lockdown prevented all of those deaths. It didn't. Countries that didn't lockdown at all didn't have body bags piling up in the streets. Perhaps we'd have a few more deaths without lockdown. But we would have been better balanced in lots of other areas.

    Our over reaction looks outrageous in hindsight.

    We could let this illness rip through the population and death rate will be extremely low.

    Really? Well I don't know about bodybags but in Brazil it was reported that they were running out of coffins - there was no comprehensive lockdown.


    Glad you're not directing operations anywhere tbh ...
    On 20 June, Brazil became only the second country to pass one million cases and that number has continued to rise steadily. Experts say it is likely much higher due to a lack of testing....

    But despite the rise in cases there was still no national lockdown. States and cities adopted their own measures, but these were met by protests and data later showed that compliance lessened as time went on....

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53429430


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭ wally1990


    The illness is nowhere near as bad as was predicted back in Jan. The models and the experts were predicting doomsday more or less. I remember people talking about deaths in ireland and mentioning figures like 30000 - 100000 dead.

    I think we can all see by now that thats not the case. The illness is mainly dangerous to the nursing home community and elderly people in poor health.

    Some people will try to act like lockdown prevented all of those deaths. It didn't. Countries that didn't lockdown at all didn't have body bags piling up in the streets. Perhaps we'd have a few more deaths without lockdown. But we would have been better balanced in lots of other areas.

    Our over reaction looks outrageous in hindsight.

    We could let this illness rip through the population and death rate will be extremely low.


    Was it though?

    The memory of army trucks of 1000 a day dead in Italy was a sign of how bad it can be

    I'm for one glad so we lock down early enough

    I look at the figure of 5 mentioned by OP as a measure of success


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,120 ✭✭✭ lee_baby_simms


    Sconsey wrote: »
    You can read the recent infection stats as well as anyone else, what do they say?

    Well can we take Spain as an example?

    The IFR of coronavirus (COVID-19) in Spain as of May 22, 2020 for the over 70s was 19.3%

    Now if we look at detected infections in Spain from 10 May to 20 August for the same age group we get the following.

    14,531 infected were over 70 years of age and sadly 501 died.

    That then gives us an IFR 3.4%

    So old people are still getting this virus but the IFR has reduced to 1/5 of what it was in March/April.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭ Woody79


    Zaph wrote: »
    It hasn't weakened, it's simply that most of the people contracting it now are younger and healthier, and are therefore more able to fight the infection than an elderly person would be.

    First person to get infected in Ireland was a farmer in Cork in his early 40s with no known underlying health conditions.

    He presented in a Cork hospital in February with symptoms and was dead a few weeks later. It was several months later before it was discovered he had covid 19. How was it a relatively young healthy man was the first known person to get it and died also. Many people in his age group category are not even having symptoms now. Only 3 cases out of 80 had symptoms in the meat factory in Kildare. Health professionals are not going to tell us its weakening but it does seem odd the first person to get it in Ireland died and was relatively young and healthy by all accounts.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭ tobefrank321


    During the lockdown, the young were locked away while many of the elderly weren't properly protected, eg in nursing homes where the virus spread rapidly.
    Now its the other way around, the young are out and about while the elderly are better protected.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭ tobefrank321


    Woody79 wrote: »
    First person to get infected in Ireland was a farmer in Cork in his early 40s with no known underlying health conditions.

    He presented in a Cork hospital in February with symptoms and was dead a few weeks later. It was several months later before it was discovered he had covid 19. How was it a relatively young healthy man was the first known person to get it and died also. Many people in his age group category are not even having symptoms now. Only 3 cases out of 80 had symptoms in the meat factory in Kildare. Health professionals are not going to tell us its weakening but it does seem odd the first person to get it in Ireland died and was relatively young and healthy by all accounts.

    Every photo I have seen in newspapers of a covid 19 survivor or deceased who "had no known underlying health conditions" but ended up in ICU, tended to be massively overweight.

    Many people go around without ever visiting a doctor yet may have significant underlying conditions. Many underlying conditions are well hidden and only show up when you get infected with something else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,120 ✭✭✭ lee_baby_simms


    During the lockdown, the young were locked away while many of the elderly weren't properly protected, eg in nursing homes where the virus spread rapidly.
    Now its the other way around, the young are out and about while the elderly are better protected.

    That doesn't quite explain it to me.

    Sticking with the example of Spain, the IFR for 60-70 year old demographic during the first wave up to May was 5%.

    Since May the IFR for the exact same age group is 0.4%. 10,021 infections. Thats a tenfold decrease outside of typical care home age demographic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,162 ✭✭✭✭ NIMAN


    I wonder some day will someone be brave enough to do a good analysis and documentary of the entire CV19 story, and see if the total lockdown/deaths/schools/crashed economies etc were totally justified.

    And publish real death figures and hospital usage due to CV19, as we know many of the hospital staff were working with few patients.

    OK I know these were not high in part to the lockdown, but since we stopped the economy to save the old, how come we killed so many of them needlessly?


  • Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭ treade1


    A realistic synopsis of where we currently stand from an Oxford Professor
    https://youtu.be/nHqz-Wk3hus


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭ tobefrank321


    That doesn't quite explain it to me.

    Sticking with the example of Spain, the IFR for 60-70 year old demographic during the first wave up to May was 5%.

    Since May the IFR for the exact same age group is 0.4%. 10,021 infections. Thats a tenfold decrease outside of typical care home age demographic.

    I don't have exact answers, but to speculate, back in the spring it hit nursing homes badly as there were inadequate protections and it wiped out the very sick and vulnerable.

    With more recent infections, its hitting the healthy elderly in the community.

    Once you properly protect nursing homes, the IFR is going to go down dramatically and that seems to be the case in most countries.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,993 ✭✭✭ GooglePlus


    We're testing more now, so picking up cases we didn't earlier in the year.

    So you can't really compare hospital admissions yet, as we may not even be in February yet in terms of looking back at case numbers.

    We had way more cases than recorded earlier in the year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭ ectoraige


    We are learning much more about how to treat and manage patients, helping reduce the number who end up in ICU. In the early days nobody knew which antivirals might help and which would do more damage. Ventilation strategies were untested and the nature of the pathologies involved unstudied.

    The time gained by lockdown measures have been really important, we are still scratching the surface on this thing but the fact that ICU numbers are low is because we've been given the breathing space to get a handle on things.

    There are people alive now who would have been dead had they caught COVID-19 a few months earlier.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,120 ✭✭✭ lee_baby_simms


    I don't have exact answers, but to speculate, back in the spring it hit nursing homes badly as there were inadequate protections and it wiped out the very sick and vulnerable.

    With more recent infections, its hitting the healthy elderly in the community.

    Once you properly protect nursing homes, the IFR is going to go down dramatically and that seems to be the case in most countries.

    Yeah I can't argue with that but then we surely have to ask the question, how dangerous is this virus right now, outside of a care home setting?

    Are current measures really justified against all the collateral, indirect covid deaths that are only going to build over the next few years?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭ tobefrank321


    Yeah I can't argue with that but then we surely have to ask the question, how dangerous is this virus right now, outside of a care home setting?

    Are current measures really justified against all the collateral, indirect covid deaths that are only going to build over the next few years?

    I'm not discounting the milder strain argument though.

    Most people who ended up in ICU back in the spring weren't elderly.

    I agree its strange how numbers in ICU have come down massively. When we had far lower infections back in March a lot of them ended up in hospital or ICU.

    They need to start up cancer screening right away if they haven't already. There's definitely no justification now for not resuming.

    The whole cv19 thing is a mystery, how it was lethal in the spring and now not as lethal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭ Woody79


    Every photo I have seen in newspapers of a covid 19 survivor or deceased who "had no known underlying health conditions" but ended up in ICU, tended to be massively overweight.

    Many people go around without ever visiting a doctor yet may have significant underlying conditions. Many underlying conditions are well hidden and only show up when you get infected with something else.

    Still seems odd first known case also died of it aged 42 and hundreds now that age don't even know they are sick until tested. This guy was a working man, not an infirm person in a nursing home where disease and infection are commonplace due to their vulnerabilities.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,120 ✭✭✭ lee_baby_simms


    The whole cv19 thing is a mystery, how it was lethal in the spring and now not as lethal.

    There certainly seems to be a seasonality to it alright, if that is the case then it will get worse over the winter but with a much smaller at risk population to infect sadly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭ Woody79


    ectoraige wrote: »
    We are learning much more about how to treat and manage patients, helping reduce the number who end up in ICU. In the early days nobody knew which antivirals might help and which would do more damage. Ventilation strategies were untested and the nature of the pathologies involved unstudied.

    The time gained by lockdown measures have been really important, we are still scratching the surface on this thing but the fact that ICU numbers are low is because we've been given the breathing space to get a handle on things.

    There are people alive now who would have been dead had they caught COVID-19 a few months earlier.

    That last sentence is a serious understatement. If we had same lockdown as UK in terms of deaths add another 3000 souls to our death toll.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭ tobefrank321


    Woody79 wrote: »
    Still seems odd first known case also died of it aged 42 and hundreds now that age don't even know they are sick until tested.

    Fair point. Something does appear to be happening, milder strain maybe. You'd definitely expect more in ICU these days.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,357 ✭✭✭ jacdaniel2014


    Woody79 wrote: »
    That last sentence is a serious understatement. If we had same lockdown as UK in terms of deaths add another 3000 souls to our death toll.

    Blatant speculation in both posts.
    UK went into lockdown a week after us... 3000 extra deaths in a week?

    The only difference between now and April is we don't have 235 clusters in nursing homes.

    With our testing and tracing, thankfully we won't have 235 clusters in nursing homes again.

    So the death rate will remain very low.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭ tobefrank321


    GooglePlus wrote: »
    We're testing more now, so picking up cases we didn't earlier in the year.

    So you can't really compare hospital admissions yet, as we may not even be in February yet in terms of looking back at case numbers.

    We had way more cases than recorded earlier in the year.

    I remember back at the peak some days there might be 200 cases and 6 of those end up in ICU. On days when there were 500 cases, 10 could end up in ICU. I know there's a lag between cases and ICU admissions although back then there was also a huge lag in reporting of cases - eg German Lab results.

    Now a days we have on average 150 cases a day and maybe 1 a day going into ICU.

    So either its becoming milder, its hitting those with no serious underlying conditions, and who are much younger, or else back in April we were missing vast numbers of cases and in reality thousands of people were being infected daily with a small number ending up in ICU.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭ tobefrank321


    Blatant speculation in both posts.
    UK went into lockdown a week after us... 3000 extra deaths in a week?

    The only difference between now and April is we don't have 235 clusters in nursing homes.

    With our testing and tracing, thankfully we won't have 235 clusters in nursing homes again.

    So the death rate will remain very low.

    We can't really compare ourselves to the UK. They have something like 3 times our population density and maybe 40% more over 65s. Not apples and oranges.

    But agreed about nursing homes. Once we put in proper measures that removed a large source of deaths.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭ Woody79


    Blatant speculation in both posts.
    UK went into lockdown a week after us... 3000 extra deaths in a week?

    The only difference between now and April is we don't have 235 clusters in nursing homes.

    With our testing and tracing, thankfully we won't have 235 clusters in nursing homes again.

    So the death rate will remain very low.

    Seculative by you :pac: :pac:. Was circulating in London in large numbers in January February and they were one of the last countries to lockdown in europe. London a bigger European hub than dublin. They should have locked down before or when Italy locked down. Academic at this point. Its about the future. RIP to all who died at that time. It was a very scary time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭ Scuid Mhór


    Our over reaction looks outrageous in hindsight.

    That's because our reaction was successful. You have a pretty short memory if you can't remember how bad things were looking in Italy and in Spain just before we registered our first official case. That could have very easily been us - and it could have very easily been worse for us as well had we not acted when we did.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭ gozunda


    NIMAN wrote: »
    I wonder some day will someone be brave enough to do a good analysis and documentary of the entire CV19 story, and see if the total lockdown/deaths/schools/crashed economies etc were totally justified.

    And publish real death figures and hospital usage due to CV19, as we know many of the hospital staff were working with few patients.

    OK I know these were not high in part to the lockdown, but since we stopped the economy to save the old, how come we killed so many of them needlessly?

    Simple answer - We didnt. Restictions were put in place to stop health services and medical resources been overrun and to protect healthcare staff on the fronline of Hospitals etc. AND most importantly to reduce the rate of infection.

    True that older people and those of all ages with underlying conditions are all at high risk from dying of Covid19.

    And true people in care homes were doubly at risk in that they could not isolate from others or care home staff.

    However it remains everyone is at risk of contracting it - and with Covid19 - there are no guarantees that it will either bypass you or only have a mild impact.

    What we now know is that the disease is highly contagious, appears to have long term impacts on many survivors regardless of age.

    We now have rising numbers of infected and we haven't even hit flu season. We've a long way to go yet imo.


Advertisement