Covid 19 Part XXIV-37,063 ROI (1,801 deaths) 12,886 NI (582 deaths) (02/10) Read OP

caveat emptor

Wolf359f wrote: »

Something is up, if he's not his usual doom-mongering self. We'll await today's figures for him to panic and spread fear.

Maybe he clicked that link? Who knows

blowitupref

robbiezero wrote: »

George very pleased with latest Dublin numbers on the News At 1. Says numbers might be topping out and message might be hitting home.

Surely far too early for the new restrictions to be having an impact.

How does he make that out? 136 cases per day average over the last 2 weeks and yesterday Dublin had 174 cases.

Tokyo

bb1234567 wrote: »

Currently in ICU in Spain at this very moment with COVID 1417

Spain seems to have a very different approach to Intensive Care....






links deleted.

Widdensushi

blowitupref wrote: »

How does he make that out? 136 cases per day average over the last 2 weeks and yesterday Dublin had 174 cases.

I presume he stole our beers

Away With The Fairies

Something else to watch out for after infection with covid. It can be the cause of diabetes.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200612172220.htm

What Username Guidelines

Widdensushi wrote: »

Which hospital is that

Bravo

amadangomor

amadangomor wrote: »

? Was sunny in Springtime but in some places was the dullest summer since records began.

Must get some Vit D into me alright.

Some. Unless you have a confirmed vitamin D deficiency, you should not routinely exceed the recommended daily allowances

eagle eye

Assetbacked wrote:

Any expert that has banged the drum of no COVID (ie McConkey, Scally, Ryan, Mills etc.) should not be followed as they have this as their dogma. Literally, to them, nothing else is worth doing. Therefore, any news article which quotes them is necessarily to be discounted. I mean, not even worth reading the point of the article if their quotes are used to convey the message.

How much experience have you dealing with viruses like this one?

It takes a worodwide response to get rid of the virus. It can be done in a country but it's very difficult. We had the opportunity to do here but it wasn't taken. All it would have taken was agreement to do the right things birth and south if the border and we could have been there.

Assetbacked wrote:

For example, McConkey's 5,000 cases per day by the end of October BS;

Well I'm no expert on the virus like McConkey but I've good math and I have that figure as likely by the third week of November if we don't act now.

What Username Guidelines

Harry Palmr wrote: »

June-August was the dullest Irish summer on record overall. The Spring was one of the most sunny ever recorded

Sorry, that’s what I mean, spring. Looks like lots of people picked this up end of feb, then through end March to May many people got their vit D topped up and numbers started going the right way. May have depleted through July and august.

Not really sure how efficiently vitamin D tops up and depletes tho, just wondering would it have been one aspect.

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

How much experience have you dealing with viruses like this one?

It takes a worodwide response to get rid of the virus. It can be done in a country but it's very difficult. We had the opportunity to do here but it wasn't taken. All it would have taken was agreement to do the right things birth and south if the border and we could have been there.


Well I'm no expert on the virus like McConkey but I've good math and I have that figure as likely by the third week of November if we don't act now.

Can you share your model?

froog

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could someone explain this:

USA death rate vs cases = 7,098k cases vs 205k deaths which gives 2.8% death rate.

UK figures 405 k cases vs 41.8 k deaths which gives 10.3 % death rate

While Ireland figures gives 33,444 cases vs 1,792 deaths which gives a 5.36 % death rate.

This makes me think these figures are not reliable at all. Either deaths are misreported or cases are misreported, or both.

A 4 to 1 ratio for the USA numbers vs the UK numbers looks suspicious.

These are Worldometer figures.

Just reflects how good testing is. UK have been bad for a while.

eagle eye

It's math.
x(t) = x0 (1 + r)t

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

It's math.
x(t) = x0 (1 + r)t

What assumptions did to make for r?

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

What assumptions did to make for r?

The weekly average of the last six weeks.

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

It's math.
x(t) = x0 (1 + r)t

Unless you have actual case numbers by specimen date and actual growth rate calculations then you can't make an educated calculation

TonyMaloney

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Unless you have actual case numbers by specimen date and actual growth rate calculations then you can't make an educated calculation

we can surely use the latest estimates from NPHET?

ACitizenErased

TonyMaloney wrote: »

we can surely use the latest estimates from NPHET?

We don't get cases by specimen date nor actual growth rate calculations, we get a rough estimate/range.

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

Unless you have actual case numbers by specimen date and actual growth rate calculations then you can't make an educated calculation

I'm taking all the information at hand making calculations off of them and then calculating the likely outcome.

As I said I'm not a virologist, I'm a mathematician.

I clearly stated this will happen if we don't do something. Every little thing that's done will change the numbers.

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm taking all the information at hand making calculations off of them and then calculating the likely outcome.

As I said I'm not a virologist, I'm a mathematician.

I clearly stated this will happen if we don't do something. Every little thing that's done will change the numbers.

As I said, if you were an actual 'mathematician' you would use cases by specimen date and use NPHET's modelling team's raw r calculations.

TonyMaloney

ACitizenErased wrote: »

We don't get cases by specimen date nor actual growth rate calculations, we get a rough estimate/range.

I'm pretty sure they use notification date for a lot of their projections.

Specimen date gives you a much more accurate graph historically, but if you try to make projections from it then you have to ignore at least the most recent week, as the data is incomplete.

ACitizenErased

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they use notification date for a lot of their projections.

Specimen date gives you a much more accurate graph historically, but if you try to make projections from it then you have to ignore at least the most recent week, as the data is incomplete.

They use that yes, we don't have that specific data, so none of us can make an accurate projection.

Gadgetman496

ACitizenErased wrote: »

As I said, if you were an actual 'mathematician' you would use cases by specimen date and use NPHET's modelling team's raw r calculations.

This thread appears to be all about one-upmanship and less about COVID.

If some users think they know so much, why don't they fix the problem?

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

The weekly average of the last six weeks.

Circa 1.5 then?

What about the time period?

ACitizenErased

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

This thread appears to be all about one-upmanship and & not about COVID.

If some users thing they know so much, why don't they fix the problem?

Nobody can make accurate projections because we don't have the raw data. Not sure why people keep preaching about their formulae to be honest.

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

As I said, if you were an actual 'mathematician' you would use cases by specimen date and use NPHET's modelling team's raw r calculations.

No, I'm using weekly data. The amount of cases per week, taking the increase percentage per week, getting the average increase for the last six weeks, as in being very conservative, and then using that to see where we are heading without any change.
I don't need any specialised data for that.
Do you actually know what you are talking about?

GooglePlus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Some. Unless you have a confirmed vitamin D deficiency, you should not routinely exceed the recommended daily allowances

Just be aware that the recommended daily intake level is 400-800iu per day but this isn't enough to maintain good levels of vitamin D and certainly not enough if you are deficient.

I recently got mine tested by the GP and I was at 56 nmo/l. According to the test, this was seen as sufficient as is anything between 30-125 nmo/l, but this is outdated.

According to Rhonda Patrick, a biochemist doing some really in depth research into the effects of Vitamin D on the body, 75 nmo/l is adequate, 72.5 - 50 nmo/l is inadequate and anything below 50 is deficient.

So even though I'm being told my levels are sufficient, I am actually bordering a deficiency.

She would recommend 4000-5000iu per day to build levels and likes to make clear that it is extremely difficult to raise levels to the point where they cause a toxic effect.

You should look her up and listen to some of her podcasts. She's one of the most intelligent people my ears have ever had the privilege to listen to.

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

No, I'm using weekly data. The amount of cases per week, taking the increase percentage per week, getting the average increase for the last six weeks, as in being very conservative, and then using that to see where we are heading without any change.
I don't need any specialised data for that.
Do you actually know what you are talking about?

Weekly reported data contains cross over from previous weeks, and therefore can't be used for raw calculations.
I study statistics as part of my university degree, so yes, I do.
And as I said before, I'd be happy to take a look at your calculations.

TonyMaloney

ACitizenErased wrote: »

They use that yes, we don't have that specific data, so none of us can make an accurate projection.

I'm saying (guessing) that they don't use specimen date for projections.
That data is in constant flux, and incomplete by its very nature.

They could ignore the most recent days/weeks I suppose, and make projections based on old data - but during a pandemic with exponential growth that seems like folly to me.

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Here's the latest epidemiological date chart of our cases



I'm going to stop posting or even paying any attention to these charts as they're very misleading. In the long term it will give us a nice picture of how covid moved through the population, but in the near to medium term it's of no use.

It makes it look like we had a day of testing very recently where we found only 70 cases or so and that the our current outbreak is in sharp decline. We didn't. It's not.
There is a significant amount of known cases yet to be analysed, sorted and added to this graph.

This is the basis for what Carl Heneghan and the rest of those chancers at the CEBM based their recent article on - claiming that Spain had peaked and cases were in rapid decline.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/epidemic-curves-organised-by-reporting-date-and-specimen-date/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-covid-really-rising-in-spain-a-look-at-the-data

They are utter shams and should be ignored.

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

Weekly reported data contains cross over from previous weeks, and therefore can't be used for raw calculations. I study statistics as part of my university degree, so yes, I do. And as I said before, I'd be happy to take a look at your calculations.

I went back six weeks, took all that data and did calculations off if it and I am conservative too. Crossover doesn't matter

BringBackMick

If cases stabilise this week are NPHET going to scream success on the Dublin restrictions on hospitality ? Surely the impact of that wont occur until around next Monday?