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

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

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

Yes it does matter, because percentage increase each week is skewed if data from one week is carried over to the next.

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

Yes it does matter, because percentage increase each week is skewed if data from one week is carried over to the next.

Yes but I'm taking the average increase per week for six weeks, adding them together and then dividing by six. Can you understand that?

fritzelly

Germany declares Dublin a Covid risk zone, must be tested. hearing on NT

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes but I'm taking the average increase per week for six weeks, adding them together and then dividing by six. Can you understand that?

You're not getting what I'm saying. You can't just take average increase per week when you don't have the actual cases per week, you're going off reported case figures.


EG:
Actual cases:

300 cases on week 1, 300 cases on week 2


Reported cases:
200 on week 1, 400 on week 2 (EG the carry over from weekend -> tuesdays)


While there was actually no increase in actual cases, it appears as if reported cases have doubled, a percentage increase of 100%.
We don't get actual case numbers per week, so you can't possibly make calculations.
Do you understand that?

Assetbacked

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.

Getting to zero covid is necessarily a failure as it either involves closing off all borders indefinitely or the whole world pursuing this approach - neither will happen. McConkey & Co ignore this and their opinions are still underlined by the aim of getting to zero covid. Therefore, they must necessarily be disregarded. They are tinfoil-hat wearing nonces.

In terms of my own assessment, as an armchair pundit like yourself, I have looked at our epidemiology reports (https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/ ) pretty frequently the last few months and would highlight the following statistics on covid in Ireland;

• 93% of deaths are over the age of 65 (despite only making up 25% of all cases).
• 94% of covid deaths had clinical underlying conditions.
• Hospitalisation rates for covid cases have been declining across all age groups (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114377666&postcount=2601)
• Post-lockdown in mid-May 2020 to date has given around 230 deaths. Based on this sample (1/3 of a year) we are projected to hit 680 deaths "with" covid in the year to May 2021.

is_that_so

BringBackMick wrote: »

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?

It's always at least 2 weeks to see the effects anyway and you'd expect them to go the full three weeks, at least. Dublin might have an extension to look forward to, like Kildare.

JDD

BringBackMick wrote: »

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?

There was a lot of chat early last week in the media and on the tv about how restrictions in Dublin were coming. It may be the all the talk led to people reducing their contacts last week, before the actual restrictions came in. If that is the case, NPHET will be seeing it now with how many close contacts there are of those who have tested positive over the past couple of days.

There's a lot of "ifs" though and even if NPHET had that information, the data would be so early and in such a small timeframe I can't imagine they'll release that data, or indeed their opinion on it.

spookwoman

Deleted User wrote: »

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

And you should get advice from someone who is a medical doctor or a pharmacist

Quantum Erasure

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You're not getting what I'm saying. You can't just take average increase per week when you don't have the actual cases per week, you're going off reported case figures.


EG:
Actual cases:

300 cases on week 1, 300 cases on week 2


Reported cases:
200 on week 1, 400 on week 2 (EG the carry over from weekend -> tuesdays)


While there was actually no increase in actual cases, it appears as if reported cases have doubled, a percentage increase of 100%.
We don't get actual case numbers per week, so you can't possibly make calculations.
Do you understand that?

Surely it averages out over 6 weeks?

Widdensushi

GooglePlus wrote: »

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.

200iu is the daily nrv value. Whilst more might be better in a very dark winter if you weren't getting out, surely the amounts you are recommending are overkill for healthy people who have been spending time outside all summer

stephenjmcd

fritzelly wrote: »

Germany declares Dublin a Covid risk zone, must be tested. hearing on NT

"Germany is to declare Dublin a Covid-19 risk area today, requiring anyone arriving from the Irish capital to take a free Covid-19 test.

Berlin defines a risk area as anywhere with a new infection rate above 50 per 100,000 of population in the last seven days.

From Thursday, all arrivals from Dublin to Germany are required to take a test either on arrival or within 10 days. They must self-isolate until they receive a negative test result. Anyone who can produce a negative test result from the Irish authorities - no older than 48 hours - is exempted from another test and isolation, but are encouraged to take a second test on arrival in Germany."

political analyst

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0923/1166912-covid19-committee-coronavirus/

Speaking at the Oireachtas Special Committee on Covid-19 Response, Prof McConkey said that physical distancing is needed to "crush the curve into the ground".

He also said it will be impossible to prevent the re-entry of the virus into nursing homes unless it is controlled in the community.

A Swedish expert told the committee that controlled spread of the coronavirus should be allowed among people aged under 60.

In his opening statement, Dr Johan Giesecke, former chief epidemiologist in Sweden, said Ireland should concentrate on the old and frail with frequent testing of staff and residents in care homes.

He told politicians that we should wait at least a year to start comparing countries' Covid-19 strategies.

Dr Giesecke also warned that the epidemic is only at the beginning.

He advised against building a strategy on the imminent advent of a vaccine because we might have to wait for it and it may not be very effective in those who need it most.

Chairman of the Covid-19 committee Michael McNamara said the committee is hearing the views of other countries including Sweden today.

He said this is important so as not to risk being insular in Ireland's response to the virus.

Microbiologist Professor Kirsten Schaffer said virus outbreaks in nursing homes need to be looked at closely to understand why transmission is still happening.

She said if gowns, gloves and masks are used, it should be able to control transmission in nursing homes to a certain level.

She was responding to Sinn Féin TD Rose Conway Walsh, who asked if Ireland can avoid a second wave of Covid-19 in nursing homes.

The details I've highlighted in the quotes prove an effort can be made to achieve herd immunity without putting the lives of the vulnerable (including the elderly) in danger.

is_that_so

stephenjmcd wrote: »

"Germany is to declare Dublin a Covid-19 risk area today, requiring anyone arriving from the Irish capital to take a free Covid-19 test.

Berlin defines a risk area as anywhere with a new infection rate above 50 per 100,000 of population in the last seven days.

From Thursday, all arrivals from Dublin to Germany are required to take a test either on arrival or within 10 days. They must self-isolate until they receive a negative test result. Anyone who can produce a negative test result from the Irish authorities - no older than 48 hours - is exempted from another test and isolation, but are encouraged to take a second test on arrival in Germany."

I assume that means any flights, not a check on whether you're from Cavan or Leitrim?

Assetbacked

Assetbacked wrote: »

Getting to zero covid is necessarily a failure as it either involves closing off all borders indefinitely or the whole world pursuing this approach - neither will happen. McConkey & Co ignore this and their opinions are still underlined by the aim of getting to zero covid. Therefore, they must necessarily be disregarded. They are tinfoil-hat wearing nonces.

In terms of my own assessment, as an armchair pundit like yourself, I have looked at our epidemiology reports (https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/ ) pretty frequently the last few months and would highlight the following statistics on covid in Ireland;

• 93% of deaths are over the age of 65 (despite only making up 25% of all cases).
• 94% of covid deaths had clinical underlying conditions.
• Hospitalisation rates for covid cases have been declining across all age groups (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114377666&postcount=2601)
• Post-lockdown in mid-May 2020 to date has given around 230 deaths. Based on this sample (1/3 of a year) we are projected to hit 680 deaths "with" covid in the year to May 2021.

Seems to me that getting to zero COVID, like NZ, is a huge gamble on the efficacy and full availability of a vaccine in 2021. If that effective vaccine is not delivered in H1 2021 and rolled out fully in H2 (and there are plenty of virologists and epidemiologists who are sceptical) then the zero COVID strategy will have been a monumental failure. If we have a vaccine by Christmas it will have been an astonishing success

No zero COVID proponents are acknowledging that gamble.

ACitizenErased

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Surely it averages out over 6 weeks?

In the start of those 6 weeks you might have cases thrown in from the 2 weeks before that, too.

ACitizenErased

Hospital numbers as of 8am:
90 (-4)
16 in ICU (no change)

caveat emptor

I suspect we are being told let it rip due to some out of pocket short term rental investors.
Twas a booming market that made it hard to find affordable long term accommodation.
Banks need to be made whole on those loans.
Only one thing for it let it rip.

Good article out in NY times.

https://twitter.com/PMacoscair/status/1308433288298627072?s=20

https://twitter.com/RobCross247/status/1241325290565111808?s=20

JDD

93% of deaths are over the age of 65 (despite only making up 25% of all cases).
94% of covid deaths had clinical underlying conditions.
Hospitalisation rates for covid cases have been declining across all age groups (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...ostcount=2601)
Post-lockdown in mid-May 2020 to date has given around 230 deaths. Based on this sample (1/3 of a year) we are projected to hit 680 deaths "with" covid in the year to May 2021.

Yes, covid deaths are disproportionately over 65s.

Underlying conditions does not mean fatal or terminal conditions. I don't have figures on this, but I expect underlying conditions means heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease etc. Perhaps in a small amount of cases it means dementia or cancer. The vast majority of us will develop "underlying conditions" once we hit 70+ and in the vast majority of cases, those underlying conditions can be managed medically until you reach an age where something more serious kills you.

So saying that 94% of deaths were to people with underlying conditions seems to be to be implying that those people would have died this year, or in pretty close proximity to their death with Covid, either from this underlying condition or something else, when there is no indication that that is the case. You could be diagnosed with heart disease at 70 and happily live with it for 20 years. Likewise for diabetes or kidney disease.

I take hospitalisation rates with a pinch of salt. We have absolutely no idea how many people were infected with covid in Feb/Mar/Apr, as the criteria for getting a test was so tight. It may be that hospitalisation rates now are the "true" hospitalisation rates i.e. as a proportion of overall infections, and therefore there is no indication that the virus is weakening or there has been a miracle breakthrough in treatments which is leading to less hospitalisations.

Yes, mid-May to now has given us 230 deaths. But remember, cafes and restaurants and hairdressers didn't open until the end of June. People didn't really start meeting in numbers until end July/August. It took time for the wariness from the lockdown to wear off. And schools and colleges were still closed. I don't think 230 is the right figure to extrapolate.

That all makes me sound like someone who is advocating for lockdowns or restrictions. I'm not. I think we will have to accept a number of deaths in order to ensure that a large amount of people's livelihoods are not permanently ruined. But we have to be realistic about who will die (in the vast majority of cases, not people that would have died anyway) and how many will die (more than 680 from May to May, that's for sure), or when those figures come out they will surprise people and we will end up back in lockdown again.

caveat emptor

No mention of long term morbidity caused by covid.

That could really make a mess of the health system and the wealth of the country.

https://twitter.com/Maryrankin55/status/1308719603728646145?s=20

Assetbacked

Properties listed for rent on Daft have increased 260% since March, just before lockdown began. This maybe belongs in the positives thread!

is_that_so

political analyst wrote: »

The details I've highlighted in the quotes prove an effort can be made to achieve herd immunity without putting the lives of the vulnerable (including the elderly) in danger.

Herd immunity is pie in the sky, there is not shred of evidence of it anywhere nor a realistic hope that it will occur.


Anecdotal data coming up! Spoke to someone who works in a nursing home, don't know where. They arranged to get the residents out into the sun on one of the nice days recently because they were sad and depressed they couldn't see their families. That I imagine is replicated up and down the country. Lives can be put in danger in other ways by "protecting" people.

Assetbacked

JDD wrote: »

Yes, covid deaths are disproportionately over 65s.

Underlying conditions does not mean fatal or terminal conditions. I don't have figures on this, but I expect underlying conditions means heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease etc. Perhaps in a small amount of cases it means dementia or cancer. The vast majority of us will develop "underlying conditions" once we hit 70+ and in the vast majority of cases, those underlying conditions can be managed medically until you reach an age where something more serious kills you.

So saying that 94% of deaths were to people with underlying conditions seems to be to be implying that those people would have died this year, or in pretty close proximity to their death with Covid, either from this underlying condition or something else, when there is no indication that that is the case. You could be diagnosed with heart disease at 70 and happily live with it for 20 years. Likewise for diabetes or kidney disease.

I take hospitalisation rates with a pinch of salt. We have absolutely no idea how many people were infected with covid in Feb/Mar/Apr, as the criteria for getting a test was so tight. It may be that hospitalisation rates now are the "true" hospitalisation rates i.e. as a proportion of overall infections, and therefore there is no indication that the virus is weakening or there has been a miracle breakthrough in treatments which is leading to less hospitalisations.

Yes, mid-May to now has given us 230 deaths. But remember, cafes and restaurants and hairdressers didn't open until the end of June. People didn't really start meeting in numbers until end July/August. It took time for the wariness from the lockdown to wear off. And schools and colleges were still closed. I don't think 230 is the right figure to extrapolate.

That all makes me sound like someone who is advocating for lockdowns or restrictions. I'm not. I think we will have to accept a number of deaths in order to ensure that a large amount of people's livelihoods are not permanently ruined. But we have to be realistic about who will die (in the vast majority of cases, not people that would have died anyway) and how many will die (more than 680 from May to May, that's for sure), or when those figures come out they will surprise people and we will end up back in lockdown again.

Fair enough but there is no data you have offered to go against it. Just reasonable statements.

spookwoman

Thread going the way of last night of someone telling people how to do their jobs.

ACitizenErased

spookwoman wrote: »

Thread going the way of last night of someone telling people how to do their jobs.

And who would that be? Do share

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

You're not getting what I'm saying. You can't just take average increase per week when you don't have the actual cases per week, you're going off reported case figures.

My week runs from Friday to Thursday.

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

My week runs from Friday to Thursday.

So you haven't accounted for the regular occurrence of cases from Thursday being backlogged into the weekend's figures?

Happydays2020

Any idea of beers today?

is_that_so

caveat emptor wrote: »

I suspect we are being told let it rip due to some out of pocket short term rental investors.
Twas a booming market that made it hard to find affordable long term accommodation.
Banks need to be made whole on those loans.
Only one thing for it let it rip.

Good article out in NY times.

https://twitter.com/PMacoscair/status/1308433288298627072?s=20

https://twitter.com/RobCross247/status/1241325290565111808?s=20

Short term rentals, like AirBnB, is one area where a complete reset would be very good. They will be part of the accommodation sector for quite some time to come but it may give authorities a chance to redefine what that role should be.

JDD

Assetbacked wrote: »

Fair enough but there is no data you have offered to go against it. Just reasonable statements.

I'm not a mathematician, so I can't present alternative figures. It's just my general feelings when people mention "underlying conditions", or try to compare stats now with the stats from Mar/Apr.

is_that_so

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Any idea of beers today?

I think the brewer has retired! Watch out for the swab data on this thread, it can give an indicator.