Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

Dempo1

Seems to be a disturbing narrative developing about early removal of restrictions, lots of excitement about vaccination prospects, even a very odd story about employees of vaccine developers in for a cash windfall. Just amazes me how short sighted some are. Aside from the sillyness of removing restrictions early, it will be months and months before a vaccine available to general public and its not even been fully approved. Just the logistics alone (storage at - 80degrees is a major challenge)

paw patrol

nofools wrote: »

All the would be Swedes have dropped their future motherland from the Christmas card list suddenly.

truth be told was never a fan of sweden beyond their handling of covid.

It's funny how the anti-swedes are creaming themselves over implementation some local lock-downs as if the situation is comparable to the 7 months and counting utter gash we have had here in ireland.


anyway sweden is grand but it's no japan. Japan is where it's at - all the guidelines and advice , none of the lockdowns.

Cyrus

nofools wrote: »

I think even then the number is wrong.

We can't cherry pick our facts or use data from a sub category rate as the headline rate.

That is the meaning of disingenuous.

if people are going to persist with a 3% mortality rate then i think we can.

average_runner

Waylon Petite Shower wrote: »

I don't think its very fair that people who are not impacted/benefiting and so on are made to feel bad about it. I made a comment on the thread discussing working from home how staying at level 5 suits me personally as it removes any suggestion of returning to the office (even some of the time) and personally that's a very good thing for me (and my family especially how much extra time I can spend with my toddler) but that post was not well received. Are people not entitled to want whats best for them?

The thing is almost every situation no matter how good in general can be bad for some people so is no one ever allowed to highlight something is good for them?

I think its possible to feel sorry for those who are impacted and so on while still being conscious that the situation suits some and understanding why they might want some aspects of whats happened over the past year to continue as it has been very beneficial. For sure there are some (posters and people in general) who are going over the top in their delight with the current situation but I don't think saying it suits you is doing that or being insensitive.

Its good to highlight the positives out there also. There is enough negativity in the world

nofools

Cyrus wrote: »

if people are going to persist with a 3% mortality rate then i think we can.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that statement.

"Some people have got it wrong therefore we are perfectly entitled to be as bad as them"

The great 2020 race to the bottom.

Stormyteacup

Waylon Petite Shower wrote: »

I don't think its very fair that people who are not impacted/benefiting and so on are made to feel bad about it. I made a comment on the thread discussing working from home how staying at level 5 suits me personally as it removes any suggestion of returning to the office (even some of the time) and personally that's a very good thing for me (and my family especially how much extra time I can spend with my toddler) but that post was not well received. Are people not entitled to want whats best for them?

The thing is almost every situation no matter how good in general can be bad for some people so is no one ever allowed to highlight something is good for them?

I think its possible to feel sorry for those who are impacted and so on while still being conscious that the situation suits some and understanding why they might want some aspects of whats happened over the past year to continue as it has been very beneficial. For sure there are some (posters and people in general) who are going over the top in their delight with the current situation but I don't think saying it suits you is doing that or being insensitive.

No I don’t think any of us should feel bad if life has improved on account of Covid.

Would hope much that’s been beneficial can remain. And pointing to those beneficial changes will help bring about change for the better.

I wouldn’t begrudge anyone some good fortune whether it be through luck or hard work.

Of course people can want what’s best for them. But when it’s brought about by the same set of circumstances that have negatively affected so many then imo it is insensitive to highlight it to an audience most likely to have been adversely affected.

Probably a difference of perspective, can agree to disagree.

Cyrus

nofools wrote: »

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that statement.

"Some people have got it wrong therefore we are perfectly entitled to be as bad as them"

The great 2020 race to the bottom.

the statement in commas is yours not mine.

nofools

Cyrus wrote: »

the statement in commas is yours not mine.

Yeah obviously....

Johnboy1951

The case-fatality rate for Ireland is 3.0% according to Johns Hopkins
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

and 40 per 100,000 population ... 0.04% if I am not mistaken.

I guess people will pick whichever figure suits their purpose.

I much prefer to see the figures for overall mortality and compare those numbers to previous years.
Some here might be surprised at how small those excess death figures are.

Cyrus

nofools wrote: »

Yeah obviously....

given the number of deaths in the under 65 age category of people who died who did not have an underlying medical condition could be counted on two hands that poster isnt far off.

nofools

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The case-fatality rate for Ireland is 3.0% according to Johns Hopkins
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

and 40 per 100,000 population ... 0.04% if I am not mistaken.

I guess people will pick whichever figure suits their purpose.

I much prefer to see the figures for overall mortality and compare those numbers to previous years.
Some here might be surprised at how small those excess death figures are.

Be careful how you draw your conclusions though, nothing was normal this year so it makes meaningful comparison of the other ways to die data difficult.

Cyrus

nofools wrote: »

Be careful how you draw your conclusions though, nothing was normal this year so it makes meaningful comparison of the other ways to die data difficult.

the number of deaths in the year compared to other years should be the starkest metric of how lethal, or not, covid 19 is.

nofools

Cyrus wrote: »

given the number of deaths in the under 65 age category of people who died who did not have an underlying medical condition could be counted on two hands that poster isnt far off.

Ok but in the real world people do have conditions and that informs the data.

nofools

Cyrus wrote: »

the number of deaths in the year compared to other years should be the starkest metric of how lethal, or not, covid 19 is/

Only if you wear blinkers

CalamariFritti

charlie14 wrote: »

To me silly is attempting to re-invent mathematics by using guesswork and modelling systems that have wholly discredited while ignoring independently provided data from health authorities worldwide.

My last post on this and only since you mention 'health authorities worldwide'.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

Cyrus

nofools wrote: »

Ok but in the real world people do have conditions and that informs the data.

one could assume that if they got any virus they could be in trouble.

nofools

Cyrus wrote: »

one could assume that if they got any virus they could be in trouble.

What is your point?

Yes some people in all age groups are in trouble if they catch it.

nofools

nofools wrote: »

And the turkeys here are doing their best to keep it going longer.

The Christmas turkeys have been released back into the wild, as per orders of Tony Holohan and NPHET.

charlie14

CalamariFritti wrote: »

My last post on this and only since you mention 'health authorities worldwide'.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

I could have made it much simpler and less time consuming for you than wadding through 37 pages of could be and maybe.


As already posted by another poster John Hopkins Coronavirus Research Center also has Ireland`s case fatality rate as 3%.
The collective data from health authorities worldwide today lists 51,530,051 confirmed cases with 1,273,758 deaths.
If you managed to wade through those 37 pages then the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases should not be that much of a chore.


Remember, the ratio you get will be a bit lower than the eventual ratio due to the lag in deaths to confirmed cases, but I`m confident, even not allowing for that anomaly, you will find the both the 3% of John Hopkins and myself will be as close as makes little difference to the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases worldwide.

CalamariFritti

charlie14 wrote: »

I could have made it much simpler and less time consuming for you than wadding through 37 pages of could be and maybe.


As already posted by another poster John Hopkins Coronavirus Research Center also has Ireland`s case fatality rate as 3%.
The collective data from health authorities worldwide today lists 51,530,051 confirmed cases with 1,273,758 deaths.
If you managed to wade through those 37 pages then the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases should not be that much of a chore.


Remember, the ratio you get will be a bit lower than the eventual ratio due to the lag in deaths to confirmed cases, but I`m confident, even not allowing for that anomaly, you will find the both the 3% of John Hopkins and myself will be as close as makes little difference to the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases worldwide.

You don't need to wade through 37 pages. Its on page 1 where it says 'Results'.

charlie14

paw patrol wrote: »

truth be told was never a fan of sweden beyond their handling of covid.

It's funny how the anti-swedes are creaming themselves over implementation some local lock-downs as if the situation is comparable to the 7 months and counting utter gash we have had here in ireland.


anyway sweden is grand but it's no japan. Japan is where it's at - all the guidelines and advice , none of the lockdowns.

"anyway sweden is grand"


Are you just back from the wilds of Outer Mongolia ?

Sweden`s numbers have been going through the roof and are still rising.

FrStone

nofools wrote: »

Be careful how you draw your conclusions though, nothing was normal this year so it makes meaningful comparison of the other ways to die data difficult.

Can we all ignore statistics that we don't like?

Do we have to qualify it with the above sentence you used?

nofools

FrStone wrote: »

Can we all ignore statistics that we don't like?

Do we have to qualify it with the above sentence you used?

I am talking about how to interpret them reasonably. It isn't my fault that the nuance is lost on you that traffic and workplace patterns are totally different this year.

In any case Ireland has done great with covid relatively so I'm not surprised if overall all deaths are about equal.

I'd love to see the same analysis for somewhere like Spain.

charlie14

CalamariFritti wrote: »

My last post on this and only since you mention 'health authorities worldwide'.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

To be perfectly honest I came very close to giving up on page 1 when I saw "74 estimates and 8 preliminary national estimates" but carried on to see at the end of page 1 "The expected total mortality burden of Covid-19 is directly related to the infection fatality rate"


A rather broad statement I felt, but if that is correct then we can expect a fatality rate to confirmed cases from this wave similar to the first of 3%.
Hopefully that statement is incorrect, but that is the ratio from the first wave.



I got as far as page 2 where in a few sentences we were again in the "Mathematical modelling", "could be infected" and "estimated" guesswork arena.

Gave up at that stage for obvious reasons.

Johnboy1951

charlie14 wrote: »

To be perfectly honest I came very close to giving up on page 1 when I saw "74 estimates and 8 preliminary national estimates" but carried on to see at the end of page 1 "The expected total mortality burden of Covid-19 is directly related to the infection fatality rate"

A rather broad statement I felt, but if that is correct then we can expect a fatality rate to confirmed cases from this wave similar to the first of 3%.
Hopefully that statement is incorrect, but that is the ratio from the first wave.

How "directly related" is not specified, as it is unknown.
It might a factor of 10 less or more, and still this statement would be correct.

charlie14

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

How "directly related" is not specified, as it is unknown.
It might a factor of 10 less or more, and still this statement would be correct.

From the data we know that the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases from the first wave here is 3%. John Hopkins agree, and it is virtually the same on average worldwide.
Anything else is based on nothing other than could be, may be, might be, estimated and discredited modelling.

Cyrus

charlie14 wrote: »

From the data we know that the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases from the first wave here is 3%. John Hopkins agree, and it is virtually the same on average worldwide.
Anything else is based on nothing other than could be, may be, might be, estimated and discredited modelling.

That in itself is basically meaningless unless you believe confirmed cases equates to all cases .

charlie14

Cyrus wrote: »

That in itself is basically meaningless unless you believe confirmed cases equates to all cases .

As opposed to the meaningless might be, could be, estimated modeling etc.:pac:

Johnboy1951

"The expected total mortality burden of Covid-19 is directly related to the infection fatality rate"

Originally Posted by Johnboy1951 
How "directly related" is not specified, as it is unknown.
It might a factor of 10 less or more, and still this statement would be correct.

charlie14 wrote: »

From the data we know that the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases from the first wave here is 3%. John Hopkins agree, and it is virtually the same on average worldwide.
Anything else is based on nothing other than could be, may be, might be, estimated and discredited modelling.

I guess you do not know the meaning of "directly related" as you appear to wish to contradict me.

I posted the John Hopkins link in the hope that it might inform some about the different percentages and what they mean.

Seems I failed .... oh well .........

charlie14

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I guess you do not know the meaning of "directly related" as you appear to wish to contradict me.

I posted the John Hopkins link in the hope that it might inform some about the different percentages and what they mean.

Seems I failed .... oh well .........

If you posted the John Hopkins link to inform me, then there was no need.
I have repeatedly posted here that the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases is 3%.


Does this "directly related" you are twittering on about contradict both John Hopkins or my posted ratio of deaths to confirmed cases of 3% or is it another could be, may be, nobody knows ??