Covid 19 Part XXX-113,332 ROI(2,282 deaths) 81,251 NI (1,384 deaths) (05/01) Read OP

is_that_so

bb1234567 wrote: »

I couldn't believe it, it literally exceeded all of my worst case estimate expectations. If most of those are HCW's then it means by March an absolutely minimal number of those actually at risk from dying from it will have been protected 8 weeks fro now, and it's going to be the roughest patch of the entire pandemic for those people between now and that point

It's a projection based on the current supply of one vaccine. We will have two starting next week but limited supplies were always flagged for these first few months anyway. From March it should all pick up pace very quickly.

WoollyRedHat

40-55% positivity in swabbing centres, Janey Mac! How can they close the schools and keep the swabbing centres open!

rob316

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Not sure it will matter going forward to have 10,000 cases, and 3 deaths. As long as we vaccinate the mostly likely to be effected we should be able to go back to normal.
HERD immunity will play it's part, it is, whether we like it or noth with these huge daily numbers .

The problem is the hospitalization figures, thats what the whole lockdown is about, preventing our health service from total collapse.

caveat emptor

Deleted User wrote: »

I;d say for the hundredth time today - the new variant accounted for 10% of swabs here. As someone else said, you don't need to taste the whole pot to know if there is too much salt in the soup

And just what was the sampling criteria? Was it geographically desperate? because the funny thing with pandemics and epidemics is that they start in one place and spread to many. So saying it was only locate in 10% of samples today does not mean that it's an accurate representation of what's going on if the 10% all came from the one geographic area. This started in SE England and is everywhere now. It's started in Dublin and will be everywhere soon.

This is a variant that is steadily superseding the others because it has an advantage. i.e it's more transmissible. Probably due to the higher viral load seen in patients with it.

Happy4all

jojofizzio wrote: »

This is a myth...I’ve been working on the “frontline “(hate that term) in healthcare with elderly people since March and have never been offered a Covid test...

I'm shocked at that. Nursing homes I know of test residents and all staff fortnightly.

lawrencesummers

rob316 wrote: »

The problem is the hospitalization figures, thats what the whole lockdown is about, preventing our health service from total collapse.

What hasn’t been built cannot collapse.

podgeandrodge

If someone not feeling 'great' for last week (not symptomatic per se just weary) but feeling bit better now, are they better off doing an antibody test for curiosity purposes or a test to see if they still have it.

Stheno

podgeandrodge wrote: »

If someone not feeling 'great' for last week (not symptomatic per se just weary) but feeling bit better now, are they better off doing an antibody test for curiosity purposes or a test to see if they still have it.

Too.soon for an antibody test

Tell them to ring their gp.and.have a chat

podgeandrodge

seamus wrote: »

IF (big if) people adjusted their behaviour after Xmas and before NYE, then this could be the start of a better trend. Some of today's data is encouraging. But it's too early to be hopeful.
.

Purely anecdotal but my circle of contacts, many of whom would have enjoyed the odd meal/drink in the lead up to Xmas, including myself, did sweet feck all on New Year's Eve. Not entirely by choice as there wasn't much to do, but hopefully that is representative of many and impact numbers shortly.

SuperRabbit

"Govt plans to 'reduce mobility' but 5km limit not on sub-committee agenda"

Slashing tyres?
Breaking legs?

Lollipop95

leahyl wrote: »

I can relate Lollipop, I live with my parents who are both in their 70’s - it’s very worrying. My parents wouldn’t be as obsessive as your parents sound (!) but they are no doubt worried, as am I. It’s certainly very draining. I thought there would be an end to this by April/May, not so sure at the moment :-(

Yes, they’re definitely very obsessive - an order came to the house today for me (driver dropped it off and drove off again, so no face to face interaction) and they started worrying in case the virus was on it! My dad is over 70 so I think that’s why they’re both freaking out, but they’re both worriers at the best of times. I just don’t know how to reason with them to be honest.

is_that_so

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Purely anecdotal but my circle of contacts, many of whom would have enjoyed the odd meal/drink in the lead up to Xmas, including myself, did sweet feck all on New Year's Eve. Not entirely by choice as there wasn't much to do, but hopefully that is representative of many and impact numbers shortly.

I am also wondering whether we will see a steep falloff from these eye popping numbers in the near future.

lukas8888

Deleted User wrote: »

A sample is representative and allows you to draw statistically sound conclusions With 16 from 160 the true percentage would be between 5.7 and 15.7%, 95% of the time if you tested the entire population
With 160 from 1600 the true percentage would be between 8.5 and 11.5%, 95% of the time
With 2 from 20 the true percentage would be between 1.2 and 32%, 95% of the time

For the majority of us without the expertise,you are talking about a representative small sample how do we know for certain that the tiny 169 sample
was truly representative,do we know for example where the samples came from that were analysed and could they have missed the areas where it could be raging.

caveat emptor

Deleted User wrote: »

A sample is representative and allows you to draw statistically sound conclusions With 16 from 160 the true percentage would be between 5.7 and 15.7%, 95% of the time if you tested the entire population
With 160 from 1600 the true percentage would be between 8.5 and 11.5%, 95% of the time
With 2 from 20 the true percentage would be between 1.2 and 32%, 95% of the time

So tell me this, when there were 10 cases in wuhan. What was the proportion of population of the world affected ?


answer 10 / 7.8 Billion = 0.000000000128205

or 0.000000000128205 %

So not really a problem by your logic.

jojofizzio

Happy4all wrote: »

I'm shocked at that. Nursing homes I know of test residents and all staff fortnightly.

Yep,the rest of us are like the schools....we don’t carry or spread the virus:rolleyes:

fly_agaric

CruelSummer wrote: »

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with these points. There is no way 169 cases are an accurate reflection of what's happening currently in Ireland no matter what way you dress it up. We're not analysing samples of the virus like the U.K. Milton Keynes lab was. Before the flight ban to the U.K., there were planes, trains and automobiles arriving here from the U.K. for Christmas.
We need to be much quicker in our response to things - not waiting on DeGascun for useless information. As Martin said in his speech, we need to operate as if the new strain is here.

I did not "dress it up". If they were taken at random/procedures followed to ensure sample is representative, the % (with margin of error which will be fairly large) will accurately represent what was happening during those dates. Not was is happening now of course, given how fast things seem to be changing.

How "we need to operate" is IMO really quite unchanged by whether this new strain boogeyman (or govt. cowardice and the public behaviour on run up to Christmas) is to blame for the situation.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Deleted User wrote: »

A sample is representative and allows you to draw statistically sound conclusions With 16 from 160 the true percentage would be between 5.7 and 15.7%, 95% of the time if you tested the entire population
With 160 from 1600 the true percentage would be between 8.5 and 11.5%, 95% of the time
With 2 from 20 the true percentage would be between 1.2 and 32%, 95% of the time

Only if the sample isn't biased.

I believed that De Gascun said in relation to the first group selected for sampling that it was biased. I believe that he said something about selecting high virll loads or something like that.

SuperRabbit

caveat emptor wrote: »

And just what was the sampling criteria? Was it geographically desperate? because the funny thing with pandemics and epidemics is that they start in one place and spread to many. So saying it was only locate in 10% of samples today does not mean that it's an accurate representation of what's going on if the 10% all came from the one geographic area. This started in SE England and is everywhere now. It's started in Dublin and will be everywhere soon.

This is a variant that is steadily superseding the others because it has an advantage. i.e it's more transmissible. Probably due to the higher viral load seen in patients with it.

I read, i think it was bbc, that they think the new variant is just better at getting into your cells.Higher viral load would also make it more dangerous, it's just more infectious... right?

is_that_so

Looks like the private hospitals deals will be done shortly - 25% access.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0105/1187733-coronavirus-ireland/

JazzyJ

caveat emptor wrote: »

And just what was the sampling criteria? Was it geographically desperate? because the funny thing with pandemics and epidemics is that they start in one place and spread to many. So saying it was only locate in 10% of samples today does not mean that it's an accurate representation of what's going on if the 10% all came from the one geographic area. This started in SE England and is everywhere now. It's started in Dublin and will be everywhere soon.

Ah those dirty Dubs are at it again! I don't suppose you've a source for that. :pac:

caveat emptor

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I read, i think it was bbc, that they think the new variant is just better at getting into your cells.Higher viral load would also make it more dangerous, it's just more infectious... right?

It has a biomechanical advantage alright but the viral load observed in those with the variant was higher.

More virus = more viral shedding which potentially means more transmissible.

I'll find the link, posted it a couple of weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1344270174455623690?s=20

GooglePlus

caveat emptor wrote: »

It has a biomechanical advantage alright but the viral load observed in those with the variant was higher.

More virus = more viral shedding which potentially means more transmissible.

I'll find the link, posted it a couple of weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1344270174455623690?s=20

Can you explain that weird graph, they both look much the same?

SuperRabbit

caveat emptor wrote: »

It has a biomechanical advantage alright but the viral load observed in those with the variant was higher.

More virus = more viral shedding which potentially means more transmissible.

I'll find the link, posted it a couple of weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1344270174455623690?s=20

Is it odd that there's a higher viral load without higher mortality rate?

Irish Steve

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes i totally agree and the blame game is not helping us get out of this situation, we all ****ed up and we need to move on to get out of this ****show.

No, some of us did NOT **** up, the only day we were "out and about" was Christmas day, and that was with my daughter, who is "bubbled" for essential child care, and they came here for a virtual on line pantomine before New Year's eve.

We wanted to do more, but making the right decisions meant not doing it, so as far as we're concerned, don't throw the blame our way.

Some of the issue for me is that NPHET, and RTE have wrecked our heads with the constant mantras of "2 weeks", "worried", "concerned", as far as I am concerned, I am pretty much switched off now when RTE go to the press conference, the whole scenario has a serious lack of credibility about it now, they've used all the empasis words too many times, and they no longer have credibility.

The final straw for me was when the essential computer systems all fell apart, they've had more than enough time to go out and specify a new system, and procure the hardware, and get it up and running, several times over, but they have manifestly failed when the chips were down.

Now, I see that the target for vaccine is 135,000 by the end of Feb. If that's true, we're looking at more than 4 YEARS to get the majority vaccinated. There are no words to describe the contempt I have for that sort of incompetence, and there's plenty more in other State services, I've wasted hours in the last few days trying to sort out things like driving licence renewals, and the brutal reality is that they don't have a clue what they are doing.

We ARE in trouble now, for all the wrong reasons, and getting buy in from a lot of people is going to be hard, too many people will see NPHET and the like as just crying wolf, as they have been all year.

Doctors room ghost

jojofizzio wrote: »

This is a myth...I’ve been working on the “frontline “(hate that term) in healthcare with elderly people since March and have never been offered a Covid test...

Same as that and never been tested.
That won’t stop the misery merchants blowing sh1te though.

What Username Guidelines

Usually one to ignore all the whatsapp rumours, but this is from the UK and seems quite plausible...

https://twitter.com/MrCalliJ/status/1346227539455389696?s=20

ixoy

Irish Steve wrote: »

The final straw for me was when the essential computer systems all fell apart, they've had more than enough time to go out and specify a new system, and procure the hardware, and get it up and running, several times over, but they have manifestly failed when the chips were down.

I'd agree that their stress tests, or whatever, are poor and they should have anticipated this. Their IT systems are notoriously poor and that attitude comes from the top.

Now, I see that the target for vaccine is 135,000 by the end of Feb. If that's true, we're looking at more than 4 YEARS to get the majority vaccinated. There are no words to describe the contempt I have for that sort of incompetence

This is a little unfair though. The 135k is using up most of the doses of the one vaccine currently approved that we'll have by that point.
Why can't we dose more? Because we won't have more doses of the Pfizer vaccine to administer. It's allocated by the EU based on our population.

What we'll need is more vaccines to be approved and that's where things can hopefully change rapidly, especially with the likes of Oxford which will be easier to administer and should go out a lot faster.

The Inbetween is mine

5,325 cases 17 deaths..

Van.Bosch

The Inbetween is mine wrote: »

5,325 cases 17 deaths..

Cases are down about 11% day on day!!!

Open the schools!

harr

17 deaths is shocking and an increase in ICU cases as well