Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

The HorsesMouth

km79 wrote: »

No is correct

You're right just had a look at a few spots.
So they will operate like indoor dining...vaccination for admittance..apart from the fact the main clientele are under 10! What a nonsense decision.

namloc1980

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

What's the story with play centres and the like? Surely they are opening Monday 5th no?

No. All indoor changes were postponed with the exception of the weddings going up to 50.

Bsharp

Bsharp wrote: »

"Thus, the precision of pandemic modelling lies somewhere between weather prediction (good) and economic forecasting (poor)".

Sick burn.

Reminds me of the quote by George Box, one of the greatest statisticians of all time: 'All Models are wrong, but some are useful'.

...yet indoor hospitality is likely to remain closed beyond 19 July.

It's a sick joke.

https://twitter.com/paulreiddublin/status/1411235797756416005

Bsharp

gozunda wrote: »

Well no five models were produced from worst case to benign - which indicated a rise in the rate of infection over the next couple of months.

And yes its called modelling not "divining the future" for good reason

Of course context of course is always useful

I provided a direct statement from someone involved in the modelling process. The context doesn't change the validity of that statement. Or do you disagree with the statement made by the professor?

Five scenarios were assessed using one model based off a range of factual and assumed parameter inputs. Quite a wide a range of assumed input parameter values were used to give the range of outcomes presented. A probability for each outcome would help to provide a better understanding of likelihood. Were probabilities provided? If not, why not? This is how a decision is usually made when there's a range of possible outcomes.

So the government is making a decision where they've no understanding of the likelihood of an event taking place. They haven't planned any contingencies for this uncertainty either. It's simply not good enough from the government.

Bsharp

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Sick burn.

Reminds me of the quote by George Box, one of the greatest statisticians of all time: 'All Models are wrong, but some are useful'.

Haha, nice cheap shot from the professor, particularly in the context of Irish weather forecasting.

gozunda

kwestfan08 wrote: »

New infections that will primarily be in the younger aged unvaccinated cohort of which 99.99% won’t die.

Reason enough to keep the economy from taking off isn’t it? A less deadly strain of a virus that for the most part is harmless to those who will now catch it.

Well no not quite. The ECDC report details those most at risk include people who have not been vaccinated but also those who have only received the first dose of a two-dose vaccination
course and are less well protected against infection with the Delta variant*. It remains we have a substantial proportion of individuals who have as if yet have only received one dose.

*And that is simply a statement from the ECDC who also state that the lifting of non pharmaceutical interventions would lead to a further rise is infections.

I presume you do know that deaths from covid are not the sole metric which are relevant here yes?

MOR316

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...yet indoor hospitality is likely to remain closed beyond 19 July.

It's a sick joke.

https://twitter.com/paulreiddublin/status/1411235797756416005

He used to work for Telecom Eireann before he got that gig.... Expert indeed...

prunudo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...yet indoor hospitality is likely to remain closed beyond 19 July.

It's a sick joke.


"We should plan for Delta with concern & a level of confidence also. Almost 4.3M vaccines administered. Over 2.56M adults partially vaccinated (68%) & over 1.8M (48%) fully vaccinated. Over 55,000 administered on each of the last 4 days, & over 272,000 so far this week. @HSELive"

https://twitter.com/paulreiddublin/status/1411235797756416005

Have to say i find the reporting of figures regarding those vaccinated as odd. Looking at that tweet you would be fogiven for thinking 2.56m + 1.8m adults have been vaccinated where as the reality is only 2.56m have been vaccinated. The same person can't be full and partially vaccinated at the same time.

It should be reported as 2.56m have been vaccinated, of which 1.8m are fully vaccinated. The & shouldn't be there.

Lumen

prunudo wrote: »

Have to say i find the reporting of figures regarding those vaccinated as odd. Looking at that tweet you would be fogiven for thinking 2.56m + 1.8m adults have been vaccinated where as the reality is only 2.56m have been vaccinated. The same person can't be full and partially vaccinated at the same time.

It should be reported as 2.58m have been vaccinated, of which 1.8m are fully vaccinated. The & shouldn't be there.

Yeah, it's a misinterpretation of dose numbers. As far as I can tell what's reported/recorded internally is first doses (d1), second doses (d2) and single doses (ds).

Then d1 is reported as "partially vaccinated" (incorrect), and d2+ds is reported as "fully vaccinated" (correct).

gozunda

Bsharp wrote: »

I provided a direct statement from someone involved in the modelling process. The context doesn't change the validity of that statement. Or do you disagree with the statement made by the professor?

Five scenarios were assessed using one model based off a range of factual and assumed parameter inputs. Quite a wide a range of assumed input parameter values were used to give the range of outcomes presented. A probability for each outcome would help to provide a better understanding of likelihood. Were probabilities provided? If not, why not? This is how a decision is usually made when there's a range of possible outcomes.

So the government is making a decision where they've no understanding of the likelihood of an event taking place. They haven't planned any contingencies for this uncertainty either. It's simply not good enough from the government.

Well frankly yes it does - especially who said it and what it means in relation to the whole comment made by the professor. Or do you think he deliberately meant to undermine his own and his colleagues work instead of explaining how modelling works in simple language?

Context is everything. It shapes the meaning in all communication. Without context you can't communicate effectively. When your message is delivered in one context, but received in another, it likely leads to miscommunication.

https://vanseodesign.com/web-design/importance-context/

Tbh looks like you're making a lot of presumptions there on how the models were created without actually knowing the answers and then jumping to the conclusion they were invalid because you personally don't know if probabilities were provided.

And no I don't know the answer to that either. But anyway not sure why you're going off on a tangent btw - considering I made no statement as to the workings of this particular model other than it wasn't Nphet who are undertaking them as was suggested by the poster to whom I replied. But hey no matter

Lumen

Phishnet wrote: »

BUT WAIT A MINUTE, MORE PEOPLE WHO WERE FULLY VACCINATED AGAINST THE VIRUS DIED LAST WEEK IN THE UK WITH THE DELTA VARIANT THAN DOES WHO WERE UNVACCINATED!

75% of car occupant fatalities last year were wearing seatbelts.

It's shocking that we are still using these dangerous devices. :pac:

lawred2

Phishnet wrote: »

But hang on a minute!



The figures from the UK of people who died with the Delta variant are as follows:


117 total deaths.

44 unvaccinated

23 single dose

50 fully vaccinated

All these deaths occurred in people over 50 years of age.


BUT WAIT A MINUTE, MORE PEOPLE WHO WERE FULLY VACCINATED AGAINST THE VIRUS DIED LAST WEEK IN THE UK WITH THE DELTA VARIANT THAN DOES WHO WERE UNVACCINATED!

AND?

agoodpunt

Phishnet wrote: »

But hang on a minute!



The figures from the UK of people who died with the Delta variant are as follows:


117 total deaths.

44 unvaccinated

23 single dose

50 fully vaccinated

All these deaths occurred in people over 50 years of age.


BUT WAIT A MINUTE, MORE PEOPLE WHO WERE FULLY VACCINATED AGAINST THE VIRUS DIED LAST WEEK IN THE UK WITH THE DELTA VARIANT THAN DOES WHO WERE UNVACCINATED!

Selective data, ages, underlying conds?

ACitizenErased

Phishnet wrote: »

At least seat belts were fully tested before roll out!

What a terrible comparison.

paw patrol

agoodpunt wrote: »

Selective data, ages, underlying conds?

LOLz

the same argument of only the elderly and very ill being at risk from covid - didn't work to argue against application of harsh restrictions.
yet somehow it is a fine measure to use to defend vaccines

cant have it both ways.

ACitizenErased

Phishnet wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble but here is the fact sheet on the FDA.gov website relating to the Pfizer vaccination for Covid , all vaccines have a similar wording.

FACT SHEET FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS ADMINISTERING VACCINE (VACCINATION PROVIDERS)
EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF
THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19)
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 12 years of age and older.

You're posting the wording of the approval for a previously unapproved product which is now approved.

Anyone with an immune disorder (MANY people in a population) will not respond as well to the vaccines.

Older people will not respond as effectively.

Anyone taking corticosteroids (again, a huge number of people) will not respond as well to vaccines as these drugs suppress the immune response.

Anyone taking chemotherapy will not respond as well to vaccines.

Conclusion: avoid the fearmongering from people who show you the number of people who've died after being fully vaccinated.

ACitizenErased

Phishnet wrote: »

Can you post the updated one please?

You literally just posted it? That's the approval for the Pfizer vaccine, which was (shock) unapproved, before it was approved. That's how approval works.

Phishnet

Phishnet wrote: »

BUT WAIT A MINUTE, MORE PEOPLE WHO WERE FULLY VACCINATED AGAINST THE VIRUS DIED LAST WEEK IN THE UK WITH THE DELTA VARIANT THAN DOES WHO WERE UNVACCINATED!

This sort of antivaccine scaremongering from the likes of you and Holohan really should be banned on boards.ie.

Of course more vaccinated people died than people who were unvaccinated. That's because more people have been vaccinated than are unvaccinated in the UK.

Deliberately trying to undermine the vaccine campaign is anti-social behaviour and is a threat to the stability of the country.

0lddog

Phishnet wrote: »

But hang on a minute!
The figures from the UK of people who died with the Delta variant are as follows:

117 total deaths.

44 unvaccinated

23 single dose

50 fully vaccinated

....

Hang on a minute yourself !

Does anyone believe https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/united-kingdom-falls ? ( random website returned by search engine )

If it can be believed then it appears that the figure of 117 deaths ( per week ) is running at the same level as the 2018 average number of deaths per week due to falling in UK.

Please, when can we all get over this and get back to life ?

0lddog

eskimohunt wrote: »

Anyone with an immune disorder (MANY people in a population) will not respond as well to the vaccines.....

you might want to amend that

brickster69

Phishnet wrote: »

But hang on a minute!



The figures from the UK of people who died with the Delta variant are as follows:


117 total deaths.

44 unvaccinated

23 single dose

50 fully vaccinated

All these deaths occurred in people over 50 years of age.


BUT WAIT A MINUTE, MORE PEOPLE WHO WERE FULLY VACCINATED AGAINST THE VIRUS DIED LAST WEEK IN THE UK WITH THE DELTA VARIANT THAN DOES WHO WERE UNVACCINATED!

You missed a bit

98.5 % of the positive cases who were fully vaccinated and over 50 survived.

JRant

Bsharp wrote: »

"Thus, the precision of pandemic modelling lies somewhere between weather prediction (good) and economic forecasting (poor)". We're basing policy decisions on the extremity result of this; the worst case prediction. The modellers themselves know it's not accurate.

From looking at what they are trying to model I would say it's far closer to economic forecasting (poor).

"In the IEMAG model, the infectious group is further divided into six subgroups depending on the path of the infection. Thus, there are nine coupled equations which must be solved together on a computer. The interactions between groups depend on about a dozen factors known as parameters, for example, the incubation period, rate of transmission, fraction of cases that self-quarantine and so on."

So we have 9 subsets of differential equations that need converge for a solution to be found. Those 9 subsets are then made up of at least 12 parameters, the majority of which are made up or as they say 'use a probabilistic value" for each.

All in all, I do admire teams trying to carry out this type of work. It's an incredibly difficult thing to do with any degree of accuracy, which quite clearly they haven't managed to date.

It's funny but nobody puts any real value into economic models because the degrees of freedom used in them is so complicated that they are more or less useless. Why they think they can model an entire population with a similar degree of complexity with any sort of accuracy shows either blind optimism or an unhealthy amount of hubris.

0lddog

brickster69 wrote: »

You missed a bit

98.5 % of the positive cases who were fully vaccinated and over 50 survived.

Not only that but the 117 are down as having died with COVID and not down as having died of COVID



The figure of 117 persons is insignificant in the context of the UK population.

ceadaoin.

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You're posting the wording of the approval for a previously unapproved product which is now approved.

None of the vaccines are approved yet. They are authorized for emergency use, not approved.

ACitizenErased

ceadaoin. wrote: »

None of the vaccines are approved yet. They are authorized for emergency use, not approved.

You're getting mixed up with the USA. EMA doesn't do emergency approvals, the FDA does. All EU vaccines are fully approved.

Sierra Oscar

How do we feel about restrictions beyond July, like weddings due to go to 100 from August? The Government haven't really given any certainty in the last couple of weeks or so if they intend on relaxing those restrictions further.

Whither you like it or not, Ireland will be back on Level 5+ lockdown from October 2021 until spring 2022.

Sierra Oscar

Johns nephew wrote: »

Whither you like it or not, Ireland will be back on Level 5+ lockdown from October 2021 until spring 2022.

Why?