new coronavirus outbreak China, Korea, USA - mod warnings in OP (updated 24/02/20)

Runaways · 24-02-2020 01:54PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

So 3 people?

I wonder how many people that Taxi man will pick up or the nurse will see in the ward.

Only seen him this morning for a minute and didn’t speak to the cab driver other than to tell him my destination. I was and remain mad paro about this myself don’t worry

Mic 1972 · 24-02-2020 01:54PM

givyjoe wrote: »

There is no complete data set. The only way it would be complete is if every single case of flu and covid19 were documented, regardless of the level of severity. They aren't, won't and never will be. Both viruses have cases where they will not be officially recorded, clinging to this hope that isnt that serious and the numbers will come down to flu level mortality (without a vaccine) is delusional.

i agree with this statement

SeaBreezes · 24-02-2020 01:57PM

Runaways wrote: »

Only seen him this morning for a minute and didn’t speak to the cab driver other than to tell him my destination. I was and remain mad paro about this myself don’t worry

If your using the same bathroom/kitchen your housemate will get anything you have.
Fingers crossed all is clear and will be fine.

But I agree with you it's likely already here.

Candamir · 24-02-2020 01:57PM

givyjoe wrote: »

Genuinely not sure which side of the argument this sarcasm is aimed at but, what has the infection SO FAR in China got to do with the mortality or critical rates?

But aren’t the data from cases SO FAR what you’re using for your more ‘useful’ stats?

And can you not really see where that statement is aimed!

DrumSteve · 24-02-2020 01:57PM

Runaways wrote: »

Only seen him this morning for a minute and didn’t speak to the cab driver other than to tell him my destination. I was and remain mad paro about this myself don’t worry

Paro....eh? Definitely a Dub!

How many people live in Dublin,eh! Based on that, if every person they meet, meets 3 other people, I give it 10 days til Dublin is wiped out.

24-02-2020 01:58PM

drkpower wrote: »

77,000 cases in a country of a billion people
That means .000077 infection rate
Apply that to Ireland; sure it’s only a few cases
Easy peasy this stuff.

We definitely have enough data to make informed assessments.......

China is far too big an area to compare with Ireland.

Runaways · 24-02-2020 02:00PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

Paro....eh? Definitely a Dub!

How many people live in Dublin,eh! Based on that, if every person they meet, meets 3 other people, I give it 10 days til Dublin is wiped out.

Read something on the back of a book ‘All societys think they are invulnerable and invincible. History teaches us that is not so’. Could well be this is nature restoring some balance.
Would have flown to Cork had I known

drkpower · 24-02-2020 02:00PM

givyjoe wrote: »

Genuinely not sure which side of the argument this sarcasm is aimed at but, what has the infection SO FAR in China got to do with the mortality or critical rates?

So, we need more information to assess infection rates.

But we can assess mortality rates / icu rates now based on the information we have SO FAR?

all about the mane · 24-02-2020 02:01PM

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

China is far too big an area to compare with Ireland.

Why?

all about the mane · 24-02-2020 02:02PM

drkpower wrote: »

So, we need more information to assess infection rates.

But we can assess mortality rates / icu rates now based on the information we have SO FAR?

You can’t assess mortality rates without knowing infection rates

Call Me Jimmy · 24-02-2020 02:02PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Acknowledging that the data is incomplete and should be regarded with a pinch of salt isn't dismissing the data.

There's a trend in this thread that any data indicating things won't be too bad is scoffed at while any data that indicates something much worse is going on is taken as gospel. The reality is we just don't know. It's a developing situation.

What data indicating things won't be too bad though? We can't conclude?

In fact I assume the data is only an extremely coarse indicator and in no way would say the death rate is X etc. even if it is statistically true because I don't think they are representative yet. But most people are posting the same numbers that news outlets report and being straightforward about any calculations. There are things outside the clinical data that are pretty strong indicators there's something serious going on. Governments (in affected areas) and all the leading health bodies are using pretty strong language and acting in extraordinary ways. The economic logistical issues cannot be underestimated imo.

But on the other side, the people who are unworried (I'm actually unworried but more fascinated by what's going on) have told us that there's "No chance it will take hold here" and that the death rate is not going to be more than 1% guaranteed and weeks ago were attacking news article where health bodies were saying a global outbreak was likely etc. but then argue the data is useless or we can't conclude...?

No problem with putting both sides of an argument, but everything is expected to be peer reviewed on one side and the other side are happy to just make pronouncements and slag people adding information to the thread. Before ye say it, there has been a miniscule % of fake stuff in the thread given it's size and the fact it's a globally breaking story.

givyjoe · 24-02-2020 02:04PM

drkpower wrote: »

So, we need more information to assess infection rates.

But we can assess mortality rates / icu rates now based on the information we have SO FAR?

For the love of God, there's 80k cases. How many cases do you need before they become statistically significant?

Mic 1972 · 24-02-2020 02:05PM

all about the mane wrote: »

You can’t assess mortality rates without knowing infection rates

err.. no
you can easy calculate the rate of deaths out of all cases that that have had an outcome until now.

We have already 27K people who either recovered or died, that's a good sample size to start with

SusanC10 · 24-02-2020 02:06PM

* Edit *
Have found a thread in Travel Forum so will post this there instead.

********

So, the DFA are advising against all travel to the affected areas in Italy. Does this mean the areas on lockdown or all of the Region eg all of Lombardy and Veneto etc ??

My friend and her family are planning to fly to Venice for Easter. Staying on coast near Venice. (Just talking to her on the phone this am)
We ourselves are planning to fly to Verona in June (obviously wait and see for ourselves)

But, just in general, will Travel Insurance cover this ? As there is a Travel Advisory and providing still in force for relevant dates. Everything booked in 2019.

all about the mane · 24-02-2020 02:06PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

err.. no
you can easy calculate the rate of deaths out of all cases that that have had an outcome until now.

We have already 27K people who either recovered or died, that's a good sample size to start with

Err no. To know the mortality rate you’d have to know the numbers infected

drkpower · 24-02-2020 02:07PM

givyjoe wrote: »

For the love of God, there's 80k cases. How many cases do you need before they become statistically significant?

Who said they weren’t statistically significant?

The issue is of what significance.

They weren’t significant enough for you to accept my assessment of Irish cases. But they are for other purposes?

You might give us a list of what the data is sufficient to draw conclusions on, and what they are insufficient for. It would be a helpful exercise for everyone I think.

Mic 1972 · 24-02-2020 02:08PM

drkpower wrote: »

But we can assess mortality rates / icu rates now based on the information we have SO FAR?

We can asses mortality rate based on a sample of 27K people who have had an outcome
That sample is contained inside an 80K sample of people who will eventually have an outcome, so we can also observe how such mortality rate will evolve
Form a statistical stand point this is good data

Mic 1972 · 24-02-2020 02:11PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

80k known cases. We simply have no idea how many people (if any) are only suffering from mild symptoms and have gone undetected. If that number is small, the current stats are going to be accurate. If that number is large, it would drastically change the stats.

we also have no idea how many deaths were related to unconfirmed cases.
The logic applies to both outcomes, mild symptoms or fatality

Blud · 24-02-2020 02:12PM

givyjoe wrote: »

For the love of God, there's 80k cases. How many cases do you need before they become statistically significant?

Ok, so they are statistically significant? Can we assume your agreement on that based on this post?

If so, then the other poster makes the good point that 77k infected in China with a population of 1bn means, taking a population of say 5m in Ireland, we should expect 385 cases in Ireland. 3% mortality means we will have 11 and a half dead.

So no real panic then, right?

Or is this conclusion meaningless given the data available? And similarly, your conclusions based on the same data equally meaningless?

wadacrack · 24-02-2020 02:12PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

We can asses mortality rate based on a sample of 27K people who have had an outcome
That sample is contained inside an 80K sample of people who will eventually have an outcome, so we can also observe how such mortality rate will evolve
Form a statistical stand point this is good data

It will only be good data when their accurate testing procedures and a whole country/region is tested for it. Their is way too much room for error at the moment.

Mic 1972 · 24-02-2020 02:17PM

all about the mane wrote: »

Err no. To know the mortality rate you’d have to know the numbers infected

We know the number of reported cases
Mortality rate is based on actual data, no imaginary numbers are added to the totals
The sample is large, it's much larger than sars or mers.

The rates are showing consistent trends which is a sing of normal data as opposite to abnormal distribution
We are looking a good data here

VinLieger · 24-02-2020 02:18PM

SusanC10 wrote: »

Ok so, the DFA are advising against all travel to the affected areas in Italy. Does this mean the areas on lockdown or all of the Region eg all of Lombardy and Veneto etc ??

My friend and her family are planning to fly to Venice for Easter. Staying on coast near Venice. (Just talking to her on the phone this am)
We ourselves are planning to fly to Verona in June (obviously wait and see for ourselves)

But, just in general, will Travel Insurance cover this ? As there is a Travel Advisory and providing still in force for relevant dates. Everything booked in 2019.

Id start expecting to not be going, its taken Hubei a full month of lockdown to start plateuing new cases, the Italy outbreak is going to get worse before it gets better not to mwntion the likely possibility that we suddenly dont start discoverin hidden clusters which i think us and the rest of europe will probably begin to soon.

Check your travel insurance docs for an answer because different providers and levels likely have different answers to that question so no way to definitively answer.

all about the mane · 24-02-2020 02:18PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

We know the number of reported cases
Mortality rate is based on actual data, no imaginary numbers are added to the totals
The sample is large, it's much larger than sars or mers.

The rates are showing consistent trends which is a sing of normal data as opposite to abnormal distribution
We are looking a good data here

You can’t get the mortality rate without knowing the infection rate.

Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.

But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients."

Mic 1972 · 24-02-2020 02:19PM

wadacrack wrote: »

It will only be good data when their accurate testing procedures and a whole country/region is tested for it. Their is way too much room for error at the moment.

I'm seeing a lot of denial

givyjoe · 24-02-2020 02:20PM

drkpower wrote: »

Who said they weren’t statistically significant?

The issue is of what significance.

They weren’t significant enough for you to accept my assessment of Irish cases. But they are for other purposes?

You might give us a list of what the data is sufficient to draw conclusions on, and what they are insufficient for. It would be a helpful exercise for everyone I think.

A number of posters have literally just dismissed the stats we have of confirmed cases.. are you picking and choosing which posts you read in full?

Are you on a piss take? You literally calculated infection rates based upon the total population of China, compared to current infection rates and don't see why that's being dismissed? The virus has only been around for 2.5/3 months, half of which the breakout zones have been under quarantine.

Also, I didn't estimate the 1 million infected in Ireland. You might want to take a that up with the professor in Beaumont.

DrumSteve · 24-02-2020 02:20PM

Well the Phillipines has had 3 cases so far, 2 people recovered and 1 died; thats a 33% mortality rate.

Japan has had 146 cases with 23 recovered and 1 dead. Thats about .5% off the top of my head mortality rate overall but of the cases closed gives a 4% mortality rate.

So geography and localised issues will play into it too.

The stats dont tell the full story though; at the moment it's eastist just to look at the headline figures of:

Coronavirus Cases:
79,729
Deaths:
2,627
Recovered:
25,279

So for overall recovered/died there are 27906 cases; that gives us a 9.41% mortality rate overall.

Mic 1972 · 24-02-2020 02:21PM

all about the mane wrote: »

You can’t get the mortality rate without knowing the infection rate.

infection rate = probability to get infected
fatality rate = probability to die

not the same thing, not related

Mic 1972 · 24-02-2020 02:22PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

Well the Phillipines has had 3 cases so far, 2 people recovered and 1 died; thats a 33% mortality rate.

Japan has had 146 cases with 23 recovered and 1 dead. Thats about .5% off the top of my head mortality rate.

So geography and localised issues will play into it too.

The stats dont tell the full story though; at the moment it's eastist just to look at the headline figures of:

Coronavirus Cases:
79,729
Deaths:
2,627
Recovered:
25,279

So for overall recovered/died there are 27906 cases; that gives us a 9.41% mortality rate overall.

3 cases in the philippines? you think that is enough data to run stats?
you need to look at large samples, that's how you look at data

BorneTobyWilde · 24-02-2020 02:23PM

Ireland plan if virus makes it here ( discover it's already here)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2PZ_3NWplc

all about the mane · 24-02-2020 02:23PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

Well the Phillipines has had 3 cases so far, 2 people recovered and 1 died; thats a 33% mortality rate.

Japan has had 146 cases with 23 recovered and 1 dead. Thats about .5% off the top of my head mortality rate overall but of the cases closed gives a 4% mortality rate.

So geography and localised issues will play into it too.

The stats dont tell the full story though; at the moment it's eastist just to look at the headline figures of:

Coronavirus Cases:
79,729
Deaths:
2,627
Recovered:
25,279

So for overall recovered/died there are 27906 cases; that gives us a 9.41% mortality rate overall.

3 confirmed cases

new coronavirus outbreak China, Korea, USA - mod warnings in OP (updated 24/02/20)

Comments