Covid 19 Part XX-26,644 in ROI (1,772 deaths) 6,064 in NI (556 deaths) (08/08)Read OP

Eod100 · 27-07-2020 05:00PM

Not sure if this was posted already. Guess announcement about measures for schools being back might be announced beforehand then.

https://twitter.com/juneshannon/status/1287738962199678978

ACitizenErased · 27-07-2020 05:02PM

igCorcaigh wrote: »

An IFR in the range of 0.6 to 1.0 is rather high.

That would translate to an awful toll. I'm hoping newer treatments and care will bring that estimate down substantially.

It's believed come to the end of this the actual IFR will be around 0.2

hmmm · 27-07-2020 05:03PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

It's believed come to the end of this the actual IFR will be around 0.2

Source? Any reputable scientists I've seen have used the 0.6 to 1 quoted.

Assetbacked · 27-07-2020 05:04PM

hmmm wrote: »

You should head over the Restrictions thread, or have a look here at posts by people like Assetbacked.

Since when was 15% hospitalisation a mild disease? Besides it's not that high, but the numbers requiring hospitalisation are still unlike anything else we have seen in recent decades.

Can you tell when someone gets Covid whether they are going to get mild symptoms?

Again, I'll post our data hub on covid to answer this so you can read the data yourself. https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/

Total reported cases 25848

Cases 65+ years 6508
Cases under 65 years 19340

Hospitalisations 65+ years 1809
Hospitalisations under 65 years 1535

As a percentage, hospitalisations 65+ years is 28% and under 65 years is 8%.

Of course the qualification to the above is that of course there are estimates of total cases to be many multiples of actual recorded positive tests. Therefore, these percentages could be a lot smaller as against actual covid infections.

Separately, unfortunately our own data site does not give the age of deaths (I have my suspicions as to why) but the CSO published stats at the end of May on this; https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcases/

In almost 88% of deaths there was an underlying condition, the median age of these deaths was 83, the same as that for all deaths. This compares to the median age of 48 for all those with a confirmed case of the virus. The CSO’s analysis of the confirmed deaths has found that COVID-19 has had the greatest impact on people aged 65 or over. Almost 92% of confirmed deaths occurred within this age group in the period from 11 March 2020 up to 15 May 2020.

Taking the 92% statistic of deaths being in the over 65 age category, that gives 141 of our deaths being under 65 (out of 1764 total "with" covid deaths - which includes probable and possible causes), gives a death rate of 0.73% under the age of 65 for the reported positive cases in Ireland.

In summary, in Ireland the under 65s have the following statistics;

Make up 75% of total confirmed cases.
Hospitalisation rate of 8% total confirmed cases.
Death rate of 0.73% of total confirmed cases.

Boggles · 27-07-2020 05:05PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

It's believed come to the end of this the actual IFR will be around 0.2

No. The planet doesn't shít it's collective pants for 0.2.

hmmm · 27-07-2020 05:06PM

Assetbacked wrote: »

Again, I'll post our data hub on covid to answer this so you can read the data yourself. https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/

Again, our stats are only low because we locked down. The median age of death in Ireland was high because most of our most serious cases occurred in nursing homes. What is wrong with you that you don't understand this?

What Username Guidelines · 27-07-2020 05:07PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Latest estimates for IFR of the disease are between 0.6 and 1%. This means that, taking our death figures into account, we can estimate between 176,400 - 294,000 actual cases of the virus. You can make an assumption based on this that over 150,000 people were not sick enough to get tested (or on the other hand couldn't get tested, although we never had such demand).

Does anyone know if the number could in fact be far higher than 176k-294k, given a large proportion of deaths in Ireland have been in older people, who would have a higher IFR than ~0.6? Or does that calculation matter?

froog · 27-07-2020 05:07PM

ShyMets wrote: »

Its not mild not mild when compared to a cold or flu. But we can say that only 15% percent of people require hospitalisation based on officially figures and as a previous poster has stated this figure is probably lower based on under reporting

The rest will be able to fight this off. That's not to say they wont get a nasty dose. Some will. Others will be asymptomatic.

This is a deadly disease for some people. But the stats will tell us for the majority its not

A 15% hospitalisation is a scary high figure. Nearly 1 in 7 people will have to go to hospital or they might die. And they still might die even then.

Its amazing how little regard people have for human life.

ACitizenErased · 27-07-2020 05:08PM

hmmm wrote: »

Source? Any reputable scientists I've seen have used the 0.6 to 1 quoted.

Fraser also speculated that influenza expert Lone Simonsen “may have more accurate numbers.” So I emailed Simonsen, a professor of population health sciences at Roskilde University in Denmark who has worked at the CDC and National Institutes of Health in the U.S., to ask. Her answer: Fraser’s estimate is spot on. Simonsen believes that the IFR for the coronavirus will eventually turn out to be on the low end of current estimates, possibly as low as 0.2% or 0.3%, but emphasized that this is “still far greater than … for seasonal influenza.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-24/is-coronavirus-worse-than-the-flu-blood-studies-say-yes-by-far

ACitizenErased · 27-07-2020 05:08PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Does anyone know if the number could in fact be far higher than 176k-294k, given a large proportion of deaths in Ireland have been in older people, who would have a higher IFR than ~0.6? Or does that calculation matter?

That's a very good point.

hmmm · 27-07-2020 05:09PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-24/is-coronavirus-worse-than-the-flu-blood-studies-say-yes-by-far

mmm you'll excuse me if I don't take the word of a single scientist I've never heard of as the correct answer.

CalamariFritti · 27-07-2020 05:10PM

Boggles wrote: »

No. The planet doesn't shít it's collective pants for 0.2.

It’ll be most likely in around that. Where representative testing has been done they came back with numbers in under 0.4.

And yes apparently we do. Now we’re struggling to find the courage to come off that.

ACitizenErased · 27-07-2020 05:10PM

hmmm wrote: »

mmm you'll excuse me if I don't take the word of a single scientist I've never heard of as the correct answer.

Because I'm sure you know of every single scientist in the world

Boggles · 27-07-2020 05:10PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-24/is-coronavirus-worse-than-the-flu-blood-studies-say-yes-by-far

April?

3 months old.

Assetbacked · 27-07-2020 05:10PM

hmmm wrote: »

Again, our stats are only low because we locked down. The median age of death in Ireland was high because most of our most serious cases occurred in nursing homes. What is wrong with you that you don't understand this?

I didn't say our cases are low, I'm saying that, based on the stats we have, the virus is not very harmful. You have absolutely no basis for saying that the virus would have a worse hospitalisation and death rate if more people got infected.

EDIT: I found the official table with the actual hospitalisation and death rate split between the age groups - see p9 https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/COVID-19_Daily_epidemiology_report_v0.1_website.pdf

Case fatality rate in Ireland based on number of notified cases (i.e. actual positive tests) as a % of the total cases;

0-14 years 0%
15-24 years 0.05%
25-34 years 0.11%
35-44 years 0.26%
45-54 years 0.52%
55-64 years 2.04%
65-74 years 12.3%
75-84 years 22.31%
85+ years 27.69%

All the while noting that the median age of those infected was 48 so it wasn't just older people that got infected.

ACitizenErased · 27-07-2020 05:11PM

Boggles wrote: »

No. The planet doesn't shít it's collective pants for 0.2.

If you truly believe that the current death rate of 4% is accurate then you must think the world is doing an incredible job at testing

hmmm · 27-07-2020 05:12PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Does anyone know if the number could in fact be far higher than 176k-294k, given a large proportion of deaths in Ireland have been in older people, who would have a higher IFR than ~0.6? Or does that calculation matter?

IFR will skew higher in older age groups, which would actually reduce the overall number. Hard to know how many have had it, our serological studies indicate less than 5% anyway, so a guesstimate 180k at the lower end of the above range.

Boggles · 27-07-2020 05:14PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

If you truly believe that the current death rate of 4% is accurate then you must think the world is doing an incredible job at testing

Where did I say that?

hmmm · 27-07-2020 05:15PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Because I'm sure you know of every single scientist in the world

This sort of things comes up repeatedly when people discuss science. You'll have lots of scientists on one side who say one thing, then for "balance" the media will look for someone who disagrees. It's presented as some form of debate then.

Global warming or the use of vaccines is a classic example of this false debate.

You have one scientist who is saying 0.2%, and lots and lots of scientists saying 0.6 to 1%. Why is your one scientist the one you are saying is correct?

ACitizenErased · 27-07-2020 05:15PM

Boggles wrote: »

Where did I say that?

You said 0.2 is wrong, what do you think it is? Don't act all confused, you know what you're doing.

ACitizenErased · 27-07-2020 05:18PM

hmmm wrote: »

This sort of things comes up repeatedly when people discuss science. You'll have lots of scientists on one side who say one thing, then for "balance" the media will look for someone who disagrees. It's presented as some form of debate then.

Global warming or the use of vaccines is a classic example of this false debate.

You have one scientist who is saying 0.2%, and lots and lots of scientists saying 0.6 to 1%. Why is your one scientist the one you are saying is correct?

They aren't saying it's 0.2, they're saying it's likely to become 0.2. It's believed the current IFR is between 0.6 and 1. Big difference. I'm not going to discredit scientists just because I've never heard of them, I like to take all sides into account rather than say "I'm not taking their word".

What Username Guidelines · 27-07-2020 05:20PM

froog wrote: »

A 15% hospitalisation is a scary high figure. Nearly 1 in 7 people will have to go to hospital or they might die. And they still might die even then.

Its amazing how little regard people have for human life.

Yep, this brings up another isolated-type argument I was talking about earlier. Lots of "If you're scared, stay home and let the rest of us get on with it".

I'm not in a risk category, so I am for the most part not overly worried about catching it. The thing that 'scares' me into staying home and being careful is not about me, but about another spike or surge. Even if the case figures are undercounted and hospitalisation is actually only 1.5% – it still has the potential to fill the health service pretty quickly, in turn potentially causing another level of lockdown which would really push the economy to the brink. This is what confuses me when people say 'we won't lock down again, NPHET said so'. It may be just local lockdown, but we don't know if that's enough to control it.

So while the above may not happen, it is worth planning for, and not as simple as just 'protect the vulnerable'.

A) There are a lot more vulnerable than people think, and

We don't know enough about the virus to identify the vulnerable.

Yes we know about age and certain underlying conditions may lead to a poorer outcome, but there is still mystery around what results in mild or severe cases.

What Username Guidelines · 27-07-2020 05:24PM

hmmm wrote: »

IFR will skew higher in older age groups, which would actually reduce the overall number. Hard to know how many have had it, our serological studies indicate less than 5% anyway, so a guesstimate 180k at the lower end of the above range.

Ah, gotcha, I did the maths backwards, dang.

Boggles · 27-07-2020 05:30PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You said 0.2 is wrong, what do you think it is? Don't act all confused, you know what you're doing.

Just because I said 0.2% is wrong doesn't mean I think 4% is right.

Between 1 - 2.5%.

Reducing with effective treatments.

Maybe 0.6 to 0.9.

ACitizenErased · 27-07-2020 05:31PM

China Destroyed COVID-19 Evidence, Says Doctor Who Investigated Wuhan Cases
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/889d9k/china-destroyed-covid-19-evidence-says-doctor-who-investigated-wuhan-cases?utm_source=reddit.com

JP Liz V1 · 27-07-2020 05:33PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

China Destroyed COVID-19 Evidence, Says Doctor Who Investigated Wuhan Cases
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/889d9k/china-destroyed-covid-19-evidence-says-doctor-who-investigated-wuhan-cases?utm_source=reddit.com

China have a lot to answer for

GooglePlus · 27-07-2020 05:35PM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

China have a lot to answer for

We'll all be answering to them in a few years, may as well get used to their shenanigans.

27-07-2020 05:36PM

froog wrote: »

A 15% hospitalisation is a scary high figure. Nearly 1 in 7 people will have to go to hospital or they might die. And they still might die even then.

Its amazing how little regard people have for human life.

15% isn't correct either, at the beginning the hospitalised every single case, regardless of severity.

Non solum non ambulabit · 27-07-2020 05:37PM

hmmm wrote: »

You should head over the Restrictions thread, or have a look here at posts by people like Assetbacked.

Since when was 15% hospitalisation a mild disease? Besides it's not that high, but the numbers requiring hospitalisation are still unlike anything else we have seen in recent decades.

Can you tell when someone gets Covid whether they are going to get mild symptoms?

If you don't attend hospital it is mild. 85% don't attend hospital. 85% mild. That is purely factual. No agenda as everyone understands this is a serious disease.

hmmm · 27-07-2020 05:40PM

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

If you don't attend hospital it is mild. 85% don't attend hospital. 85% mild. That is purely factual. No agenda as everyone understands this is a serious disease.

For many people it is not even noticeable, but "mild" means everything short of hospitalisation which is a pretty serious range. It's probably more accurate to say something like 50% mild, 40% moderate, 10% severe. "Moderate" is like a bad flu, and anyone who has had a flu will know what I mean.

https://www.europeanlung.org/en/covid-19/what-is-covid-19/symptoms

Covid 19 Part XX-26,644 in ROI (1,772 deaths) 6,064 in NI (556 deaths) (08/08)Read OP

Comments