FintanMcluskey wrote: » But Ireland had the same loss of life, its just that most posters cant understand the statistics behind the numbers.
Bit cynical wrote: » It may be more living and working conditions that account for higher antibodies in working class populations within hotspots than lower levels of prior immunity in these groups. They will be more exposed to the virus and also more likely to spread it in the initial stages. Living in more crowded conditions and less likely to work in sanitized office environments would mean they are hit first and hardest, but also be the first to acquire some degree of immunity. Therefore their immunity, to the extent it exists is more important that groups leading more isolated lives.
bb1234567 wrote: » In hotspots such as New York , it is not consistent level of infection across the city. In working class districts up to 80% of the populations on those nieghbourhoods had antibdoes. It's not as if the often cited 1 in 5 figure was replicated throughout most of the city. Where does this leave this theory then? Why are some cohorts clearly so vulnerable to infection? The information provided appears to glean over this extremely important detail. Unless there is some valid theory given as to why working class people may have lower levels of immunity to other coronaviruses that has allowed such widespread transmission of COVID-19 in the last few months, then it very strongly suggests that there are simply large numbers of peple in these hotspots in other less affected areas still vulnerable to infection.
Can anyone point out any further glaringly incorrect 'facts' in the article that I may have missed?
patnor1011 wrote: » There is no second wave. What is being portrayed as "second wave" is in fact just a virus coming to states where population was not yet exposed to the virus. Even Ireland exposure was delayed by lockdown which in fact only prolonged inevitable. Better explained here: At the end of May there was a significant breakthrough in understanding of COVID antibodies which was not widely reported: a Swiss study from Zurich led by Professor Onur Boyman demonstrated that a large proportion of the population had a natural immunity through existing antibodies on the mucous membrane (IgA) or cellular immunity (T cells), likely to have been acquired through previous exposure to coronaviruses such as influenza or the common cold (the absence of exposure to previous coronavirus is now thought to explain the opposite effect in 1918). The study found that that the presence of (IgG and IgM) antibodies generated on infection which tests had previously focused on, were NOT in fact required to defeat the virus and that existing (IgA and T cell) antibodies that gave a natural immunity. Moreover, the population with this natural immunity was demonstrated to be five times greater than those with the IgG and IgM antibodies on which tests had hitherto focused. If this could be substantiated, then the population already exposed to COVID would also be five times greater than previously assumed. In other words, if a population sample showed 10% had IgG and IgM antibodies (which might be subject to decay) then it was likely that at least half of the population had already been exposed to COVID. It followed that antibody studies that measured only IgG and IgM that were now predicting population-based mortality risk of 0.1% to 0.5% (lower than the 1% in the elderly population aboard the Diamond Princess) could be even further reduced by a factor of five to 0.02% to 0.1% and the level of symptomatic exposure from 20% to below 5% (consistent with the flu season ironically predicted by Fauci in March). Not only would this mean a further similar reduction in the estimated true mortality rate but it meant that there were far fewer people in the population who had never had exposure to the virus, so a far lower number who could potentially catch the virus in the future. In short, the infamous herd immunity was much closer than previously realised. This explained why, by July, the virus had all but disappeared in populations like Sweden, New York (Fig. 7) and Wuhan (which reportedly tested its entire population of 11 million and found only 300 cases, all of which were asymptomatic) which were significantly affected by a “first wave”: if the ratio of those with IgA and T cell antibodies to IgG and IgM antibodies across population was confirmed at a factor of five then if 20% of the population had traditional IgG and IgM antibodies (such as New York with 21% and London with 17%) then the virus died out because there was simply no one left for it to infect. It followed that the virus could only survive in population samples where testing showed the presence of IgG and IgM antibodies was below 20% (and allowing for their decay probably well below). Nobel Prize winning biological scientist Michael Levitt had already come to the same conclusion based on a different approach: he predicted that the virus would “burn out” when it had infected 15-20% of the population though based on a pattern predicted by the “Gompertz curve” which indicated that the number of deaths after the peak is roughly double those from before resulting in Levitt accurately predicting the number of Chinese and Swedish deaths, months in advance. Levitt has recently bravely predicted that US COVID will “be done in 4 weeks [25 Aug] with a total reported death below 170,000”, compared to 149,000 today. Boyman’s theory on “IgA and T Cell immunity” explained the accuracy of Levitt’s “Gompertz curve” predictions and this was now being backed up by the empirical evidence which showed that the populations which were hit hardest with high initial rates of infection and mortality, were the ones where the virus had almost disappeared. Almost none of this was reported by a media which choose instead to attach the misnomer “second wave” to outbreaks of COVID infection in populations which had not yet experienced any meaningful “first wave”: the Sunbelt states in the US, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan. The irony was that the vulnerability of populations which had not yet seen meaningful infection outbreaks and therefore the fallacy of lockdown had already been predicted by Levitt and Giesecke. It was also logical that population groups where IgG and IgM antibodies were still significantly below 20% would continue to see infections.
greyday wrote: » The Swedish loss of life may very well be worth it to the world but I would not have experimented with Irish lives in that way.
timmy_mallet wrote: » You're right, the world owes Sweden a debt. They experimented on everyone's behalf. The question to ask is, was the loss of life worth it to society. What do you think?
Thierry12 wrote: » 5000 or so of those dead are over the age of 70 0.8% of under 70 died Sweden were right not to lockdown, but wrong not protect the old Others can learn from that mistake
tobefrank321 wrote: » I'm fairly certain the 14 day average is also up.
biko wrote: » 80,422 official cases 5,743 officially dead 7.1% of known cases have passed Numbers from FHMs own tracking pagehttps://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa
tobefrank321 wrote: » He came into the meeting with statistics that were blown out of the water by the 85 cases which weren't included in his model as he said himself.
Boggles wrote: » Unless he was wrong or telling fibs, the guy that is in charge of the modelling stated they were down yesterday. Blip aside.
tobefrank321 wrote: » I'm fairly certain the 14 day average is also up. Yesterdays blip will skew the numbers.
Boggles wrote: » 14 day average is more an accurate reflection of how the disease progressing. Sweden have had 650 cases in the last 3 days alone.
tobefrank321 wrote: » And it seems inevitable that schools will be scarified to bring numbers down. Hopefully not.
Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: » Yes but our approach is not sustainable. I don't care if pubs never open but once they do, our numbers will start off again.
tobefrank321 wrote: » What's the average for the last 7 days and how does it compare to the previous 7 days?
tobefrank321 wrote: » Actually I just checked there - we've had 201 cases for the 7 days up to yesterday. That's a daily average of 29 cases.
Billgirlylegs wrote: » Many interesting comments on this -i hope it doesn't go off the rails. The "Sweden" approach can really only be assessed in the long term, as can others. There is no obvious right answer on how to deal with this thing. Just grateful that someone is doing something different for comparison purposes if nothing else. I see no evidence at this stage, that our lot _ Government, Dept Health , HSE and NPHET _are anything other than clueless chancers, getting lucky in some of their decisions. Mostly they are playing it day by day and hoping for the best. No logic in anything they are doing, and they are constantly making liars of themselves.
biko wrote: » Guideline for doctors were implemented to make sure ICUs did not get overwhelmed. Instead doctors have prescribed morphine to help the old people die.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Nothing like a bowl of emotional manipulation when the statistics dont support your argument.
Thierry12 wrote: » They let it run through the population and 70 people below 50 died ( most had underlying conditions ) Of known cases, a 99.92% survival rate for under 50's 70 young people died in a country that has 20 car crashes a day involving hitting a Moosehttps://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/
greyday wrote: » It actually is sustainable if the article you quoted is correct, if Swedes have immunity from previous corona virus infections, there is no reason not to believe Irish people will have similar levels of immunity. There is also now more understanding of what the standard of care should be and we are also closer to a Vaccine if one is ever to be effective. We saved lives while building up knowledge while Sweden sacrificed lives building their knowledge. Personally I would like to see an independent group collecting the data on deaths around the world as politicians as we see with Trump are economical with facts when they make a hames of something.
biko wrote: » It's sad when people are so callous about their parents and grandparents lives. I guess that's what it means to be young today.
JimmyVik wrote: » Its not only young people who would like to live a few more years.
