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

fritzelly · 05-08-2020 10:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

True, sh*t or get of the pot springs to mind. They either want elimination, which is shut down for 6 weeks and do a New Zealand on travel, or stick with the original strategy of contain track trace and target. Appears they are stuck not knowing what they want

Said many months and many threads ago I would rather a hard lockdown for 3 months than a year of dithering around

Seems I prophesied what would happen

Santy2015 · 05-08-2020 10:34PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

There was 2 admissions today and 8 discharges.

Sorry I meant over the past few days, seemed to jump quickly and then decrease quickly.
Looks to me that these patients weren’t ill enough to need hospital care and discharged

ACitizenErased · 05-08-2020 10:36PM

Santy2015 wrote: »

Sorry I meant over the past few days, seemed to jump quickly and then decrease quickly.
Looks to me that these patients weren’t ill enough to need hospital care and discharged

You often see a hospital report 1 case and then it's gone the next day. I would guess being fitted for oxygen of some sort, and being allowed go home.

Santy2015 · 05-08-2020 10:36PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

There was 2 admissions today and 8 discharges.

It was a decent increase in admissions and RTE ran with that story today. Wonder will they have a article about it being in single digits again tomorrow....

caveat emptor · 05-08-2020 10:37PM

froog wrote: »

stop digging, you were caught out badly and by your own source no less.

Deleted User wrote: »

Except I wasn’t, as explained. The problem is the presence of antibodies in those who have been infected. Not the ability of the test to detect antibodies when present.

eh ok....good sir.
Have some more so.

An international research study led by Edinburgh University (published last week in the journal Public Health) suggests that, although the tests' ability to identify the absence of antibodies is probably accurate, their ability to detect their presence is much less certain: 68 per cent of the people told that they have the antibodies won't actually have had the disease.

This is down to the key concepts of a test's ‘sensitivity' (how accurate it is in spotting people who do actually have the antibodies)
and its ‘specificity' (its accuracy spotting people who definitely don't have the antibodies.
A 90 per cent specificity and sensitivity means that even just taking a tiny proportion of the population, say 100,000 people, as many as 14,000 would be wrongly diagnosed and told that they've had Covid, or they haven't, when the opposite is true.

https://www.irishnews.com/lifestyle/2020/06/25/news/you-can-t-tell-diddly-squat-about-how-good-covid-antibody-tests-are-says-scientist-1983533/

road_high · 05-08-2020 10:39PM

almostover wrote: »

I work for a large multinational technology company and my eyes have been opened to how good we have it, companies response the the pandemic has been perfect and we've had 0 cases in our factory.

Direct provision is a national disgrace, it's like modern day slavery.

Funny, one of the main reasons there’s a lack of direct provision places is because so many that are allowed stay here continue to live in DP after becoming “legal”. So if this “modern day slavery” as you put it is such hell, then why are many choosing to stay there, long after they can leave? Might be the while free accommodation, food, heat and shelter provided. Courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.

The alternative is free houses for anyone that rocks up here claiming “asylum”. It’s little wonder the figures have skyrocketed in recent years.

Well I can guarantee you once we’ve seen through this crisis we are going to have a lot less money to squander on such frivolities for all and sundry

froog · 05-08-2020 10:40PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I'm not on about the plan, I'm on about what they're saying. One side's saying one thing, specifically about community transmission, and the other is saying something else.
I'd rather not go into it again, I feel like a broken record.

the cases have gone up. whether it's "clusters" or "community" to be honest doesn't really matter. i don't know how people arrived at clusters = no problem, community = apocalypse. as a disease in this country it is starting to spread again. not a huge cause for alarm yet, but requires very careful decision making.

ACitizenErased · 05-08-2020 10:42PM

froog wrote: »

the cases have gone up. whether it's "clusters" or "community" to be honest doesn't really matter. i don't know how people arrived at clusters = no problem, community = apocalypse. as a disease in this country it is starting to spread again. not a huge cause for alarm yet, but requires very careful decision making.

There is massive cause for alarm at community transmission. The WHO has made it fairly clear from the beginning that the number one thing to control is community transmission. That's why we went into lockdown.

edit: community transmission is incredibly low right now by NPHET numbers, thats my point, we don't have cause for alarm

05-08-2020 10:42PM

froog wrote: »

stop digging, you were caught out badly and by your own source no less.

Apologies. I appear to have made a massive error. At the time the report in my original post was completed the estimated specificity on the antibody tests was around 98%. This was relatively early con the pandemic however. Since then lots more data has being gathered and serology testes with specificities of 99.5% are common. How silly of me. It does mean however that in using serology testing to detect antibodies, we actually have an incredibly low risk of false positives. Apologies for overstating the potential rate of false positives, but now we can be more clear, if there is 5% antibodies present, it is likely correct to within an small margin

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html

US2 · 05-08-2020 10:43PM

Santy2015 wrote: »

Seems large as there was 6/7 admissions.. are they letting people home even when still infected?

Wow

US2 · 05-08-2020 10:44PM

froog wrote: »

i haven't seen any deviation from the original plan to be honest. different phases of opening and if cases start going up, we take a step back. cases have gone up, and we have slowed the next phase a tad as we see how this progresses. we haven't even gone back a full step yet. it seems some posters on here are desperate not only to never take a step back, but to discredit the government at the same time. neither of which is helpful.

the original plan was to flatten the curve and give hse time to prepare.We did that but now it seems like they want 0 cases while at the same time saying its impossible to close borders or enforcement of quarantine

almostover · 05-08-2020 10:44PM

road_high wrote: »

Funny, one of the main reasons there’s a lack of direct provision places is because so many that are allowed stay here continue to live in DP after becoming “legal”. So if this “modern day slavery” as you put it is such hell, then why are many choosing to stay there, long after they can leave? Might be the while free accommodation, food, heat and shelter provided. Courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.

The alternative is free houses for anyone that rocks up here claiming “asylum”. It’s little wonder the figures have skyrocketed in recent years.

Well I can guarantee you once we’ve seen through this crisis we are going to have a lot less money to squander on such frivolities for all and sundry

I agree to a point, all asylum applications should be processed within 3 months of arrival. Then either a person stays and lives in Ireland or is deported. We would have half the overcrowding problems and issues with civil rights if we processed the applications quickly.

froog · 05-08-2020 10:46PM

road_high wrote: »

Funny, one of the main reasons there’s a lack of direct provision places is because so many that are allowed stay here continue to live in DP after becoming “legal”. So if this “modern day slavery” as you put it is such hell, then why are many choosing to stay there, long after they can leave? Might be the while free accommodation, food, heat and shelter provided. Courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.

The alternative is free houses for anyone that rocks up here claiming “asylum”. It’s little wonder the figures have skyrocketed in recent years.

Well I can guarantee you once we’ve seen through this crisis we are going to have a lot less money to squander on such frivolities for all and sundry

yeah it's baffling. i mean it's not like we're in the middle of the worst housing crisis in the history of the state.

and secondly they are not free houses, they are ****ty mobile homes, about 20 years old by the look of some of them.

Direct_Provision_centre%2C_Athlone.jpg

caveat emptor · 05-08-2020 10:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies. I appear to have made a massive error. At the time the report in my original post was completed the estimated specificity on the antibody tests was around 98%. This was relatively early con the pandemic however. Since then lots more data has being gathered and serology testes with specificities of 99.5% are common. How silly of me. It does mean however that in using serology testing to detect antibodies, we actually have an incredibly low risk of false positives. Apologies for overstating the potential rate of false positives, but now we can be more clear, if there is 5% antibodies present, it is likely correct to within an small margin

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html

That's dated 1st of august.
When did we do our study done?

If you honestly believe that 5% have had it when we used a fairly dodgy test
then I'm done.

You are doing what a 4 year old does.
I'm sorry but .......
No but Mr.

ACitizenErased · 05-08-2020 10:49PM

caveat emptor wrote: »

That's dated 1st of august.
When did we do our study done?

If you honestly believe that 5% have had it when we used a fairly dodgy test
then I'm done.

You are doing what a 4 year old does.
I'm sorry but .......
No but Mr.

It's probably higher than 5%. Immunity is not just antibodies.

fr336 · 05-08-2020 10:50PM

Good news: Study in Qatar puts possible mortality rate at 0.01%.

Bad news: Italian study puts it at 7.4%

Something for everyone there!

05-08-2020 10:51PM

caveat emptor wrote: »

eh ok....good sir.
Have some more so.

https://www.irishnews.com/lifestyle/2020/06/25/news/you-can-t-tell-diddly-squat-about-how-good-covid-antibody-tests-are-says-scientist-1983533/

If it had 90% specificity. It then goes on to talk about tests with up to 99.8% specificity. And in my previous post the indications are the serology testing exceeds 99.5%. We did not complete tests using home testing kits, but using top labs and therefore, ave a high degree of confidence in the positive antibody rate. You are flailing admirably, but hopelessly wrong if you thing you have identified and information that suggests serology testing for COVID-19 has any significant issue with false positives for antibodies.

timsey tiger · 05-08-2020 10:54PM

fr336 wrote: »

Good news: Study in Qatar puts possible mortality rate at 0.01%.

Bad news: Italian study puts it at 7.4%

Something for everyone there!

These single point ifrs are pointless, you have to split it down by age maybe 5/10 year bands and possibly see too.

Myramar · 05-08-2020 10:56PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I'm not on about the plan, I'm on about what they're saying. One side's saying one thing, specifically about community transmission, and the other is saying something else.
I'd rather not go into it again, I feel like a broken record.

Do you have any daily figures for the last 4 weeks say just cases that are CT.
Donnelly is saying this:

1 in 5 cases are Community Transmission ie:20%
This has remained consistent since from whenever - he is not clear.
Average positive confirmed cases have gone up by a factor of 2.5 - not clear from "When" to "When"

Therefore, 2.5 times more cases with a constant CT rate of 20% means 2.5 times more CT cases.

This is making the analysis absurdly complicated. Messing with percentages on numbers where the periods are not defined.

Surely we can look at the daily cases of CT cases and compare the numbers for "now" versus "then" and see if his "GROWTH RATE" of 2.5 holds water.

I know already if does not because if it did it wouldn't present it in such an obfiscated way.

growleaves · 05-08-2020 10:57PM

fr336 wrote: »

Good news: Study in Qatar puts possible mortality rate at 0.01%.

Bad news: Italian study puts it at 7.4%

Something for everyone there!

For anyone who believes the 7.4% estimate, I have some exciting investing opportunities I'd like to share with you exclusively please PM me for details.

froog · 05-08-2020 10:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies. I appear to have made a massive error. At the time the report in my original post was completed the estimated specificity on the antibody tests was around 98%. This was relatively early con the pandemic however. Since then lots more data has being gathered and serology testes with specificities of 99.5% are common. How silly of me. It does mean however that in using serology testing to detect antibodies, we actually have an incredibly low risk of false positives. Apologies for overstating the potential rate of false positives, but now we can be more clear, if there is 5% antibodies present, it is likely correct to within an small margin

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html

you seem to be ignoring all of the concerns stated by your study's authors. concerns that don't lead to a conclusion that antibody testing is suitable to determine COVID prevalence in a country.

Authors' conclusions
The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID‐19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT‐PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post‐symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID‐19 disease.

The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID‐19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID‐19‐positive cases who are RT‐PCR‐negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT‐PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast‐moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

if you can't understand what is written there, in simple terms: antibody testing is possibly useful with a lot of caveats and uncertainty in the very narrow window of 15-35 days after onset of symptoms. i.e. it is less than useless for a country trying to determine prevalence months after an disease outbreak has started.

i don't know what kind of scientist would base a conclusion on prevalence in a country on that conclusion, but i hope they are not working in public health.

Assetbacked · 05-08-2020 10:59PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

There is massive cause for alarm at community transmission. The WHO has made it fairly clear from the beginning that the number one thing to control is community transmission. That's why we went into lockdown.

edit: community transmission is incredibly low right now by NPHET numbers, thats my point, we don't have cause for alarm

200 cases in the past week from pulling DP occupants and travellers out of their beds as well as forcing slaughterhouse workers to undergo a test. You look for cases and you get them but the key metrics on how we're doing are deaths and hospitalisations. Both absolutely stable and have been for months. Covid should be of minimal concern consequently.

JRant · 05-08-2020 11:00PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

There is massive cause for alarm at community transmission. The WHO has made it fairly clear from the beginning that the number one thing to control is community transmission. That's why we went into lockdown.

edit: community transmission is incredibly low right now by NPHET numbers, thats my point, we don't have cause for alarm

Exactly right. Clusters with contact tracing and isolation structure are completely manageable. Community transmission, even with contact tracing is a different animal.

That's why the refusal to move to phase 4 even with our very low numbers is baffling. Realistically, with the current travel policy and lack of enforceable quarantine, it's about as well as we could have hoped for. The alternative is to prevent anyone in or out of the country for 12/18 months without forced quarantine upon arrival and even then there would be a large number of countries not allowed into the state, and I would include NI in that as well.

blowitupref · 05-08-2020 11:04PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

HSE Daily Operations Update
9 in hospital, decrease of 6.
0 confirmed cases in hospitals today.
6 in ICU, increase of 1.
1 ventilated, no change.

No doubt some journalists will still talk about the suspected cases to make it look worse than it is.

05-08-2020 11:04PM

froog wrote: »

you seem to be ignoring all of the concerns stated by your study's authors. concerns that don't lead to a conclusion that antibody testing is suitable to determine COVID prevalence in a country.

Authors' conclusions
The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID‐19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT‐PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post‐symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID‐19 disease.

The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID‐19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID‐19‐positive cases who are RT‐PCR‐negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT‐PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast‐moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

if you can't understand what is written there, in simple terms: antibody testing is possibly useful with a lot of caveats and uncertainty in the very narrow window of 15-35 days after onset of symptoms. i.e. it is less than useless for a country trying to determine prevalence months after an disease outbreak has started.

Look I have wasted far too much time trying to explain the meaning of test specificity to two individuals who just don’t want to listen. Martina1991 on here works in the labs and may be able to explain in clearer terms. I will just leave with the only information i can find on the test used by us which states a highly sensitive and specific test was selected. We are not using home testing kits, but world class test methods and equipment

https://www.hpsc.ie/news/title-19974-en.html

Assetbacked · 05-08-2020 11:06PM

froog wrote: »

you seem to be ignoring all of the concerns stated by your study's authors. concerns that don't lead to a conclusion that antibody testing is suitable to determine COVID prevalence in a country.

Authors' conclusions
The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID‐19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT‐PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post‐symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID‐19 disease.

The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID‐19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID‐19‐positive cases who are RT‐PCR‐negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT‐PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast‐moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

if you can't understand what is written there, in simple terms: antibody testing is possibly useful with a lot of caveats and uncertainty in the very narrow window of 15-35 days after onset of symptoms. i.e. it is less than useless for a country trying to determine prevalence months after an disease outbreak has started.

i don't know what kind of scientist would base a conclusion on prevalence in a country on that conclusion, but i hope they are not working in public health.

I think we need to focus on Italy; they lost control and let covid run its course unintentionally. They've reopened for months but have had no second surge.

The fact that antibody tests are not being posted out to every man, woman and child in order to try to assess the levels of actual infection which occurred shows that there is really a very small dataset from which the government is interpreting the scale of the covid problem. Far too much emphasis on fear mongering which indicates a lack of actual data to back up positions and the vaccine talk is of the mán waiting for Godot. I'm not a decision maker but I feel that covid has burned through societies quicker than the fuddy duddy academics predicted and governments bulked up resources, pumped money into vaccines prematurely and imposed strict lockdown on society. Now they are hoping to justify such OTT reactions by prolonging the hype around the virus as it would leave them looking stupid if they admitted it was heavy handed. Perhaps it is good practice for the next more serious pandemic.

As an armchair pundit, I would look at the industries most decimated and buy shares in those industries.

ACitizenErased · 05-08-2020 11:06PM

Myramar wrote: »

Do you have any daily figures for the last 4 weeks say just cases that are CT.
Donnelly is saying this:

1 in 5 cases are Community Transmission ie:20%
This has remained consistent since from whenever - he is not clear.
Average positive confirmed cases have gone up by a factor of 2.5 - not clear from "When" to "When"

Therefore, 2.5 times more cases with a constant CT rate of 20% means 2.5 times more CT cases.

This is making the analysis absurdly complicated. Messing with percentages on numbers where the periods are not defined.

Surely we can look at the daily cases of CT cases and compare the numbers for "now" versus "then" and see if his "GROWTH RATE" of 2.5 holds water.

I know already if does not because if it did it wouldn't present it in such an obfiscated way.

We haven't got any details on breakdown other than the average before last week (which is 31%). In the last 3 days community transmission has accounted for less than 10%, based on the figures NPHET give in their press release.

Martina1991 · 05-08-2020 11:06PM

caveat emptor wrote: »

That's dated 1st of august.
When did we do our study done?

If you honestly believe that 5% have had it when we used a fairly dodgy test
then I'm done.

You are doing what a 4 year old does.
I'm sorry but .......
No but Mr.

There's a **** load of antibody tests on the market. Most are sh*te because they were churned out to make money.

So it is not correct so lump them all in together and say all antibody tests are inaccurate.

Do you even know what platform Ireland used for the surveillance study or how accurate it is.

Because talking about the sensitivity and specificity of tests in other countries has no relevance to us.

froog · 05-08-2020 11:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Look I have wasted far too much time trying to explain the meaning of test specificity to two individuals who just don’t want to listen. Martina1991 on here works in the labs and may be able to explain in clearer terms. I will just leave with the only information i can find on the test used by us which states a highly sensitive and specific test was selected. We are not using home testing kits, but world class test methods and equipment

https://www.hpsc.ie/news/title-19974-en.html

so you discredit or retract that study you linked earlier? cause it is saying the exact opposite of what you are now to trying to claim. your own linked study. in plain english.

froog · 05-08-2020 11:10PM

Martina1991 wrote: »

There's a **** load of antibody tests on the market. Most are sh*te because they were churned out to make money.

So it is not correct so lump them all in together and say all antibody tests are inaccurate.

Do you even know what platform Ireland used for the surveillance study or how accurate it is.

Because talking about the sensitivity and specificity of tests in other countries has no relevance to us.

which one is the HSE study using?

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

Comments