Covid 19 Part XXII-30,360 in ROI(1,781 deaths) 8,035 in NI (568 deaths)(10/09)Read OP

is_that_so · 26-08-2020 09:24PM

hmmm wrote: »

Source?

It's a few years old but 30% is low. Reid did make reference to it at one stage in the hope that a lot more of them would get the annual shot.

https://www.thejournal.ie/nurses-flu-jab-3786843-Jan2018/

s1ippy · 26-08-2020 09:25PM

mandrake04 wrote: »

They still probably still are, people are still reporting delays in turnaround and every 2nd day you get a higher number. Maybe media need to ask that question as NEPHET just regard testing as testing.

Somebody did ask that today and it wasn't answered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gakt6PPHQFY

Eod100 · 26-08-2020 09:26PM

political analyst wrote: »

Are you denying that the constitutional right of bodily integrity exists? Cora Sherlock is a solicitor, you know. Therefore, she knows the law and the Constitution better than you or I do.

By the way, read this!

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/irish_constitution_1/constitution_fundamental_rights.html#:~:text=Bodily%20integrity,health%20endangered%20while%20in%20prison.

The irony of a woman who opposes women having the choice whether they want to have an abortion lecturing others about bodily autonomy. Hypocrisy is strong with her.

giveitholly · 26-08-2020 09:27PM

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea who David W. Higgins is, but he is talking out of his absolute pipe.

How come he is talking out of his pipe?

Eod100 · 26-08-2020 09:29PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

So no constitutional paragraph covering it.

Thought not.

Who is Cora Sherlock - a High Court Judge? Even SC barristers opinions count for little - there is usually one on the other side with the opposite view.

Even Supreme Court Judges can be caught out attending functions that they should not. We'll see how that one works out.

She's an anti-abortion activist and solicitor.

Assetbacked · 26-08-2020 09:30PM

jackboy wrote: »

They wouldn’t hold you down and inject you, they would severely punish you for not taking it. That’s how they would get around the civil rights stuff. The government can easily do that and the bulk of the population would aggressively back them.

Jesus, some serious keyboard warrior words here. "severly punish" and "aggressively back". Maybe go easy on the covid news for a bit?

The vaccine should only be mandatory for the vulnerable, if they get done then the whole crisis is dead in the water.

hmmm · 26-08-2020 09:33PM

Assetbacked wrote: »

Jesus, some serious keyboard warrior words here. "severly punish" and "aggressively back". Maybe go easy on the covid news for a bit?

The vaccine should only be mandatory for the vulnerable, if they get done then the whole crisis is dead in the water.

That's not how vaccinations work.

No vaccine gives 100% protection, and most vaccines don't work well for older people. Many people in the vulnerable category can't take vaccines.

They are relying on you to do your bit (well, not you, we know you don't care), but everyone with a social conscience no matter their age or health should be getting the vaccine to help protect those who would be badly affected.

Happydays2020 · 26-08-2020 09:33PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Wouldn't be reading too much into that.

Nobody really had a clue what they were dealing with originally and are finding better ways to treat those in hosptial etc.

Many factors in play

In my option here are four key factors:

- In Jan, Feb and March many many people who had it were never tested.

- Treatments have improved - sure at that stage we had French Ministers telling people not to use Ibuprofen.

- The age rate of those with infections is lower.

- older/vulnerable people are protecting themselves and being protected

GooglePlus · 26-08-2020 09:33PM

giveitholly wrote: »

Back in March/April we were getting 1 ICU admission for every 100 cases,In the past week we have had 725 cases and no ICU admission

https://twitter.com/higginsdavidw/status/1298694017467777028?s=19

1 ICU for every 1000 cases more like, do you really think we seen the full picture with the way testing was then?

Happydays2020 · 26-08-2020 09:35PM

hmmm wrote: »

I agree the population would back them, but no-one is going to get injected if they don't want it.

What is likely to happen though is that the population will not want to take the risk of mixing with unvaccinated people, and won't want unvaccinated people near the vulnerable or working alongside them - so certain jobs (e.g. healthcare, nursing homes) will require a vaccination cert, and many employers will require you to be vaccinated. Similarly I expect to see international travel restricted to vaccinated people, similar to the way Yellow fever vaccinations are required to enter some countries.

Anti-vaxers keep talking about their "rights", but everyone else has rights too and part of that will be to be protected from those who may be carriers of the disease.

Good point on yellow fever. I have my yellow book and it was examined when I went to Africa. Although the malaria tablets played havoc with my system.

26-08-2020 09:36PM

GooglePlus wrote: »

1 ICU for every 1000 cases more like, do you really think we seen the full picture with the way testing was then?

Says you "per a number pulled out of your head with not a shred of evidence other than its what you believe"

GooglePlus · 26-08-2020 09:37PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Says you "per a number pulled out of your head with not a shred of evidence other than its what you believe"

Pretty sure there was an antibody study carried out with a group of 5000 or so from Sligo and Dublin. It was 10 times more prevalent across both areas than the figures had shown, so I'm not pulling it out of nowhere.

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 09:38PM

I see there has been a lot of talk tonight about hospitalisations, so I've done some number work.

I've taken the cases for a 14 day period, starting 5 days ago (Link 1 and Link 2) (the estimated time it takes for person to be hospitalised after symptoms) and compared the cases with the hospitalisation rates (per HPSC) and actual hospitalisations.

Here is what I found:

0-4 ~ Additional Cases: 40 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 8.76% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 4
5-14 ~ Additional Cases: 99 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 3.55% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 4
15-24 ~ Additional Cases: 267 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 3.23% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 10
25-34 ~ Additional Cases: 291 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 4.18% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 12
35-44 ~ Additional Cases: 241 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 5.66% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 14
45-54 ~ Additional Cases: 183 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 9.28% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 17
55-64 ~ Additional Cases: 110 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 14.58% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 16
65-74 ~ Additional Cases: 52 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 31.39% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 16
75-84 ~ Additional Cases: 11 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 32.25% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 4
85+ ~ Additional Cases: 9 ~ Hospitalisation Rate: 20.11% ~ Expected Hospitalisations: 2

Total cases: 1303
Expected hospitalisations total: 99
Actual hospitalisations total: 21 
Estimated hospitalisation rate: 1.6%

In basic terms, for 147 cases today, you would expect 2 hospitalisations, given current trends.
Based on my calculations, you can make a rough observation that the hospitalisation rate, based on current trends, has reduced by approximately 4.5 times.

manofwisdom · 26-08-2020 09:39PM

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea who David W. Higgins is, but he is talking out of his absolute pipe.

He's using facts and stats. Anyone that thinks hospitalization rate is exactly what you would expect, maybe a little higher right now is talking out of their pipe.

What Username Guidelines · 26-08-2020 09:40PM

GooglePlus wrote: »

1 ICU for every 1000 cases more like, do you really think we seen the full picture with the way testing was then?

True, remember the first confirmed case was a teenager in north Dublin whose family were told they could continue going to work, etc.

The bit I don’t get about lower death rates, if it’s not explained by a weakening/mutation, a lot are saying it’s down to better treatments. But to get the majority of these treatments, you need to be in hospital I assume, yet hospitalisations are way down too.

If that’s explained by younger people catching it now, what is the explanation for younger people all over Europe to be getting it now? It seems like it’s similar across most nations, why within 4-6 months did it start burning through younger people all of a sudden? Maybe better cocooning or protection for nursing homes, but doesn’t this also signal that younger people were probably getting it all along and not being detected, and now it’s more of a case of fewer older people getting it, as opposed to more young?

hmmm · 26-08-2020 09:42PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Based on my calculations, you can make a rough observation that the hospitalisation rate, based on current trends, has reduced by approximately 4.5 times.

There is no evidence of any change in the virus. The rate hasn't changed, the denominator has - we are finding and testing much more of the cases today than we did at the start of this.

I'm at a loss to understand why this is causing so much confusion - do people not understand basic maths and how our testing is of a much larger scale? (not having a go at you ACE).

podgeandrodge · 26-08-2020 09:42PM

Boggles wrote: »

Like I said given we are finding the majority of cases, our hospitalization rate is exactly what you would expect, maybe a little higher, but that is down to over caution and head room I imagine.

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Are we really finding the majority of cases? I had been under the impression that there could be thousands more of asymptomatic cases around - how would we know? Sorry if missing the point here.

Boggles wrote: »

We are finding asymptomatic cases.

In a family of 10, 4 may be asymptomatic but the other 6 will have symptoms, they will all be tested.

yes, but I was referring to your saying that we are "finding the majority of cases". And was saying that there could be thousands more asymptomatic cases around. Not just the ones that are asymptomatic that are in a family with symptomatic people.

Surely there really are thousands with no symptoms and no need to get tested. Just going along oblivious. In which case we are nothing like having found the majority of cases?

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 09:43PM

hmmm wrote: »

There is no evidence of any change in the virus. The rate hasn't changed, the denominator has - we are finding and testing much more of the cases today than we did at the start of this.

I'm at a loss to understand why this is causing so much confusion - do people not understand basic maths and how our testing is of a much larger scale? (not having a go at you ACE).

Based on hospitalisation rates you would expect approx 100 extra hospitalisations in the last 2 weeks. There has been 21.

hmmm · 26-08-2020 09:45PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Based on hospitalisation rates you would expect approx 100 extra hospitalisations in the last 2 weeks. There has been 21.

Based on what hospitalisation rate?

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 09:46PM

hmmm wrote: »

Based on what hospitalisation rate?

Based on the overall hospitalisation rate per age? I linked the HPSC document in my post.

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 09:47PM

Even if we are testing more, that literally re-inforces the argument of the people who say the hospitalisation rate is way lower, and we've little to worry about re: hospitals.

Sam Russell · 26-08-2020 09:49PM

Eod100 wrote: »

She's an anti-abortion activist and solicitor.

I can use Google.

hmmm · 26-08-2020 09:50PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Even if we are testing more, that literally re-inforces the argument of the people who say the hospitalisation rate is way lower, and we've little to worry about re: hospitals.

Back in March if a 1000 people were infected, we were testing and finding perhaps 100. 20 of them might go to hospital and the rate is 20%

Today if a 1000 people get infected, we might be finding 500. The same 20 will go to hospital, but the rate is now 4%

In fact, the rate is exactly the same - we're just finding more of those infected.

You can't compare or draw any conclusions (except perhaps to say our testing is better).

Icantthinkof1 · 26-08-2020 09:50PM

Happydays2020 wrote: »

In my option here are four key factors:

- In Jan, Feb and March many many people who had it were never tested

I think this too- anyone who got a test during the peak were symptomatic; they had a fever along with another respiratory symptom
I can’t remember what our daily cases were daily in the peak but say if it was 500 cases- those 500 for the main part were already showing significant symptoms.
How many ‘mild’ or asymptomatic cases weren’t picked up over that period?

spookwoman · 26-08-2020 09:52PM

I've got 25 hospitalisations for the 2 weeks 10/08 to 23/08/

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 09:52PM

hmmm wrote: »

Back in March if a 1000 people were infected, we were testing and finding perhaps 100. 20 of them might go to hospital and the rate is 20%

Today if a 1000 people get infected, we might be finding 500. The same 20 will go to hospital, but the rate is now 4%

In fact, the rate is exactly the same - we're just finding more of those infected.

You can't compare or draw any conclusions (except perhaps to say our testing is better).

You can absolutely make conclusions that the hospitalisation rate of infected cases is way lower than previously believed. Everyone expects hospitals to be overwhelmed. That simply is not, and likely will not happen. As is seen across Europe.

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 09:54PM

spookwoman wrote: »

I've got 25 hospitalisations for the 2 weeks 10/08 to 23/08/

I said there's a 5 day delay, due to the fact the average time from symptoms -> hospitalisation = 5 days.
12th August (5 days after the 7th, the first set of data): 3376
26th August (5 days after the 21st, the second set of data): 3397

+21

SortingYouOut · 26-08-2020 09:54PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

You can absolutely make conclusions that the hospitalisation rate of infected cases is way lower than previously believed. Everyone expects hospitals to be overwhelmed. That simply is not, and likely will not happen. As is seen across Europe.

What hmmm is saying is obviously not getting to you, it makes complete sense and really isn't that confusing. I think you're trying to complicate something that really isn't complicated.

spookwoman · 26-08-2020 09:55PM

Here are all the stats the start. Hospital is from the daily reports on GOV.IE that are 2 days behind.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12R6GgLVWEUCxIkHK_VI9DB20VWvCDf8XyDZX3CJWsw0/edit?usp=sharing

Polar101 · 26-08-2020 09:56PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Even if we are testing more, that literally re-inforces the argument of the people who say the hospitalisation rate is way lower, and we've little to worry about re: hospitals.

I'm not sure if we can make accurate comparisons. The only thing we can say for sure is that there are less people hospitalised. But I don't think we can say "8% are expected to be hospitalised", because it's not the same group of people who are getting infected now - different age groups, tested at different times, different symptoms, mass testing - too many variables.

Covid 19 Part XXII-30,360 in ROI(1,781 deaths) 8,035 in NI (568 deaths)(10/09)Read OP

Comments