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

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 09:57PM

SortingYouOut wrote: »

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.

You clearly paid no attention to the data I provided, but thanks.

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 09:59PM

Polar101 wrote: »

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.

There are less people hospitalised because the original hospitalisation rates are inflated. Which means that it will take a massive, massive amount of cases to overwhelm our hospitals.

GooglePlus · 26-08-2020 10:02PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

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.

How do they come to the expected hospitalisation figures?

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 10:03PM

GooglePlus wrote: »

How do they come to the expected hospitalisation figures?

Multiply the number of cases in that age range by the average percentage of cases hospitalised in that range

mountgomery burns · 26-08-2020 10:03PM

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).

I'd tend to agree with your logic. But if you are correct it would suggest that the seroprevalence study which suggested at the upper limit we have less than 3 times the diagnosed number of infections has severely underestimated the actual number.

And I would worry that it was cited by the minister for health today, this could be a measure that helps form public policy going forward.

GooglePlus · 26-08-2020 10:07PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Multiply the number of cases in that age range by the average percentage of cases hospitalised in that range

Would the hospitalisation rates not be skewed due to us throwing everyone in at the beginning of all this or is that taken into account?

What Username Guidelines · 26-08-2020 10:07PM

I guess you’d call it CHR and IHR. Case hospitalisation rate will fluctuate as it’s a ratio of cases found to people hospitalised. Infection hospitalisation rate should remain the same but, like IFR, it’s very difficult to tell the true number of infections.

We’re closer to it than March, but who knows how much closer? You could theorise that there were 10x more cases found now compared to March, but how many Nx cases are there found now compared to reality?

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 10:09PM

GooglePlus wrote: »

Would the hospitalisation rates not be skewed due to us throwing everyone in at the beginning of all this or is that taken into account?

It would be skewed slightly yes. It reinforces my point that the hospitalisation rate is likely way lower than previously suspected.
I'm afraid it came across like I'm one of the 'virus weakening' crowd (I'm not).
My point is that this worry about hospitals is pretty unwarranted when we're catching most of our cases now.

What Username Guidelines · 26-08-2020 10:10PM

GooglePlus wrote: »

Would the hospitalisation rates not be skewed due to us throwing everyone in at the beginning of all this or is that taken into account?

I don’t think so anymore - it wasn’t like the first 1,000 cases were hospitalised, it was more like maybe 30-50, which in the overall scheme of things months later, shouldn’t have much of an impact.

Polar101 · 26-08-2020 10:10PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

There are less people hospitalised because the original hospitalisation rates are inflated. Which means that it will take a massive, massive amount of cases to overwhelm our hospitals.

I agree that it will take a lot more cases than what we have now to even become a problem for the hospital system. But there is no way to say for certain, or even with "reasonable level of confidence" how many more that would be, and I wouldn't want to say the case numbers need to be "massive, massive" before there is a problem. The healthcare system gets busy enough even without Covid-19 cases.

26-08-2020 10:10PM

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).

Many ICU doctors across europe who understand science and medicine, I'm sure better than alot of us on here are saying anecdotely the virus is less aggressive/angry/its weaker.

They are going to be the first people to suggest this as they are the highly trained medical professionals at the coal face so to speak.

WHO/Govt health department are not going to say this as they would have to be certain this is the case after months of this trend. Also its not really in their interest to say this as people quite rightly would give up on social distancing altogether.

There is a growing consensus something is happening with this virus all over europe with a lot less sick people/deaths. There is a lot we do not understand with the virus, but you seem to think you have all the answers. There is 4 people in ICU's currently despite 1000's of cases in the last month.

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 10:11PM

Polar101 wrote: »

I agree that it will take a lot more cases than what we have now to even become a problem for the hospital system. But there is no way to say for certain, or even with "reasonable level of confidence" how many more that would be, and I wouldn't want to say the case numbers need to be "massive, massive" before there is a problem. The healthcare system gets busy enough even without Covid-19 cases.

Given we have had over 1000 cases in the past 2 weeks, and we've had ~20 hospitalisations, it's going to need more than that.

GooglePlus · 26-08-2020 10:16PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Many ICU doctors across europe who understand science and medicine, I'm sure better than alot of us on here are saying anecdotely the virus is less aggressive/angry/its weaker.

They are going to be the first people to suggest this as they are the highly trained medical professionals at the coal face so to speak.

WHO/Govt health department are not going to say this as they would have to be certain this is the case after months of this trend. Also its not really in their interest to say this as people quite rightly would give up on social distancing altogether.

There is a growing consensus something is happening with this virus all over europe with a lot less sick people/deaths. There is a lot we do not understand with the virus, but you seem to think you have all the answers. There is 4 people in ICU's currently despite 1000's of cases in the last month.

They're testing the genome of the virus regularly, wouldn't they have noted a fundamental change?

Polar101 · 26-08-2020 10:19PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Given we have had over 1000 cases in the past 2 weeks, and we've had ~20 hospitalisations, it's going to need more than that.

Certainly looks that way, yes. 20 is an insignificant number on a national scale (not saying it isn't significant to the people who are hospitalised and their loved ones).

Non solum non ambulabit · 26-08-2020 10:23PM

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.

Exactly. People can't have it both ways.

It is either deadly virus that hospitalised 15% of cases or there were way more cases than we thought and the hospitalisations were 10 times less at 1.5%

All the evidence is pointing to the latter.

iguana · 26-08-2020 10:23PM

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

I think this too- anyone who got a test during the peak were symptomatic; they had a fever along with another respiratory symptom

That wasn’t enough to get you a test back then. You also had to have an underlying condition or a confirmed close contact. I had the fever and respiratory symptoms and still got bumped off the list. I was also part of a cluster of people with symptoms but none of us could get a test.

Eod100 · 26-08-2020 10:23PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Given we have had over 1000 cases in the past 2 weeks, and we've had ~20 hospitalisations, it's going to need more than that.

Think it reflects lower age population of people getting it. If we can keep it out of nursing homes, hospitals, direct provision centres and other settings with vulnerable people would be the best. And hopefully mask wearing and more people eligible for free seasonal flu vaccine mean milder flu season.

froog · 26-08-2020 10:25PM

mountgomery burns wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with your logic. But if you are correct it would suggest that the seroprevalence study which suggested at the upper limit we have less than 3 times the diagnosed number of infections has severely underestimated the actual number.

And I would worry that it was cited by the minister for health today, this could be a measure that helps form public policy going forward.

current seroprevalence studies cannot be trusted at all. they test for antibodies which there is a lot of evidence to suggest don't last especially long, maybe a few months. there are a number of other inaccuracies with them also.

Renjit · 26-08-2020 10:29PM

It will be interesting to see where it goes 1-2 months from now. If the cases increase gradually then that time will be the peak.

What Username Guidelines · 26-08-2020 10:30PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Given we have had over 1000 cases in the past 2 weeks, and we've had ~20 hospitalisations, it's going to need more than that.

Any idea where you’d find the number of admissions in the two weeks leading to peak in april? You can see totals on the dashboard but not admissions per day. Would be interesting to compare “cases found & hospitalised” in past 2 weeks (>1,000 & ~20) vs 2 weeks leading to peak.

26-08-2020 10:30PM

GooglePlus wrote: »

They're testing the genome of the virus regularly, wouldn't they have noted a fundamental change?

This trend has literally happened in the last month or two and remember have scientists got it right so far?

I can remember WHO saying the following earlier this year:

there is no evidence of person to person transmission.

there is little risk of this spreading outside china.

there is no evidence face coverings have any benefit to reduce spread of virus.

there is no evidence that the virus is airbourne and can spread in an enclosed space.

there is no evidence the virus is less deadly.

Are the above all correct just because WHO/science has said this at some point?

This is how science works, it updates, old theories are discarded when new evidence refutes previous understandings.

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 10:31PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Any idea where you’d find the number of admissions in the two weeks leading to peak in april? You can see totals on the dashboard but not admissions per day. Would be interesting to compare “cases found & hospitalised” in past 2 weeks (>1,000 & ~20) vs 2 weeks leading to peak.

Here's the epi reports from April.
You can compare day by day
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/april2020/

What Username Guidelines · 26-08-2020 10:32PM

Renjit wrote: »

It will be interesting to see where it goes 1-2 months from now. If the cases increase gradually then that time will be the peak.

France registered > 5k cases today which is their third highest ever, very close to second, and I’m pretty sure their highest (>7k) was a reporting/backdated problem. Their deaths are still flatlined though.

Are we really seeing a consistent increase in testing across Europe causing this apparent second wave? One of the only places not seeing this is Sweden, but their deaths are still trending towards low like elsewhere.

froog · 26-08-2020 10:33PM

pure speculation of course but i think it's plausible the real graph of cases could be something like the red line below, overlayed on the actual data; huge amount of cases not caught, mostly asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic, and right now the cases reflect reality more due to better testing and tracing and better care strategies. and so we see current hospitalization rates much lower than we thought based on the first "wave". using spain as a larger data set than ireland but you can apply it to other countries.

mountgomery burns · 26-08-2020 10:33PM

froog wrote: »

current seroprevalence studies cannot be trusted at all. they test for antibodies which there is a lot of evidence to suggest don't last especially long, maybe a few months. there are a number of other inaccuracies with them also.

Yeah I'm not very familiar with how effective they are to be honest but the figure seems just far too low to be true based on the simple facts surrounding case diagnosis earlier in the year.

Yet, has been mentioned by NPHET to support their theory that the vast vast majority of the population has not been exposed. And I wonder is that wise

26-08-2020 10:33PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Any idea where you’d find the number of admissions in the two weeks leading to peak in april? You can see totals on the dashboard but not admissions per day. Would be interesting to compare “cases found & hospitalised” in past 2 weeks (>1,000 & ~20) vs 2 weeks leading to peak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Remaining in Hospital, ICU, Currently Ventilated, New Daily Hospital & ICU Admissions

What Username Guidelines · 26-08-2020 10:34PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Here's the epi reports from April.
You can compare day by day
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/april2020/

One for the morning when I’m not on the phone. Cheers.

GooglePlus · 26-08-2020 10:34PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This trend has literally happened in the last month or two and remember have scientists got it right so far?

I can remember WHO saying the following earlier this year:

there is no evidence of person to person transmission.

there is little risk of this spreading outside china.

there is no evidence face coverings have any benefit to reduce spread of virus.

there is no evidence that the virus is airbourne and can spread in an enclosed space.

there is no evidence the virus is less deadly.

Are the above all correct just because WHO/science has said this at some point?

This is how science works, it updates, old theories are discarded when new evidence refutes previous understandings.

I get that, but the science behind the virus sequencing is fairly solid. They could tell when it mutated in Italy, becoming more contagious. If the virus has weakened, it's make up would have changed and there has been no reports of any fundamental changes.

ACitizenErased · 26-08-2020 10:34PM

froog wrote: »

pure speculation of course but i think it's plausible the real graph of cases could be something like the red line below, overlayed on the actual data; huge amount of cases not caught, mostly asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic, and right now the cases reflect reality more due to better testing and tracing and better care strategies. and so we see current hospitalization rates much lower than we thought based on the first "wave". using spain as a larger data set than ireland but you can apply it to other countries.

Very good point. If you take the estimated IFR of 0.6% then our total cases is actually almost 300,000.

What Username Guidelines · 26-08-2020 10:38PM

froog wrote: »

pure speculation of course but i think it's plausible the real graph of cases could be something like the red line below, overlayed on the actual data; huge amount of cases not caught, mostly asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic, and right now the cases reflect reality more due to better testing and tracing and better care strategies. and so we see current hospitalization rates much lower than we thought based on the first "wave". using spain as a larger data set than ireland but you can apply it to other countries.

One thing that is certainly consistent throughout most of Europe is that June dip/flatline. That can’t be explained by testing too many/too few and I notice your speculative red line also respects that, i.e. doesn’t assume an undercount. Remember the days when we’d report like 4 cases or have a positivity rate of 0.3%. Fascinating to wonder what caused that.

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

Comments