Covid 19 Part XXVII- 62,002 ROI (1,915 deaths) 39,609 NI (724 deaths) (02/11) Read OP

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can anyone imagine the likes of Michael Lowry, Healy Rae's or a Mattie McGrath being elected in Germany.

Please be conscious of Germany's past when comparing who we elect.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1319590819645575169?s=20

Boggles wrote: »

Well if the virus is leveling off.

The scandals are certainly growing exponentially.

There was an interview with 2 heads of testing in hospital and some other place awhile back and they said the staff are burnt out, low pay and not enough people. Was bound to happen

Eod100 wrote: »

System seems to be completely straining now https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1319590819645575169?s=19

Looks like any impact of L3 or L5 will be difficult to gauge with contract tracing collapsing (less contacts tested) followed by less swab analysis. Christ. This will be an interesting few weeks.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

1. Icu numbers and hospital are available on that website you linked. The tab at the top of the screen for icu hospital and testing contains that information.

Thank you.
I do see extra info such as "Confirmed Cases in ICU" but no data other than the number. Am I missing a graphic of the historic data? EDIT: Found further graphs through link further down the page, thanks.

2. We have a horrible system for deaths in this country. First of all it takes time to die of the disease. Then the families theoretically have 3 months to report. I have written to politicians (with no reply) about this issue. The deaths that have been reported recently died in October but not all October deaths have been reported. Its best to think of todays deaths as deaths related to cases a month ago. So we are getting multiple deaths a day related to cases when cases were about 250 a day. In a months time we will probably be reporting around 10-20 deaths a day related to the 1000 cases a day we are experiencing at the moment.

Yes one would expect that due to the illness progression that deaths would reflect infections with a time delay ...... maybe days or even weeks.

But what was striking was the increase in deaths in that graph I referred to, did 'lag' the initial infection curve, but then the death numbers reduced prior to the complete fall off in infections.
It would appear there was some other factor at play to cause this.
A reporting delay alone would not explain it.

It might well be that the most of the exposed vulnerable had died quickly leaving very few vulnerable in the situation, so that the deaths fell off quickly.

One might well believe that this could be repeated into the future, as groupls of vulnerable people become infected (care homes, hospitals and such).

So far, if the really vulnerable are excluded, Covid does not appear (to me) to be appreciably deadly.
For the vulnerable it is yet another factor to be considered in how one lives one's life.

'Be careful out there' (some of us are old enough to remember that reference )

JDD wrote: »

Surely it's not the number of tests, but the proportion of positives from the number of swabs carried that will tell us whether we are stabilising or not.

That depends.

Contact tracing has collapsed and GPs are just referring everyone for tests and actual close contacts may not show up or may not be notified, then that would automatically dilute the positivity rate.

See when you have a robust system the perceived trends can be more widely trusted.

When the system is crumbling the headline figures may no longer be accurate.

bb1234567 wrote: »

Very strange indeed..almost sounds made up

Take it as you like that's what I heard.
couldn't give a hoot if you think it's made up I'm just taking it from someone else.

Boggles wrote: »

That depends.

Contact tracing has collapsed and GPs are just referring everyone for tests and actual close contacts may not show up or may not be notified, then that would automatically dilute the positivity rate.

Well, true. But it might increase the positivity rate also.
Think about it. Say we carry out 10,000 tests a day. 4.000 of those are referred by GPs because they had symptoms. 6,000 are close contacts of positive cases.

I would expect a much higher positivity rate from the GP referrals, because those people actually have symptoms. This was borne out by the first wave, where you could only get a test if you had symptoms, even if you were a close contact. We had a positivity rate of about 15% at the time.

I would expect a lower positivity rate from close contacts, just because most of them are tested before they have enough antigen in their system, and a big proportion of those negative tests don't come back for a second one. Plus the majority of close contacts just didn't catch it.

So if we continue have 4,000 referrals from GPs, and go down to 3,000 close contact tests, our positivity rate should go higher.

I know that's a lot of assumptions though. It could go either way.