Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

charlie14 wrote: »

To be perfectly honest I came very close to giving up on page 1 when I saw "74 estimates and 8 preliminary national estimates" but carried on to see at the end of page 1 "The expected total mortality burden of Covid-19 is directly related to the infection fatality rate"

A rather broad statement I felt, but if that is correct then we can expect a fatality rate to confirmed cases from this wave similar to the first of 3%.
Hopefully that statement is incorrect, but that is the ratio from the first wave.

How "directly related" is not specified, as it is unknown.
It might a factor of 10 less or more, and still this statement would be correct.

charlie14 wrote: »

From the data we know that the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases from the first wave here is 3%. John Hopkins agree, and it is virtually the same on average worldwide.
Anything else is based on nothing other than could be, may be, might be, estimated and discredited modelling.

That in itself is basically meaningless unless you believe confirmed cases equates to all cases .

"The expected total mortality burden of Covid-19 is directly related to the infection fatality rate"

Originally Posted by Johnboy1951 
How "directly related" is not specified, as it is unknown.
It might a factor of 10 less or more, and still this statement would be correct.

charlie14 wrote: »

From the data we know that the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases from the first wave here is 3%. John Hopkins agree, and it is virtually the same on average worldwide.
Anything else is based on nothing other than could be, may be, might be, estimated and discredited modelling.

I guess you do not know the meaning of "directly related" as you appear to wish to contradict me.

I posted the John Hopkins link in the hope that it might inform some about the different percentages and what they mean.

Seems I failed .... oh well .........

charlie14 wrote: »

If you posted the John Hopkins link to inform me, then there was no need.
I have repeatedly posted here that the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases is 3%.

There was, and obviously still is, that need.
Your preferred 3% is not the only, or even best, way of measuring the death toll due to Covid.
Maybe you should try again to read and understand what is on that Johns Hopkins site.

Does this "directly related" you are twittering on about contradict both John Hopkins or my posted ratio of deaths to confirmed cases of 3% or is it another could be, may be, nobody knows ??

"twittering"? oh my gosh you are really something!

It was you who drew attention to that "directly related" to 3% and seemed to draw incorrect conclusions from it.
I posted to ensure those incorrect conclusions could not be drawn.

If that upsets you to the point of you finding it necessary to try to denegrate my post with your silly "twittering" then tough. Get over it.

You are not going to goad me like that.

I have already posted about the 3% and the 0.04%.

Do you deny the Johns Hopkins figure of 0.04%?

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The case-fatality rate for Ireland is 3.0% according to Johns Hopkins
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

and 40 per 100,000 population ... 0.04% if I am not mistaken.

I guess people will pick whichever figure suits their purpose.

I much prefer to see the figures for overall mortality and compare those numbers to previous years.
Some here might be surprised at how small those excess death figures are.

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. There is a great misunderstanding your statement. And it would seem to me, also some level of irrational personal attack. NPHET, as a group, provides advice to a democratically elected government, for it to take into consideration, with all manner of other economic and societal. The cabinet - elected - decides on and implements policy as it sees fit. No medical autocrat has any authority to decide on such matters as shot openings or other such issues - and indeed they do not even exist, other than as some imagined bogeyman.

Hello!
If what you are saying is true then why do they do on TV twice a week to inform the public and answer questions from the press, then use their own personal twitter accounts to tell the world of their opinions.
They've even announced measures on twitter before government have even met to approve them.

Penfailed wrote: »

...because that's what Twitter is for?

Why do they announce and defend measures on twitter before government have even met to consider their recommendations?

Nolan and Glynn were telling people why they were closing indoor dining and drinking in Dublin days before the cabinet had even met to approve it.

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. Unfortunately, I am unable to answer your question at this time. I am considering my position on this boards. I will endeavour to answer questions or enquiries posed through the systems direct messaging facility. Thank you for your forebearance.

Good one.

Who are you tonight? NPHET or DoH?

Go on, answer the question.

Allinall wrote: »

Curious as to what you mean by the bolded bits?

Does a question this stupid even need an answer? It would appear so- None of these Nphet jokers are charity workers (despite their endless virtue signalling and faux hero worship from the interminably braindead), all are in various high profile public medical and academic positions. All of which are extremely lucrative now underscored by new opportunities for research, medical stewardship and medical positions. Also the cosying up to political and media establishments is another advancement opportunity- you don't actually have to do anything tangible- just repeat the same crap over and over about "being careful" and lashing on more lockdowns- job done.
Nphet have achieved precisely nothing (apart from adding greatly to our national debt, stealing precious resources from down the road)- they're an extremely disruptive talk shop we would be very wise to disband immediately. But like all cults that takes times as they still have a rather large and devoted inexplicable following (for now).

road_high wrote: »

Does a question this stupid even need an answer? It would appear so- None of these Nphet jokers are charity workers (despite their endless virtue signalling and faux hero worship from the interminably braindead), all are in various high profile public medical and academic positions. All of which are extremely lucrative now underscored by new opportunities for research, medical stewardship and medical positions. Also the cosying up to political and media establishments is another advancement opportunity- you don't actually have to do anything tangible- just repeat the same crap over and over about "being careful" and lashing on more lockdowns- job done.
Nphet have achieved precisely nothing (apart from adding greatly to our national debt, stealing precious resources from down the road)- they're an extremely disruptive talk shop we would be very wise to disband immediately. But like all cults that takes times as they still have a rather large and devoted inexplicable following (for now).

Yes whatever the individual intentions of the members of NPHET were or are (and as often with such groups, intentions may have been genuinely for the good of society), there is no doubt their academic futures are looking bright with the possibility of managing future possible pandemics and with studying and researching Covid. They will certainly be very much aware of their personal stake in this.

It’s not unreasonable to be wary of advice to the public resulting in potential personal gain.

Penfailed wrote: »

No idea.

Because they expect their recommendations to be accepted 100% by government so they announce them to the public first to ensure they are pushed though.

They've gone far beyond their remit of just recommending government.

Anyone who can't see this game being played is blind.

normanoffside wrote: »

Because they expect their recommendations to be accepted 100% by government so they announce them to the public first to ensure they are pushed though.

They've gone far beyond their remit of just recommending government.

Anyone who can't see this game being played is blind.

I see. You were asking a rhetorical question. Except your own answer is incorrect. They (NPHET) wanted Level 5 weeks before it actually happened because the government didn't want it pushed through. The government call the shots. Anyone who can't see this is blind.

charlie14 wrote: »

Stop the childish nonsense. The only directly related figure we have on the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases is from the first wave. 3% for Ireland and 6% for Sweden. It`s a simple mathematical calculation that you can do for any country you choose. Worldwide if you wish.
Anything else is nothing other than guesswork and supposition.

Is that a denial of the Johns Hopkins 0.04% figure?
or maybe you would prefer to answer my question directly?

Seeing as you have nothing much to add on this topic, (other than attempting to move goalposts), rather than being on here getting huffy you might be better off spending your time having a chat with your friend in Sweden.
He may not know tomorrow his region comes under new recommendations/restrictions.
Yet another region in Sweden that has dumping those of the government in favour of its own. Practically all of Sweden at this stage in fact.

Thank you for the advice.
I will be sure to give it the consideration it deserves.

Deleted User wrote: »

Back when thousands waiting on tests got cancelled, back when we wouldn’t test unless you had multiple symptoms, back when we only tested a fraction of what we do now and clearly missed god only knows how many asymptomatic cases...

Your 3% is a useless stat.

Some countries were doing more testing, some less, but funnily enough it is the same ratio worldwide of deaths to confirmed cases.