Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

CalamariFritti · 26-11-2020 11:21AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Belgium have not had saturation. If they had, there would have been no second surge. Once a country gets to 30 to 40% coverage case rates will naturally slow, and at 60 to 70 it will be at a back background level with infections ongoing, but no surge

Maybe. Of course I couldnt possibly know and neither can you. The fact remains that we had regions with saturation and their IFR rates where confirmed and partially a lot lower. The 0.23% the WHO arrived at didnt come form thin air.
The WHO also says there will be local variations depending on a number of factors mostly age structure.

I am not trying to argue that green is in fact blue. If IFR was higher I'd accept it. But all serious attempts to get to a real IFR came in at the rates I quoted.

My main criticism is that our own governments make no serious attempt at getting at confirmed numbers and in fact try everything to ignore this slow numbers. I can only assume its because it wouldnt send the right message or something. But I must also assume that this has nothing to do with actual public health but moreso with making covid a political plaything.

It is absolutely beyond me how we can try to master the biggest crisis in decades with numbers that we know not to be only flawed but actually know to be wrong by orders of magnitude. Can you offer an explanation to me? I'm open to suggestions.

26-11-2020 11:22AM

Arghus wrote: »

I'm not arguing that it is a deadly disease.

It is obviously not a deadly disease for the majority - the vast majority of people.

I understand that and I don't dispute that.

But you seemingly can't appreciate, despite numerous people having tried to explain it to you numerous times, what the real risk of Covid is. I know you're fully committed to never ever seeing things a different way, but I will give it one more lash, for the craic...

Covid doesn't make most people that ill, but it's highly, highly infectious and spreads very, very easily and it does make a proportion of people ill enough to require hospitalisation and ICU treatment etc.

That's the essential problem - most people will be fine, but a proportion of people won't be and it can infect a lot of people quite quickly, if given the chance, and sending even as much as 2-3% as far as hospital, never mind anywhere else, is potentially enough to overwhelm your health system if your cases become too high. Believe it or not, it is.

That is real. That is something that can actually happen. This has happened and is happening in some other countries right now. This is something to be avoided. This is why states all across the world - not just Ireland - are taking measures to try to stop this from happening.

That's it in a nutshell: not deadly for most, but very transmissible and can potentially sicken enough people to collapse your health system if you let it. If you can't accept at least that, I don't really know what else to say to you.

What the public wants doesn't change the reality of the above paragraph. What RTE does doesn't either.

The government are hoping the lid can be kept on it enough and then...and then...uh, sure maybe it'll be sound...sure it's Christmas.

I think there's a possibility that we might keep the numbers steadyish, but the more I think about it the less I actually believe it... At level 5 we're still coming in at over 200 cases a day, which is, quite frankly, a lot. And that's where we're starting from? And, essentially, when you increase the opportunities for people to meet, you increase the chances for the virus to spread? And we're making a conscious choice to do that - even though we apparently know - if we use our brain - what the result will be?

I'm actually pretty worried that we are sleepwalking into horrendous numbers through a mixture of apathy, fatigue and a lack of political leadership and that we'll be in an absolute world of shít again within a shortish enough space of time.

But, you know, maybe I am nuts and maybe you're right. Maybe it really isn't anything to be concerned over. Yeah, fck it. Hey, you know, actually, I think it's going to be the best Christmas ever and that now that the shops are opening soon all our problems are going to go away!

I do appreciate what you are saying but I would echo what Adam responded with above.

What is the solution? We can’t just stay in level 5 until the vaccine rolls out.

Not to mention that even level 5 doesn’t appear to be getting us to really low case numbers any time soon.

Peter Flynt · 26-11-2020 11:22AM

Deleted User wrote: »

2.5% of outbreaks in an Environment with 20% of the population

The statistics on schools in Ireland are false.

polesheep · 26-11-2020 11:27AM

ElJeffe wrote: »

Disappointing to hear and read the pubs will open again this side of Xmas. Going to a super spreader event all over the Xmas and New Year as Irish people have an awful problem with drink and self control. You have to feel sorry for doctors and nurses who will have to deal with the consequences come mid January onward and the inevitable closing of businesses yet again.

That's some hangover.

Plumbthedepths · 26-11-2020 11:27AM

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The statistics on schools in Ireland are false.

Please provide the true stats to back up your claim so.

Plumbthedepths · 26-11-2020 11:28AM

ElJeffe wrote: »

Disappointing to hear and read the pubs will open again this side of Xmas. Going to a super spreader event all over the Xmas and New Year as Irish people have an awful problem with drink and self control. You have to feel sorry for doctors and nurses who will have to deal with the consequences come mid January onward and the inevitable closing of businesses yet again.

Yes much better to have people meeting up in private dwellings instead.

26-11-2020 11:29AM

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The statistics on schools in Ireland are false.

Sure they are. You were quite happy to cite the data until it was pointed out the data didn't tell the story you thought it did. Well then obviously the data is false.

Or possibly things aren't exactly as you think they are

The HorsesMouth · 26-11-2020 11:30AM

Deleted User wrote: »

2.5% of outbreaks in an Environment with 20% of the population

Yes but the rate of infection is not being traced to schools. I've said this before but for eg. Asymptomatic child comes into school and passes it to another child, also Asymptomatic. Child goes home and passes it to grandad or granny or mam or dad and they have symptoms. Chils then gets tested because they are a close contact and found to have the infection. The index case of this cluster ends up being the first person to show symptoms and not the asymptomatic child.

I think schools should be open and I'm delighted they are but still, the figures from schools cannot be accurate.

CalamariFritti · 26-11-2020 11:32AM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Interesting please post some of these studies . I have never ever seen a study indicating an ifr below 0.5% in Europe

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

26-11-2020 11:33AM

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

Yes but the rate of infection is not being traced to schools. I've said this before but for eg. Asymptomatic child comes into school and passes it to another child, also Asymptomatic. Child goes home and passes it to grandad or granny or mam or dad and they have symptoms. Chils then gets tested because they are a close contact and found to have the infection. The index case of this cluster ends up being the first person to show symptoms and not the asymptomatic child.

I think schools should be open and I'm delighted they are but still, the figures from schools cannot be accurate.

There are lots of studies out which show children are no more likely than adults under 60 to be asymptomatic

hmmm · 26-11-2020 11:35AM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

The thread linked below looks at this paper in detail:

https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344

Nermal · 26-11-2020 11:41AM

Arghus wrote: »

I'That's the essential problem - most people will be fine, but a proportion of people won't be and it can infect a lot of people quite quickly, if given the chance, and sending even as much as 2-3% as far as hospital, never mind anywhere else, is potentially enough to overwhelm your health system if your cases become too high. Believe it or not, it is.

So what? Triage. We already ration our healthcare resources - why the hand-wringing now?

Give people back their freedom, and warn them that we will use the healthcare resources we have to best effect.

bb1234567 · 26-11-2020 11:45AM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Maybe. Of course I couldnt possibly know and neither can you. The fact remains that we had regions with saturation and their IFR rates where confirmed and partially a lot lower. The 0.23% the WHO arrived at didnt come form thin air.
The WHO also says there will be local variations depending on a number of factors mostly age structure.

I am not trying to argue that green is in fact blue. If IFR was higher I'd accept it. But all serious attempts to get to a real IFR came in at the rates I quoted.

My main criticism is that our own governments make no serious attempt at getting at confirmed numbers and in fact try everything to ignore this slow numbers. I can only assume its because it wouldnt send the right message or something. But I must also assume that this has nothing to do with actual public health but moreso with making covid a political plaything.

It is absolutely beyond me how we can try to master the biggest crisis in decades with numbers that we know not to be only flawed but actually know to be wrong by orders of magnitude. Can you offer an explanation to me? I'm open to suggestions.

Doesn't seem like you're prepapred to accept it all, 0.25-0.3% of the population of several American cities have died of COVID.It's not some theory that can be argued for or against, that's just what has happened. It will be higher in Europe due to an older population. If WHO said that, which I have not heard, it applies globally and to developing countries which will bring down that average.
Andorra which has tested it's entire population twice has a CFR of 1.25%. Obviously even with that level ofhigh testing they will still miss plenty of cases, nonetheless, dog on the street knows IFR is at least 0.5% if not significantly more in Europe

seamus · 26-11-2020 11:46AM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Likely be discouraged? Lol

Don't be bold boys and guys to travel home to see friends, family, partners over Christmas

That's some joke alright

Look, the problem here is an infantile view of the restrictions as things that should and shouldn't be done.

That is, when the travel between counties is allowed, people interpret that as meaning it's safe, or OK.

That's not what it means. The advice will ALWAYS be the same - restrict your movements as much as possible, social distance, practice good hygiene, minimise your contacts.

Just because travelling home at Xmas is "officially" allowed, that doesn't say it's a good idea. There is still a pandemic that hasn't gone away. So when the government says, "you can move between counties, but please don't make unnecessary journeys", that's not speaking out of both sides of their mouth, or setting up to blame anyone.

They're trying to ensure that the public health advice remains at the forefront of peoples' thoughts, rather than have people thinking "open borders means its safe to go see every you know".

CalamariFritti wrote: »

There aren't bodies in the street anywhere.

That's a really low bar for what you consider a necessary public health response. Even speaking figuratively.

We already know that covid left unchecked results in a considerable jump in deaths and long-term disabilities beyond any other common infectious disease. It doesn't have to be a "bodies in the street" scenario for a society to consider an illness grave enough to take serious action.

The only age group not at risk is children between 1 & 12. Everyone else has a considerably heightened risk of poor outcomes. For younger age groups, that risk may be statistically small, but it's still multiples of the next comparable illness ('flu).

Arghus · 26-11-2020 11:46AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I do appreciate what you are saying but I would echo what Adam responded with above.

What is the solution? We can’t just stay in level 5 until the vaccine rolls out.

Not to mention that even level 5 doesn’t appear to be getting us to really low case numbers any time soon.

The short answer is: I don't know.

I wrote a really long post there and I don't know if I have the energy to write another, at least until I'm battling again this evening after the DOH briefing.

eigrod · 26-11-2020 11:47AM

247 in hospital this morning (was 291 3 days ago). 36 in ICU - staying stable enough over last 2 weeks.

https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/hospitals-icu--testing

MD1990 · 26-11-2020 11:54AM

ElJeffe wrote: »

Disappointing to hear and read the pubs will open again this side of Xmas. Going to a super spreader event all over the Xmas and New Year as Irish people have an awful problem with drink and self control. You have to feel sorry for doctors and nurses who will have to deal with the consequences come mid January onward and the inevitable closing of businesses yet again.

Pubs are reopening

Is the plan to get back to level 5 asap?

giveitholly · 26-11-2020 11:57AM

eigrod wrote: »

247 in hospital this morning (was 291 3 days ago). 36 in ICU - staying stable enough over last 2 weeks.

https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/hospitals-icu--testing

Will Rte report this I wonder? They are fast to report when numbers increase

KrustyUCC · 26-11-2020 11:58AM

seamus wrote: »

Look, the problem here is an infantile view of the restrictions as things that should and shouldn't be done.

That is, when the travel between counties is allowed, people interpret that as meaning it's safe, or OK.

That's not what it means. The advice will ALWAYS be the same - restrict your movements as much as possible, social distance, practice good hygiene, minimise your contacts.

Just because travelling home at Xmas is "officially" allowed, that doesn't say it's a good idea. There is still a pandemic that hasn't gone away. So when the government says, "you can move between counties, but please don't make unnecessary journeys", that's not speaking out of both sides of their mouth, or setting up to blame anyone.

They're trying to ensure that the public health advice remains at the forefront of peoples' thoughts, rather than have people thinking "open borders means its safe to go see every you know".

This whole lockdown has been predicated on having a somewhat normal Christmas

The government knew that people were going to travel home come hell or high water anyway so they would need to give 'permission' as people would do it anyway

Travel home, do so in a safe manner and adhere to social distance, practice good hygiene, minimise your contacts is a different message to travel will be discouraged

It's a load of BS and stinks of face saving from the government and is talking out of both sides of their mouths

Nermal · 26-11-2020 12:01PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Andorra which has tested it's entire population twice has a CFR of 1.75%.

Take a look at their population pyramid, and you'll see why.

Widdensushi · 26-11-2020 12:02PM

eigrod wrote: »

247 in hospital this morning (was 291 3 days ago). 36 in ICU - staying stable enough over last 2 weeks.

https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/hospitals-icu--testing

Some of the patients who caught covid while in with other issues must have been due for discharge

bb1234567 · 26-11-2020 12:04PM

Nermal wrote: »

Take a look at their population pyramid, and you'll see why.

16% of population are over 65, pretty much normal in Europe..It's why this is more of a European/developed country crisis than an entitely global one.

Although I remembered incorrectly CFR in Andorra is 1.2% not 1.7%. I know some people think the antibody tests are faulty but it's one hell of a coincidence that Spanish and French antibody tests indicated an IFR in the same region as the Andorran CFR

CalamariFritti · 26-11-2020 12:10PM

hmmm wrote: »

The thread linked below looks at this paper in detail:

https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344

This is a peer reviewed study published by the WHO. The above is a twitter thread by 'Health Nerd' whoever he is.

You can make of that what you will but if we apply certain standards to studies they have to applied to all studies not just the ones we like.

seamus · 26-11-2020 12:17PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Travel home, do so in a safe manner and adhere to social distance, practice good hygiene, minimise your contacts is a different message to travel will be discouraged

It's a load of BS and stinks of face saving from the government and is talking out of both sides of their mouths

It's the indo

Like the examiner claiming that hugging will be banned, anything from the media that sounds stupid, probably is, and shouldn't be taken as official policy.

"Travel home, do so in a safe manner and minimise your contacts" & "Travel will be discouraged" are the exact same message really, just delivered differently.

bb1234567 · 26-11-2020 12:22PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

This is a peer reviewed study published by the WHO. The above is a twitter thread by 'Health Nerd' whoever he is.

You can make of that what you will but if we apply certain standards to studies they have to applied to all studies not just the ones we like.

Yep fair is fair, something posted by WHO dissected by Ivor cummins or whomever wouldnt be given the time of day on here (for obvious reasons)

CalamariFritti · 26-11-2020 12:23PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Doesn't seem like you're prepapred to accept it all, 0.25-0.3% of the population of several American cities have died of COVID.It's not some theory that can be argued for or against, that's just what has happened. It will be higher in Europe due to an older population. If WHO said that, which I have not heard, it applies globally and to developing countries which will bring down that average.
Andorra which has tested it's entire population twice has a CFR of 1.25%. Obviously even with that level ofhigh testing they will still miss plenty of cases, nonetheless, dog on the street knows IFR is at least 0.5% if not significantly more in Europe

Which again leads me to my biggest point of criticism. There is no logic to our numbers.

Traditionally a case is someone getting sick. That makes IFR and CFR two different numbers.

In our case a case is someone testing positive. One may argue over the logic behind that but I think we can agree that in theory that makes IFR == CFR.

The problem here is that we have no idea how many cases there are. Because no one will disagree that we couldnt possibly detect every single 'case' or infected as I would prefer to call it. How many 'cases' remain undetected is anyones guess. Could be anything.

The only half hearted attempts were zero prevalence studies that came at very low numbers mostly. But again we already know that an unknown number of people have pre-existing immunity and will never develop antibodies. Again that makes the zero-prevalence numbers worthless.

Yet we insist on trotting out 'cases' every day and incidence rates over such and such a period. But since we have no idea how many 'cases' there really are those numbers are really not worth a thing. Yet we take those numbers as yard sticks and in some cases countries even put them into laws and regulations. Like level such and such if rate goes over 50 or stuff like that.

LOL at the stuff in bold.

KrustyUCC · 26-11-2020 12:24PM

Fair point but travel will be discouraged definitely sounds like something this government would say and think

speckle · 26-11-2020 12:27PM

seamus wrote: »

It's the indo
Like the examiner claiming that hugging will be banned, anything from the media that sounds stupid, probably is, and shouldn't be taken as official policy.

"Travel home, do so in a safe manner and minimise your contacts" & "Travel will be discouraged" are the exact same message really, just delivered differently.

One is positive reinforcement.. the other negative... In my opinion the first nearly always works better and also suits the vast majority of Irish peoples pysche. Simple to follow safe and minimise being key words... but I would probably use the word low instead.

CalamariFritti · 26-11-2020 12:35PM

seamus wrote: »

...

That's a really low bar for what you consider a necessary public health response. Even speaking figuratively.

We already know that covid left unchecked results in a considerable jump in deaths and long-term disabilities beyond any other common infectious disease. It doesn't have to be a "bodies in the street" scenario for a society to consider an illness grave enough to take serious action.

The only age group not at risk is children between 1 & 12. Everyone else has a considerably heightened risk of poor outcomes. For younger age groups, that risk may be statistically small, but it's still multiples of the next comparable illness ('flu).

I usually like your posts, you typically sound very logical. And while I agree that left unchecked this disease will cause problems there are a number of statements here that are either unverifiable or at worst not true.

You cannot speak for long term disabilities. At best it is unverifiable since its only been 8 months.
The statement that the only age group at virtually or actually no risk are children under 12 is not true. The last two paragraphs are statistically not true.

bb1234567 · 26-11-2020 12:36PM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Which again leads me to my biggest point of criticism. There is no logic to our numbers.

Traditionally a case is someone getting sick. That makes IFR and CFR two different numbers.

In our case a case is someone testing positive. One may argue over the logic behind that but I think we can agree that in theory that makes IFR == CFR.

The problem here is that we have no idea how many cases there are. Because no one will disagree that we couldnt possibly detect every single 'case' or infected as I would prefer to call it. How many 'cases' remain undetected is anyones guess. Could be anything.

The only half hearted attempts were zero prevalence studies that came at very low numbers mostly. But again we already know that an unknown number of people have pre-existing immunity and will never develop antibodies. Again that makes the zero-prevalence numbers worthless.

Yet we insist on trotting out 'cases' every day and incidence rates over such and such a period. But since we have no idea how many 'cases' there really are those numbers are really not worth a thing. Yet we take those numbers as yard sticks and in some cases countries even put them into laws and regulations. Like level such and such if rate goes over 50 or stuff like that.

LOL at the stuff in bold.

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/05/07/study-finds-nearly-everyone-who-recovers-from-covid-19-makes-coronavirus-antibodies/comment-page-2/
Evidence about the natural immunity is shaky at best. Sero Prevalence studies are good indicators of rate of infection.Vast vast majority of people who test positive for COVID have an antibody response that last over a month.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/studies-show-long-term-covid-19-immune-response
The issues with accuracy are because of how sample is randomised such as in Ireland and whether the period of time elapsed between outbreak and testing was too large /waning antibody detection
There's a reason countries continue to pursue seroprevalence studies, they are strong and reliable indicators of rate of infection if performed properly

Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

Comments