nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

ShineOn7

Let’s round up the Republic’s population to 5 million, it’s only 100,000 shy of this number

The amount of people expected to get it (whether they show symptoms or not) is anything from 30% to 70%, depending on the source you read. Huge differences there but let’s say 50% because it’s somewhere in between

That’s 2.5 million who’ll get it (remember; not all will show symptoms)

Reported mortality rates on this have been 0.5 to 2%. It’s just too early to tell

Let’s be optimistic and say 1%

1% of 2.5 million is 25,000 Irish fatalities in the Republic

This is more than double how many the HSE worker doing the Ask Me Anything thinks in his Best Case Scenario. He mentioned 10,000 people in this instance

So hopefully he’s actually right in this case and it’s “only” 10,000

For this to happen;

- The amount of carriers of this will have to be much lower than 50%, and

- mortality rate would need to be closer to 0.5%

How does 10,000 compare to a normal 12 months in Ireland when you combine the pneumonia and flu fatalities?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bb1234567

ShineOn7 wrote: »

What do the Maths heads make of this? A report by WHO in October says the IFR is now at 0.23%

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

It seems to get lower and lower every month. I remember back in March some estimates had it at 3%!

So if it's at 0.23% now that makes it "only" 2.3 times more fatal than the Flu?

Well the link states it varies widely globally as we know very well by now. Countries which have seen over 500 deaths per million have an estimated IFR of 0.57%, which is all of Europe, North America, Latin America and parts of the Middle East and North Africa. I thought it was pretty obvious by now as multiple antibody studies in New York, Sweden, UK etc have indicated an IFR of about 0.6-0.7% very consisntently in Western countries for months .Perhaps it's dropped down to 0.57% since those studies with better treatements

ceadaoin.

normanoffside wrote: »

They'd be better off doing stats on the IFR in the various age groups.

The CDC did that in September. At that time their current best estimates were:

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Blut2

mike8634 wrote: »

US has had 42% of its country infected then with that IFR

Obesity (apart from age) seems to be the #1 factor in likelihood of death. The US leads in the world in that, so will probably end up with a significantly higher IFR than most countries.

Their infection rate probably isn't as high as 42%, but its definitely much much higher than their total confirmed tests, on top of that. Its been let run rampant in most of the country since May.

mike8634

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Agreed

I think this 0.23% estimate by WHO is based on the average of the data they have worldwide

US has had 42% of its country infected then with that IFR

ShineOn7

normanoffside wrote: »

The Overall IFR will depend on the demographics of the population.

Agreed

I think this 0.23% estimate by WHO is based on the average of the data they have worldwide

normanoffside

ShineOn7 wrote: »

What do the Maths heads make of this? A report by WHO in October says the IFR is now at 0.23%

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

It seems to get lower and lower every month. I remember back in March some estimates had it at 3%!

So if it's at 0.23% now that makes it "only" 2.3 times more fatal than the Flu?

The Overall IFR will depend on the demographics of the population. The older the population, the higher the IFR. A country with an old population (e.g. Italy) will have a lot higher IFR than that a young country (e.g. Many African countries where people rarely live above 65).
They'd be better off doing stats on the IFR in the various age groups.

ShineOn7

What do the Maths heads make of this? A report by WHO in October says the IFR is now at 0.23%

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

It seems to get lower and lower every month. I remember back in March some estimates had it at 3%!

So if it's at 0.23% now that makes it "only" 2.3 times more fatal than the Flu?

mandrake04

mike8634 wrote: »

Like I said 10%

Its 5%

Will it hit 10%?

Not a chance

Was over 7% in October was it not? and the October numbers looked tame compared to now.

mike8634

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s not true. The positive rate has doubled in less than 2 weeks.

Cases result in cases not tests

Like I said 10%

Its 5%

Will it hit 10%?

Not a chance

[Deleted User]

mike8634 wrote: »

Positivity is pretty stable at 5%?

2,000 cases needs 40,000 tests

3,000 cases needs 60,000 tests

Not gonna happen imo

Would be shocked if it did, shocked

We would need nearly 10% positivity to get those numbers

That’s not true. The positive rate has doubled in less than 2 weeks.

Cases result in cases not tests

mike8634

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Someone on Reddit Ireland has run some scary projections

Positivity is pretty stable at 5%?

2,000 cases needs 40,000 tests

3,000 cases needs 60,000 tests

Not gonna happen imo

Would be shocked if it did, shocked

We would need nearly 10% positivity to get those numbers

ShineOn7

Someone on Reddit Ireland has run some scary projections

The seven day average is continuing to increase by an average of just above 11% day (for the fifth day in a row)

If that keeps going we'll see above 2,000 cases in 4 days and if it continued further until the 3rd of January we'd see 3,000 cases, assuming we don't hit the limits of our testing by that point.

ShineOn7

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

We are about 2.8% in Ireland right now

That's CFR and not the positivity rate right?

Just checking

SchrodingersCat

ShineOn7 wrote: »

What is the current CFR for Covid in Ireland?

In April it was insanely high if I'm remembering right. Like 6%, so 60 mortalaties for every thousand cases

We are about 2.8% in Ireland right now

Yep, it was about 6-7% back in April.

ShineOn7

What is the current CFR for Covid in Ireland?

In April it was insanely high if I'm remembering right. Like 6%, so 60 mortalaties for every thousand cases

2ndcoming

ShineOn7 wrote: »

That still sounds very high

Last I worked out, if you're under 45 you've a roughly 5% chance of ending up in hospital if you get it in Ireland

Look at it this way, barely any (if any) over 80 will be put in an ICU, they will either die or recover where they are, so 2/3 ICU admissions have been in the 54-79 age bracket. There have also been far more 0-54 cases than any other cohort.

[Deleted User]

Blut2 wrote: »

You can absolutely compare raw numbers throw subtraction. Someone aged 50-65 catching covid has a .08% higher chance of death than their peer catching flu. The numbers don't lie.

The chart is IFR, not CFR.

No, they are 2.33 times more likely to die or 233%

Thats me

ShineOn7 wrote: »

That still sounds very high

Last I worked out, if you're under 45 you've a roughly 5% chance of ending up in hospital if you get it in Ireland

If any doubts please feel free to check my calculations yourself.

ShineOn7

Thats me wrote: »

Almost a third of ICU admissions.

That still sounds very high

Last I worked out, if you're under 45 you've a roughly 5% chance of ending up in hospital if you get it in Ireland

Thats me

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Almost a third of cases in Ireland aged 0-54 end up in ICU?

Doesn't sound right

Almost a third of ICU admissions.

ELM327

Blut2 wrote: »

You can absolutely compare raw numbers throw subtraction. Someone aged 50-65 catching covid has a .08% higher chance of death than their peer catching flu. The numbers don't lie.

The chart is IFR, not CFR.

You're mixing up percent with percentage points

ShineOn7

Thats me wrote: »

Isolation would help them avoid flu as well.

Also, do not forget younger people. According to this report, people 0-54 yo making 74% of cases in IE, 32.15% of hospitalisations and 31.29% of ICU admissions.

Almost a third of cases in Ireland aged 0-54 end up in ICU?

Doesn't sound right

Thats me

Blut2 wrote: »

Someone aged 50-65 catching covid has a .08% higher chance of death than their peer catching flu.

Isolation would help them avoid flu as well.

Also, do not forget younger people. According to this report, people 0-54 yo making 74% of cases in IE, 32.15% of hospitalisations and 31.29% of ICU admissions.

Blut2

Deleted User wrote: »

233% not 0.08%. You can’t compare different proportions through subtraction.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127799/influenza-us-mortality-rate-by-age-group/

Your chart also appears to the the cfr not the ifr

You can absolutely compare raw numbers throw subtraction. Someone aged 50-65 catching covid has a .08% higher chance of death than their peer catching flu. The numbers don't lie.

The chart is IFR, not CFR.

[Deleted User]

Blut2 wrote: »

The study is based on the data from 5,039 confirmed cases. Its 286 deaths, not cases.

If the scientific experts who wrote the report, and the respected editors of the Lancet who decided to publish it, considered this a valid sample size then it is. If you're unable to understand what a confidence interval is then you're not really in a position to demand "minimum" numbers for a study to be valid.

? The IFR for flu in 50-65 year olds is 0.06% according to the CDC.

Which would place covid .08% worse IFR than a disease that nobody takes any notice of on a yearly basis, that gets ignored as it infects hundreds of millions of people. Is that enough to warrant global shutdowns, causing millions to fall into poverty, excess cancer deaths, increased suicides etc?

Edit it would place the IFR from covid for everyone under 50 actually significantly lower than normal flu too, for reference.

(.02% for 18-49 year olds from normal flu, 0.009% from covid19)

233% not 0.08%. You can’t compare different proportions through subtraction.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127799/influenza-us-mortality-rate-by-age-group/

Your chart also appears to the the cfr not the ifr

Blut2

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Just 286 cases used for the study though?

Those numbers are absolutely minuscule for a study of this importance

Try 10,000 cases at minimum, not 286

The study is based on the data from 5,039 confirmed cases. Its 286 deaths, not cases.

If the scientific experts who wrote the report, and the respected editors of the Lancet who decided to publish it, considered this a valid sample size then it is. If you're unable to understand what a confidence interval is then you're not really in a position to demand "minimum" numbers for a study to be valid.

Deleted User wrote: »

The ifr for flu in 50-65 year olds is 0.01%. 0.14% is a bit larger than that.

? The IFR for flu in 50-65 year olds is 0.06% according to the CDC.

Which would place covid .08% worse IFR than a disease that nobody takes any notice of on a yearly basis, that gets ignored as it infects hundreds of millions of people. Is that enough to warrant global shutdowns, causing millions to fall into poverty, excess cancer deaths, increased suicides etc?

Edit it would place the IFR from covid for everyone under 50 actually significantly lower than normal flu too, for reference.

(.02% for 18-49 year olds from normal flu, 0.009% from covid19)

[Deleted User]

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Not gonna lie. I didn't understand most of that

Most studies acknowledge that they are limited by the sample size and will produce a confidence interval. The higher the number of samples the tighter the confidence interval. In the lancet study they found .14% ifr in the age group. Based on the sample size they could state statistically that if they kept repeating the study, 95% of the time the rate as found would be between 0.09% and 0.19%. 95% confidence is the standard for statistical analysis. Can be risky however, once in 20 it could be way off. That’s why replication of results is important in science and a single study is not proof until it has been confirmed

ShineOn7

Deleted User wrote: »

Reflected in the confidence interval. Could be as high as 0.19%. It’s also a study specific to Geneva. I am sure we would have known if there were 10000 Covid deaths in Geneva

Not gonna lie. I didn't understand most of that

[Deleted User]

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Just 286 cases used for the study though?

Those numbers are absolutely minuscule for a study of this importance

Try 10,000 cases at minimum, not 286

Reflected in the confidence interval. Could be as high as 0.19%. It’s also a study specific to Geneva. I am sure we would have known if there were 10000 Covid deaths in Geneva

ShineOn7

Blut2 wrote: »

Its one of the world's oldest, and most well respected, academic/scientific journals. Its pretty hard to find any source more reputable/trusted.

Just 286 cases used for the study though?

Those numbers are absolutely minuscule for a study of this importance

Try 10,000 cases at minimum, not 286