Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

12728293133

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 639 ✭✭✭Thats me


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Almost a third of cases in Ireland aged 0-54 end up in ICU? :confused:


    Doesn't sound right

    Almost a third of ICU admissions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 639 ✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 0 [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%


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,605 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    We are about 2.8% in Ireland right now


    That's CFR and not the positivity rate right?

    Just checking


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭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


  • Posts: 0 [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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭mike8634


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,227 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,612 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,377 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    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 IFR for flu is not as high as 0.1%, there is a lot of flu that is never tested.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Blut2 wrote: »
    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.

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/12/10/almost-one-in-five-americans-may-have-been-infected-with-covid-19
    Estimated that just under 20% of US population has been infected. With 1030 deaths per million currently that estimate would correspond very accurately with WHO's IFR estimate of 0.57% in developed countries.

    So I guess it means in an uncontrolled scenario about 15-20,000 Irish people might have died over the course of who knows how long that would take, if 2/3 of the country eventually got it. A lot lower than the crazy estimates back in march of nearly 100k dying but maybe not as exaggerated as some people began to claim the predictions were later


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,172 ✭✭✭wadacrack


    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?

    I think you are comparing case fatality rate to Infection fatality rate. CFR for Covid is still quite high


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 116 ✭✭Solli


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/12/10/almost-one-in-five-americans-may-have-been-infected-with-covid-19
    Estimated that just under 20% of US population has been infected. With 1030 deaths per million currently that estimate would correspond very accurately with WHO's IFR estimate of 0.57% in developed countries.

    So I guess it means in an uncontrolled scenario about 15-20,000 Irish people might have died over the course of who knows how long that would take, if 2/3 of the country eventually got it. A lot lower than the crazy estimates back in march of nearly 100k dying but maybe not as exaggerated as some people began to claim the predictions were later

    However our access to hospital beds does not conform to that of a developed country.
    That’s why we impose restrictions earlier.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,227 ✭✭✭✭normanoffside


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    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

    Again that needs more specificity. IFR will be much higher in a 91 year old than a 71 year old. Lumping them in the same age group gives inacurate numbers as some countries will have a lot more 80+/90+ year old than others.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 585 ✭✭✭Windmill100000


    Just clicked on the opening post where an estimate was made that 50% of people in Ireland will get coronovirus, with or without symptoms.

    That was 9 months ago and today we stand at 86,129 cases.

    Reflecting back, we haven't done too bad.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Again that needs more specificity. IFR will be much higher in a 91 year old than a 71 year old. Lumping them in the same age group gives inacurate numbers as some countries will have a lot more 80+/90+ year old than others.

    Yes I have no idea why over 65 or 70 are lumped in with much older age groups when IFR appears to double with each decade of age
    Tbf not many countries have significant populations over 90 though so maybe that's why it's excluded in majority of studies, but there's 6 million people in Europe over 90 though so it's more important to know that here


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    wadacrack wrote: »
    I think you are comparing case fatality rate to Infection fatality rate. CFR for Covid is still quite high


    I'm quoting IFR from the WHO article though

    And isn't CFR nowhere near as accurate a metric as IFR for working out how lethal a virus is?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    The IFR for flu is not as high as 0.1%, there is a lot of flu that is never tested.


    So what is the IFR of Flu?


Advertisement