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

ShineOn7

Thats me wrote: »

Looks like % of hospitalisations decreasing (if two last weeks of December can be considered representative):

          |    All cases           |     Since 16th Dec
------------------------------------------------------------                                        
          | Cases |  Hosp |    %   |  Cases  | Hosp  |    %
------------------------------------------------------------
5-14 yo   |  6337 |    63 |  0.99  |    1141 |    11 |  0.96
15-24 yo  | 16659 |   230 |  1.38  |    3249 |    47 |  1.45
25-34 yo  | 16179 |   396 |  2.45  |    3236 |    53 |  1.64
35-44 yo  | 14638 |   478 |  3.27  |    2512 |    46 |  1.83
45-54 yo  | 13888 |   756 |  5.44  |    2255 |    68 |  3.02
55-64 yo  | 10018 |   863 |  8.61  |    1812 |    69 |  3.81
65+ yo    | 13208 |  3238 | 24.52  |    1621 |   274 | 16.90
------------------------------------------------------------
Sum       | 90927 |  6024 |  6.63  |   15826 |   568 |  3.59

Great post, thanks. The difference in over 65s versus under 65s really is something

Would you be able to post the figures from October 1st on?

It might give an even clearer picture

Thats me

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Could some of the more astute Maths heads in here help settle a debate:

Last figures I saw for % of hospitalized cases in Ireland was at 5%

Is this still the case?

That for every 100 positive cases 5 end up needing hospital care?

Looks like % of hospitalisations decreasing (if two last weeks of December can be considered representative):

          |    All cases           |     Since 16th Dec
------------------------------------------------------------                                        
          | Cases |  Hosp |    %   |  Cases  | Hosp  |    %
------------------------------------------------------------
5-14 yo   |  6337 |    63 |  0.99  |    1141 |    11 |  0.96
15-24 yo  | 16659 |   230 |  1.38  |    3249 |    47 |  1.45
25-34 yo  | 16179 |   396 |  2.45  |    3236 |    53 |  1.64
35-44 yo  | 14638 |   478 |  3.27  |    2512 |    46 |  1.83
45-54 yo  | 13888 |   756 |  5.44  |    2255 |    68 |  3.02
55-64 yo  | 10018 |   863 |  8.61  |    1812 |    69 |  3.81
65+ yo    | 13208 |  3238 | 24.52  |    1621 |   274 | 16.90
------------------------------------------------------------
Sum       | 90927 |  6024 |  6.63  |   15826 |   568 |  3.59

ShineOn7

Could some of the more astute Maths heads in here help settle a debate:

Last figures I saw for % of hospitalized cases in Ireland was at 5%

Is this still the case?

That for every 100 positive cases 5 end up needing hospital care?

mike8634

Deleted User wrote: »

Dec22nd, 13216 test, 698 positive 5.3%
Dec16th, 13118/568 -4.3%

That’s just in the past two weeks

Sep 13th 13073/227 -1.7%

Thanks

That's me apologising :pac:

mike8634

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I'm not understanding this squabble

Surely the positivity rate is simple Maths based on amount of tests done and the case number?

Yes but it will be higher will less test's

If it was 10% with 60,000 tests that's 3000 cases and we are in trouble

[Deleted User]

mike8634 wrote: »

You have to compare like for like

2.5% positivity 20,000 tests
5,0% positivity 20,000 tests
10,0% positivity 20,000 tests

You cant just use positivity % on it's own

Go and find days where we did 13,000 tests like today, compare them and i'll listen

Dec22nd, 13216 test, 698 positive 5.3%
Dec16th, 13118/568 -4.3%

That’s just in the past two weeks

Sep 13th 13073/227 -1.7%

ShineOn7

I'm not understanding this squabble

Surely the positivity rate is simple Maths based on amount of tests done and the case number?

mike8634

Deleted User wrote: »

You would make Kellyanne Conway blush with your alternate facts. You stated the only way we would have 2000 cases is with 40,000 tests as positive rate was stable at 5%. It was pointed out it had doubled from less than 2.5% in just over a week. You stated it would never reach 10%. Yet here we are only a few days later. And testing is back up over 13k, as much as it was in any but the last couple of days before Xmas

You have to compare like for like

2.5% positivity 20,000 tests
5,0% positivity 20,000 tests
10,0% positivity 20,000 tests

You cant just use positivity % on it's own

Go and find days where we did 13,000 tests like today, compare them and i'll listen

[Deleted User]

mike8634 wrote: »

Why do you keep quoting me, your annoying

When we get 10%+ positivity from decent testing like 40,000/60,000 tests a day I will be the first to say I was wrong and it's serious

You would make Kellyanne Conway blush with your alternate facts. You stated the only way we would have 2000 cases is with 40,000 tests as positive rate was stable at 5%. It was pointed out it had doubled from less than 2.5% in just over a week. You stated it would never reach 10%. Yet here we are only a few days later. And testing is back up over 13k, as much as it was in any but the last couple of days before Xmas

mike8634

Deleted User wrote: »

.

Why do you keep quoting me, your annoying

When we get 10%+ positivity from decent testing like 40,000/60,000 tests a day I will be the first to say I was wrong and it's serious

[Deleted User]

mike8634 wrote: »

Not really they only done 13,000 tests

Not 40,000/60,000 tests

mike8634 wrote: »

Like I said 10%

Its 5%

Will it hit 10%?

Not a chance

ShineOn7

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s the positive rate?

Well, what is it?

Someone on Reddit Ireland earlier said 12%

mike8634

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s the positive rate?

If you do less tests it's higher :rolleyes:

I talked about 40,000/60,000 tests

Show me 10% positivty on those :pac:

[Deleted User]

mike8634 wrote: »

Not really they only done 13,000 tests

Not 40,000/60,000 tests

What’s the positive rate?

mike8634

Deleted User wrote: »

Post has not aged well.

Are you shocked?

Not really they only done 13,000 tests

Not 40,000/60,000 tests

[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

Post has not aged well.

Are you shocked?

Blut2

Akesh wrote: »

That would make much more sense but unfortunately HSE, NPHET or the Government are full of dinosaurs who are incapable of any common sense. Let's not forget the guy who presided over the cervical check scandal is now leading our response to Covid.

Only in Ireland do you get rewarded for continual failure.

The maths and statistics do not back the policies to date.

True. The maths in that respect are kind of horrifying actually. We only have about 500,000 people over 70 in this country. Imagine if all the state's resources had been focused on fully shielding them.

During our lockdowns we've been paying up to 1 million people to be not working between the PUP/TWSS/dole. And supporting failing businesses because they're not allowed operate. At a weekly cost of up to €300million...

Imagine if instead the state had used that money to ensure every at-risk person in the country got all of their needs delivered to them, and had social workers calling to check up on them regularly. Imagine nursing homes received massive amounts of investment, hospitals expanded hiring/capacity rapidly over the last 9 months etc.

Even leaving aside the mental/economic damage to young people from the country-wide lockdowns, they've completely screwed over our most vulnerable people too. In the years to come heads will roll over the fact our government refused to change its approach after the first lockdown (which to be fair was justified, since they didn't know the full extent of the risks last March/April).

Akesh

Blut2 wrote: »

Its what plenty of posters, in this thread and elsewhere, have been arguing since the summer - the statistics now show covid really isn't dangerous to people under 50 of a healthy weight, we know its even less deadly than "normal" flu to them.

Its basically the entire premise of the Great Barrington Declaration - a policy platform advocated by expert Harvard, Oxford etc epidemiologists. Essentially our governments should stop applying full society-wide lockdowns now that we know the virus just isn't dangerous to a large % of the population, and instead focus all our resources on protecting those actually at high risk - the over 70s. Its short and worth a read:

https://gbdeclaration.org/

That would make much more sense but unfortunately HSE, NPHET or the Government are full of dinosaurs who are incapable of any common sense. Let's not forget the guy who presided over the cervical check scandal is now leading our response to Covid.

Only in Ireland do you get rewarded for continual failure.

The maths and statistics do not back the policies to date.

CalamariFritti

ShineOn7 wrote: »

The % for the middle two categories seems too good to be true

I think the first zero after the decimal shouldn't be there.

WHO (Iannidis) say 0.23% overall and 0.05% under the age of 70. Obviously that makes over 70 higher than .023%. 0.54% sounds plausible.

0.23% is also in line with observed numbers assuming we go with WHO's assumption that true spread is x10 reported cases.
1.7m * 100 / 80m x10 ~ 0.21%.

Blut2

ShineOn7 wrote: »

The % for the middle two categories seems too good to be true

Its what plenty of posters, in this thread and elsewhere, have been arguing since the summer - the statistics now show covid really isn't dangerous to people under 50 of a healthy weight, we know its even less deadly than "normal" flu to them.

Its basically the entire premise of the Great Barrington Declaration - a policy platform advocated by expert Harvard, Oxford etc epidemiologists. Essentially our governments should stop applying full society-wide lockdowns now that we know the virus just isn't dangerous to a large % of the population, and instead focus all our resources on protecting those actually at high risk - the over 70s. Its short and worth a read:

https://gbdeclaration.org/

ShineOn7

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

The % for the middle two categories seems too good to be true

ShineOn7

Charles Babbage wrote: »

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?

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?

bb1234567

normanoffside wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.