Golf Lockdown Discussion No discussion of breaking Restrictions

gypsy79 · 21-01-2021 10:22am

Ollieboy wrote: »

I see you left the increase out from the 19th to the 20th....

How does that look like in your calculations come 1st Feb?

What you really need to work your figures off his the number of weekly tests by positive rate. Test numbers have dropped very little, thankfully the positive rate is coming down.

You also need to examine the other data coming from GPs in relation to referrals plus the increase rate of other variants in testing. The other variants will increase the numbers over time as it spreads, I believe it’s roughly only 50% of positive tests at the moment and as that increases it will make numbers harder to fall without people fulling buy-in to lockdown.

Of course you will see a drop from 8000 but go back to the last lockdown and see how the numbers stopped dropping at a certain level.

I don’t actually disagree that we will get back to 1000, but that’s still roughly 20 deaths a day.

I personally can’t except that!

Its a 5 day rolling average so the increase from 19th to 20th is included. Ups and downs in days are statistically likely which is why I am using 5 day rolling

What is not "likely" is 13, 8 and then 93 deaths. The best model I can think of to model this is a time dependent Poisson. The 8 and 13 are so far in the tail the chances of them happening together is miniscule. It is clear to anyone trained that they held back deaths to announce "record" 93 2 days ago

By the way I hate feeling like this. But the behaviour of our government in making up statistics is infuriating. To the trained eye some of the stunts they are pulling is infuriating and it also shows how they have the Irish media in their pockets

I have assumed a 6 day incubation period to calculate that R number.

But the theory still remains that in 12 days (above 8th-20th), which is now Feb 1st that the number should be 2556*(2566/6799) = 960.9

R can be estimated as (N2/N1)^(1/((T2-T1)/I)

I is incubation period. So in case (2566/6799)^(1/(12/6)) = 0.614. But the incubation period is not needed when you have all the numbers

Sorry for geeking out

Roger_007 · 21-01-2021 10:25am

gypsy79 wrote: »

Its a 5 day rolling average so the increase from 19th to 20th is included. Ups and downs in days are statistically likely which is why I am using 5 day rolling

What is not "likely" is 13, 8 and then 93 deaths. The best model I can think of to model this is a time dependent Poisson. The 8 and 13 are so far in the tail the chances of them happening together is miniscule. It is clear to anyone trained that they held back deaths to announce "record" 93 2 days ago

By the way I hate feeling like this. But the behaviour of our government in making up statistics is infuriating. To the trained eye some of the stunts they are pulling is infuriating and it also shows how they have the Irish media in their pockets

I have assumed a 6 day incubation period to calculate that R number.

But the theory still remains that in 12 days (above 8th-20th), which is now Feb 1st that the number should be 2556*(2566/6799) = 960.9

R can be estimated as (N2/N1)^(1/((T2-T1)/I)

I is incubation period. So in case (2566/6799)^(1/(12/6)) = 0.614. But the incubation period is not needed when you have all the numbers

Sorry for geeking out

gypsy79 · 21-01-2021 10:32am

Roger_007 wrote: »

Sorry I am an actuary!! And I tried to keep that simple

CalamariFritti · 21-01-2021 10:36am

There are now so many studies on the escalation curve of restrictions and lockdown and their effect on the numbers that even the most ignorant health advisor can no longer overlook them. 5km, 2km, stay at home, dont walk the beach, dont play golf has had zero effect on covid regardless what country we're looking at. We've been at the edge of reason (and sometimes beyond) for some time now and 2021 will be the year where this is going to change one way or the other.

If we're not back out on the course within the next 3-4 weeks we might as well just pack it in.

This is it · 21-01-2021 10:41am

CalamariFritti wrote: »

If we're not back out on the course within the next 3-4 weeks we might as well just pack it in.

Why?

CalamariFritti · 21-01-2021 10:43am

This is it wrote: »

Why?

Because of the paragraph you didnt quote for starters?

fred funk }{ · 21-01-2021 10:49am

We have one of the best funded health system in the world but one of the worst and a lot of these restrictions are to protect the health system because is so bad and capacity is embarrassingly low.

Ivefoundgod · 21-01-2021 11:03am

CalamariFritti wrote: »

There are now so many studies on the escalation curve of restrictions and lockdown and their effect on the numbers that even the most ignorant health advisor can no longer overlook them. 5km, 2km, stay at home, dont walk the beach, dont play golf has had zero effect on covid regardless what country we're looking at. We've been at the edge of reason (and sometimes beyond) for some time now and 2021 will be the year where this is going to change one way or the other.

If we're not back out on the course within the next 3-4 weeks we might as well just pack it in.

Are you suggesting there is no correlation between restrictions and case numbers??

Everyone needs to be realistic, there isn't a hope in hell of golf courses re-opening in mid February, not sure why that would mean we should all pack it in. I've no problem with the lockdown continuing for as long as it needs to once they are confident in saying this will be the last lockdown. Theres absolutely no point in them easing restrictions in February and then shutting things down again come March. This is going to be a crap stretch for everyone but we're closer to the end than the beginning. Weather is going to be crap anyway until March so not missing out on much.

gypsy79 · 21-01-2021 11:05am

fred funk }{ wrote: »

We have one of the best funded health system in the world but one of the worst and a lot of these restrictions are to protect the health system because is so bad and capacity is embarrassingly low.

I spend way too much time in the system....the lack of simple project management is bewildering. I could go on but will resist

Our nurses are relatively well paid but many choose to work in NHS for much lower wages to avoid the bureaucracy and for more interesting work conditions were they are properly managed

This is it · 21-01-2021 11:09am

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Because of the paragraph you didnt quote for starters?

Toys out of the pram comes to mind.

Restrictions in place, numbers go down, reduced restrictions, numbers go up.

Do you think it's likely you'll be on a course in 3-4 weeks?

Whiplash85 · 21-01-2021 11:40am

The reason why numbers shoot up is because of pent up demand. If there was a bit more moderation and rationale used as opposed to a blunt force instrument things would be more manageable and people might be more disciplined. But instead everyone is going around with a bucket list of things to do before we are back in lockdown. If schools are no closer to being back, nothing will be back that much is clear. Realistically we are probably looking at just after Easter for a game of golf. They already said yesterday that you probably wont be able to sit in a cafe until May so we are where we are. It is just madness at this point. It'll probably be a case of by the time Easter comes around at that stage we will have been in lockdown for 6 months and just open for 3 weeks before Christmas. I agree we clearly need lockdown now but not opening properly during the summer when there were single digit cases a day and a level 5 for October and November were ill advised.

CalamariFritti · 21-01-2021 11:52am

This is it wrote: »

Toys out of the pram comes to mind.

Restrictions in place, numbers go down, reduced restrictions, numbers go up.

Do you think it's likely you'll be on a course in 3-4 weeks?

Restrictions are not a binary choice. Fully open, lockdown. I made a case against a specific set of restrictions which directly relates to this thread.

There is a wide range of measures and we already have good information what has an effect and what does not. Its a bit insulting to just throw a 'toys out of the pram' at me when its quite clear you dont really know what I was talking about in that paragraph.

I'm not sure whether its likely or not. Going by our track record its probably not.

gypsy79 · 21-01-2021 11:55am

Ollieboy wrote: »

I don’t actually disagree that we will get back to 1000, but that’s still roughly 20 deaths a day.

I personally can’t except that!

You are making the assumption that it will get back into the nursing homes again. That can be avoided

What the government did was actually insane. They opened nursing homes for the first time since March at the same time as relaxing all other restrictions.

It was the equivalent of opening the pubs for one off weekend and telling people they wont be open again till the summer and then opening the nursing homes the following weekend

It is clear we have different tolerances to risks but your assumption is massively incorrect. Average 40 deaths a day is reference back to about 6000 cases a day so your other assumption is totally incorrect.

Deaths has a lag to cases for obvious reasons

gypsy79 · 21-01-2021 11:57am

This is it wrote: »

Toys out of the pram comes to mind.

Restrictions in place, numbers go down, reduced restrictions, numbers go up.

Do you think it's likely you'll be on a course in 3-4 weeks?

My projections would indicate that we will be at about 350-400 in 4 weeks time

CalamariFritti · 21-01-2021 12:01pm

gypsy79 wrote: »

My projections would indicate that we will be at about 350-400 in 4 weeks time

At the moment 7 day averages are coming down significantly. They say an R of 0.5 roughly means halving of the numbers every fortnight means about 30% reduction every week. At the moment we're doing a bit better than that. I dont think your assessment is unrealistic. Reduction may slow down but we could be even better in 4 weeks time.

At that point in time we need to talk about retail and construction and possibly hospitality. Golf should not even be worth discussing at that stage.

monkeybutter · 21-01-2021 12:40pm

CalamariFritti wrote: »

At the moment 7 day averages are coming down significantly. They say an R of 0.5 roughly means halving of the numbers every fortnight means about 30% reduction every week. At the moment we're doing a bit better than that. I dont think your assessment is unrealistic. Reduction may slow down but we could be even better in 4 weeks time.

At that point in time we need to talk about retail and construction and possibly hospitality. Golf should not even be worth discussing at that stage.

The R might be artificially low as they aren't testing close contacts

gypsy79 · 21-01-2021 8:30pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

The R might be artificially low as they aren't testing close contacts

That is true but it could be also argued that it is artificially high because they stopped testing them when we were at the highest. I am not saying you are right or wrong btw

But the one thing that is very optimistic is the decreasing positivity rate

billy3sheets · 21-01-2021 9:45pm

gypsy79 wrote: »

You are making the assumption that it will get back into the nursing homes again. That can be avoided

It should hopefully be impossible after this week given that all of the residents and staff are vaccinated. My mother being in one, I certainly hope so.

BENDYBINN · 21-01-2021 9:49pm

gypsy79 wrote: »

That is true but it could be also argued that it is artificially high because they stopped testing them when we were at the highest. I am not saying you are right or wrong btw

But the one thing that is very optimistic is the decreasing positivity rate

The decreasing positivity rate is as a result of lockdown.....the authorities know this and wil not be keen to change this anytime soon..
Don’t expect golf till May.

gypsy79 · 21-01-2021 10:15pm

BENDYBINN wrote: »

The decreasing positivity rate is as a result of lockdown.....the authorities know this and wil not be keen to change this anytime soon..
Don’t expect golf till May.

Stop been ridiculous. That means all shops closed till may

The positivity rate stayed low when in level 3 before people lost run of themselves at Xmas

AOH77A · 21-01-2021 10:36pm

Best scenario we will be back start of March at the earliest.

gypsy79 · 21-01-2021 10:39pm

AOH77A wrote: »

Best scenario we will be back start of March at the earliest.

Looking at after mid term

bailey99 · 22-01-2021 1:30am

700,000 vaccinated by end of march. Lockdown until then at the earliest.

If you think they are opening golf courses in February or march, get real.

Lenny lynch · 24-01-2021 3:10pm

How is it ok to drive to a golf course, buy coffee from the clubhouse and congregate outside. Just back from a walk on local course which is just within 5k of me and place was fairly busy. And a Garda checkpoint on the way into the village.

Seve OB · 24-01-2021 5:28pm

Lenny lynch wrote: »

How is it ok to drive to a golf course, buy coffee from the clubhouse and congregate outside. Just back from a walk on local course which is just within 5k of me and place was fairly busy. And a Garda checkpoint on the way into the village.

because thems is the rules

Lenny lynch · 24-01-2021 6:25pm

Seve OB wrote: »

because thems is the rules

Makes no sense, sick of this sh#t. Saw two lads kicking a ball around close to a green and the amount of idiots not picking up their dog’s ****

gypsy79 · 25-01-2021 8:56pm

gypsy79 wrote: »

How can you be taken seriously after saying that. They are dropping very very fast.

Jan 8 (5 day case average) - 6799
Jan 14 (5 day case average) - 4466
Jan 20 (5 day case average) - 2556

That implies an R rate around 0.6

So if that continues, then around Feb 1st (in 12 days) the case number should be below 1000. I calc it as 920.

FWIW if we were keeping to the schedule then we would expect 5 day average case number to be about 1570 tomorrow. It is currently 1925 so it looks like the R rate has slipped up a little.

slingerz · 25-01-2021 9:14pm

Numbers are not my strong point but looking at things now, I’d expect schools to be shut until after February mid term. Perhaps special schools & leaving cert back but that’s it until after mid term bringing back young primary school and a phased return until Paddy’s Day.

That approach should see restrictions on hospitality remain, similar for other industries. I think the beginning of April is realistic if perhaps optimistic. The numbers might drop but they want it to be the last lockdown with the vaccine coming on stream

gypsy79 · 25-01-2021 9:18pm

slingerz wrote: »

Numbers are not my strong point but looking at things now, I’d expect schools to be shut until after February mid term. Perhaps special schools & leaving cert back but that’s it until after mid term bringing back young primary school and a phased return until Paddy’s Day.

That approach should see restrictions on hospitality remain, similar for other industries. I think the beginning of April is realistic if perhaps optimistic. The numbers might drop but they want it to be the last lockdown with the vaccine coming on stream

I predict the goal is to get them (everyone) back after mid term. At even slightly worse projections than now we should be very low, like 300 cases a day

THe younger the child there appears to be evidence the less chance they are a vector. Thankfully this is very different to the flu in that way

I hope golf opens then too

25-01-2021 10:06pm

Lenny lynch wrote: »

Makes no sense, sick of this sh#t. Saw two lads kicking a ball around close to a green and the amount of idiots not picking up their dog’s ****

That would drive me up the wall. Its private property.

Golf Lockdown Discussion ** No discussion of breaking Restrictions **

Comments

Golf Lockdown Discussion No discussion of breaking Restrictions