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

Covid 19 Part XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

1…195196198200201…333

Comments

  • #5912
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    niallo27 wrote: »
    R number in UK is now less than 1, how is this possible with the more transmissible UK variant.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r-number-falls-below-1-for-first-time-since-july-as-infection-rates-fall-faster-than-expected-cvzcrkb9g

    Prehaps the claim that the Kent variant was 70% more transmissible, was bs?


  • #5913
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    niallo27 wrote: »
    R number in UK is now less than 1, how is this possible with the more transmissible UK variant.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r-number-falls-below-1-for-first-time-since-july-as-infection-rates-fall-faster-than-expected-cvzcrkb9g

    Same way it happened here, Niall. Lockdown.

    I don't think we're far below 1 ourselves though, and likely slowly rising


  • #5914
    Russman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭Russman


    mcburns07 wrote: »
    There's an awful lot of middle ground between opening most things in some form (Christmas) and nothing (current plan).

    It also has to be acknowledged to that Christmas involves huge movement of people in a short space of time from both inside and outside of Ireland, I don't think we would see anything like that explosion in cases if we went to a similar level of restrictions tomorrow.

    I agree with a controlled reopening to hopefully ensure we never have to apply restrictions like this ever again, but people need encouragement and very soon some form of respite.

    The people of Melbourne did 3 and a half months of similar restrictions and got relative normality to show for it. We're going to endure something similar... for Level 4 and months of easing of restrictions after that?

    I largely agree with most of that. Not 100% convinced we wouldn’t see an explosion if we opened now though, but it’s neither here nor there. The real trick will/would be the govt being strong enough to allow the phases to play out and resist the inevitable clamour for it to be sped up and for groups to jump forward.


  • #5915
    Jim_Hodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,295 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    mcburns07 wrote: »

    The people of Melbourne did 3 and a half months of similar restrictions and got relative normality to show for it. We're going to endure something similar... for Level 4 and months of easing of restrictions after that?

    Melbourne ordered a snap five day lockdown today.


  • #5916
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Prehaps the claim that the Kent variant was 70% more transmissible, was bs?

    It doesn't travel through walls. If we're all at home most of the time then it didn't matter if it's more transmittable.


  • Advertisement
  • #5917
    mcburns07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,420 ✭✭✭mcburns07


    snotboogie wrote: »
    In fairness Canada has 8 times our population and are only averaging 3k cases per day.

    Approx. 400

    The point was they have targets that are communicated to the population so that they are aware what is required to move to the next level of restrictions.


  • #5918
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Same way it happened here, Niall. Lockdown.

    I don't think we're far below 1 ourselves though, and likely slowly rising

    To quote Prof Nolan, "it is very good news that our estimates of the R number are well below one"


  • #5919
    MerlinSouthDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    Hospital report is out

    894 in hospital (down from 943 last night)
    Nice to see it below 900, though will go up a bit over the weekend
    169 in ICU


  • #5920
    mcburns07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,420 ✭✭✭mcburns07


    Jim_Hodge wrote: »
    Melbourne ordered a snap five day lockdown today.

    What's your point caller?


  • #5921
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    MerlinSouthDub wrote: »
    Hospital report is out

    894 in hospital (down from 943 last night)
    Nice to see it below 900, though will go up a bit over the weekend
    169 in ICU

    Steady decline. It'll probably slow down soon enough but decent decline this week


  • Advertisement
  • #5922
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    To quote Prof Nolan, "it is very good news that our estimates of the R number are well below one"

    Well that is reassuring, but a lot of metrics like positivity rate suggests we're not that far below 1.0


  • #5923
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,909 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    niallo27 wrote: »
    R number in UK is now less than 1, how is this possible with the more transmissible UK variant.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r-number-falls-below-1-for-first-time-since-july-as-infection-rates-fall-faster-than-expected-cvzcrkb9g

    We have the same dominant variant and our R0 number has been below one for the last few weeks. In fact it rose slightly again last week. The UK is on lockdown just like us. They also have over 10% of their population vaccinated with at least their first dose. The effect of their vaccination programme should be starting to be noticed now.


  • #5924
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Prehaps the claim that the Kent variant was 70% more transmissible, was bs?

    Yep that's a bs claim.
    Just. That's not the original claim. It was an estimate and of course Boris went with the upper bound. Just like he made a statement about its mortality when they'd only examined 7 or 8% of the cases.


  • #5925
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Well that is reassuring, but a lot of metrics like positivity rate suggests we're not that far below 1.0

    Estimated yesterday 0.6 - 0.8 , week before was 0.5 - 0.8

    It's not moving much at all, it was described yesterday as extremely stable. Rate of decline continues as expected by modeling.

    So according to Prof Nolan its well below one, kind of have to take his word for it.


  • #5926
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    iguana wrote: »
    We have the same dominant variant and our R0 number has been below one for the last few weeks. In fact it rose slightly again last week. The UK is on lockdown just like us. They also have over 10% of their population vaccinated with at least their first dose. The effect of their vaccination programme should be starting to be noticed now.

    It is fascinating to watch.

    Hopefully some of the vaccine nationalism we've seen can be replaced with something more positive as we see countries that have had a really, really **** time start to recover.


  • #5927
    mcburns07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,420 ✭✭✭mcburns07


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    It is fascinating to watch.

    Hopefully some of the vaccine nationalism we've seen can be replaced with something more positive as we see countries that have had a really, really **** time start to recover.

    I think we could all do with some really positive news in relation to this virus even if it is in another country.


  • #5928
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Estimated yesterday 0.6 - 0.8 , week before was 0.5 - 0.8

    It's not moving much at all, it was described yesterday as extremely stable. Rate of decline continues as expected by modeling.

    So according to Prof Nolan its well below one, kind of have to take his word for it.

    Sure. But if it's at the upper end of the estimate then it's bad news, right?

    Like if I told you the estimated R number after weeks and weeks of strict restrictions was 0.8, you wouldn't exactly celebrate would you


  • #5929
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Yep that's a bs claim.
    Just. That's not the original claim. It was an estimate and of course Boris went with the upper bound. Just like he made a statement about its mortality when they'd only examined 7 or 8% of the cases.

    https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-variants-are-they-really-more-deadly-heres-what-scientists-know-so-far-153921
    Lots of estimates this is just one article in many about it.


  • #5930
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Sure. But if it's at the upper end of the estimate then it's bad news, right?

    Like if I told you the estimated R number after weeks and weeks of strict restrictions was 0.8, you wouldn't exactly celebrate would you

    Well seeing as it was around 3 or higher about 6 weeks ago then yeah I'd be happy with 0.8 6 weeks later.

    Anyway your dealing in whataboutery now & hypothetical situations, I'd prefer to go by Prof Nolan and if he describes it as well below one and stable then that's the opinion that matters.


  • #5931
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    mcburns07 wrote: »
    I think we could all do with some really positive news in relation to this virus even if it is in another country.

    Big time.

    It'll be, for me, like a bit of an armistice day the day that italy has zero deaths.
    And I wouldn't say it to them, but I'd really like to see the UK get their **** together. If even just for themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #5932
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Well seeing as it was around 3 or higher about 6 weeks ago then yeah I'd be happy with 0.8 6 weeks later.

    Anyway your dealing in whataboutery now & hypothetical situations, I'd prefer to go by Prof Nolan and if he describes it as well below one and stable then that's the opinion that matters.

    Absolutely.

    We can still discuss it though, Stephen, if you're ever so inclined


  • #5933
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Absolutely.

    We can still discuss it though, Stephen, if you're ever so inclined

    Not sure what your trying to get at Tony with that last line, care to explain?

    You asked a question I answered with quotes from Prof Nolan and yesterday's press conference. Not sure what else there is to discuss to be honest. We can only deal with what Prof Nolan says & not hypothetical situations


  • #5934
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,541 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Well that is reassuring, but a lot of metrics like positivity rate suggests we're not that far below 1.0

    An R below 1.0 is good. What other metrics apart from positivity rate suggests we're not far below 1.0 and define far below? What do the metrics suggest is R rate is?


  • #5935
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    stephenjmcd wrote: »
    Not sure what your trying to get at Tony with that last line.

    You asked a question I answered with quotes from Prof Nolan and yesterday's press conference. Not sure what else there is to discuss to be honest.

    I mean how things like the test positivity rate are clear indicators of the R number.
    And if the rate of decline in the positivity rate is low, then from what I've learned over the last year, that means the R number is not much below zero.

    0.8 sounds a little low to me, but I'll defer to professor Nolan


  • #5936
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Wolf359f wrote: »
    An R below 1.0 is good. What other metrics apart from positivity rate suggests we're not far below 1.0 and define far below? What do the metrics suggest is R rate is?

    Well, no, it's all relative.

    An R rate of 0.8 is ok if you're dealing with a virus doing it's thing in an open society.

    If the R number is 0.8 in a heavily restricted society, then you might have a big problem as you ease those restrictions


  • #5937
    blackcard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,371 ✭✭✭blackcard


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Sure. But if it's at the upper end of the estimate then it's bad news, right?

    Like if I told you the estimated R number after weeks and weeks of strict restrictions was 0.8, you wouldn't exactly celebrate would you

    It is somewhere between 0.6 and0.8, why would you assume that it was the higher figure? Even still, an R number of 0.8 is good and will continue to show a decline in cases.


  • #5938
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,541 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Well, no, it's all relative.

    An R rate of 0.8 is ok if you're dealing with a virus doing it's thing in an open society.

    If the R number is 0.8 in a heavily restricted society, then you might have a big problem as you ease those restrictions

    It's a valid point. But it also has to be taken into context of how many positive cases there are and the positivity rate. And the positivity rate is based on testing and where those tests are taking place. Hospital labs have a lower rate than the labs that service the community. We also have serial testing adding in which can distort the figure. We're not privy to the exact data, so we can compare it to previous waves to reduce the CI on the R estimate.

    0.8 was the upper end of the estimate. We still have a few weeks of restrictions, so I would guess cases would drop over the next few weeks.

    Don't be so negative, don't be like George Lee!


  • #5939
    Vertigo100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,309 ✭✭✭Vertigo100


    Mr. Mobility Data. Says it all.


  • #5940
    marno21
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,702 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    The apparent R0 increase is likely largely attributable to the restart of close contact testing.

    The R0 is quite a rudimentary number when it’s based on case numbers/swab numbers which have many variables applicable to why and how they change.


  • Advertisement
  • #5941
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,541 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Vertigo100 wrote: »
    Mr. Mobility Data. Says it all.

    In fairness, he did spot the trends before the **** hit the fan at Christmas.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement