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…245246248250251…333

Comments

  • #7412
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,038 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Derek Zoolander wrote: »
    Testing 100k random people and have a 1% positivity... that is no better than testing 5000 people and having a 20% positivity.
    This is simply not true.


    It's the same number of cases, yes, but the latter is much worse, obviously.

    Besides which, the testing isn't random.


  • #7413
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    prunudo wrote: »
    Is he concerned because he doesn't know where the other 32% come from or is he concerned that because 2/3 of cases are from close contacts. Surely given we are confined to our homes, close bubbles through work and the weather has been poor surely its not a surprise that positive cases are spreading it too their close contacts.
    Paul Reid is a classic clueless manager. His competent underlings talk to him about matters, explain the numbers and give him graphs.

    Then when he stands up in public to present that data, he just rattles off the numbers with a completely incorrect interpretation. I'd say the data analysts who gave him the data are just sitting there rolling their eyes when he talks.

    He was talking about "causes for concern", saw "68% are close contacts" on his screen and decided to say "this is a cause for concern", without explaining why. Because he doesn't know. Reid doesn't really understand any of this, he's a bluffer. He should be leaving HSE updates to one of his team.

    68% transmission from close contacts is a good figure. It's where we were the last time we had this thing well under control and it tells us that our trace & test system is back in control.


  • #7414
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    MerlinSouthDub wrote: »
    It really doesn't matter if the positivity rate plateaus. what matters is that the number of cases keeps falling. You could get a much lower positivity rate if, for example, you did a load of mass testing of people with no covid symptoms. I don't think there is any mass testing happening at the moment, so you get a higher positivity rate.

    Kind of. Case numbers going down is very important but you really want the positivity rate to drop below 5%. Anything higher and odds are very good there is uncontrolled community spread that isn't being detected. Nolan will have the positivity rate when serialised testing is excluded. That should give us a better picture.


  • #7415
    Derek Zoolander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭Derek Zoolander


    Ficheall wrote: »
    This is simply not true.


    It's the same number of cases, yes, but the latter is much worse, obviously.

    Besides which, the testing isn't random.

    it's not truly random but its not consistent either - there are days with mass testing of nursing homes, meat factories, there was a time where no close contacts were tested - the pure variability in the testing numbers will have a knock on impact in volatility of the positivity rate


  • #7416
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Positivity-rate is a key metric the likes of NPHET use to determine policy. I've read more on it than I probably should have.

    Essentially there's two approaches to it:

    1. If your rate is high but the numbers being tested are low and some people are going without, then you need to increase testing.
    2. If your rate is high but everyone who wants/needs a test can get tested, then the infection in the community is too high and you need to take or continue action.

    We're definitely in the second camp. It's very simplistic, but Holohan and co will be looking at this and it won't be encouraging them to let their hair down.


  • Advertisement
  • #7417
    igCorcaigh
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 12,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    https://twitter.com/CorkSafetyAlert/status/1362427693355130883?s=19


  • #7418
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,961 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    is_that_so wrote: »
    I'd say it's the 2/3 - that is a lot.

    But isn't it preferable we know where people are contacting it rather than mysterious 'community transmission'?


  • #7419
    Klonker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,669 ✭✭✭Klonker


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Positivity-rate is a key metric the likes of NPHET use to determine policy. I've read more on it than I probably should have.

    Essentially there's two approaches to it:

    1. If your rate is high but the numbers being tested are low and some people are going without, then you need to increase testing.
    2. If your rate is high but everyone who wants/needs a test can get tested, then the infection in the community is too high and you need to take or continue action.

    We're definitely in the second camp. It's very simplistic, but Holohan and co will be looking at this and it won't be encouraging them to let their hair down.

    But the fact total confirmed cases is going down and positivity is not increasing is a good, you can admit that at least can't you? Obviously both decreasing would be better but it's going in the right direction.


  • #7420
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,038 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Derek Zoolander wrote: »
    it's not truly random but its not consistent either - there are days with mass testing of nursing homes, meat factories, there was a time where no close contacts were tested - the pure variability in the testing numbers will have a knock on impact in volatility of the positivity rate
    Obviously, yes, but that doesn't give any weight to either "the positivity rate plateauing doesn't matter" or "20% from 5000 tests is no worse than 1% from 100000". Those are both still bunkum.


  • #7421
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Klonker wrote: »
    But the fact total confirmed cases is going down and positivity is not increasing is a good, you can admit that at least can't you? Obviously both decreasing would be better but it's going in the right direction.

    Nobody is denying the cases going down is good thing. What people are disputing is the claim that the positivity rate plateauing is fine (If it's plateauing). The positivity rate plateauing for community tests would be a concern.


  • Advertisement
  • #7422
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    seamus wrote: »
    816 positive swabs, 5.26% of 15,499

    5 days in a row under 1,000 positives.

    Despite it looking like a plateau, some of the shorter-term numbers are looking positive. The positivity rate has been less spikey than previous weeks. The longer-term trend should be more obvious come next week.

    :)

    544125.png


  • #7423
    brickster69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭brickster69


    AZ approved in Australia & Saudi Arabia for all ages. Production capacity for 1 million a week from Melbourne plant.

    https://twitter.com/ImAllNews/status/1361958998635929605

    "if you get on the wrong train, get off at the nearest station, the longer it takes you to get off, the more expensive the return trip will be."



  • #7424
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,541 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    pos.png
    It was flagged well in advance by Professor Nolan that we will have a plateau as testing non-symptomatic close contacts will be fed into the system. He explained it so well, that one of the reporters actually understood it and made a comment about it being 2 curves and this is where they briefly intersect etc...

    Anyway, relying on 1 positivity figure won't give the most accurate picture.
    Hospital positivity rate was dropping fast, this could be leveling off and the community positivity could be dropping now etc... lots of factors in play.
    The updated charts tonight should give us a clearer picture.


  • #7425
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,355 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Happydays2020 wrote: »
    This is interesting in showing where we are relative to others. As was discussed here back in April/May Ireland had ramped up testing ahead of many other EU countries.

    https://twitter.com/vollcornhirsch/status/1362041993556328450?s=21

    We are no longer up the league table and that is because we have had lockdowns and for the most part the population has complied with the rules. This is a narrative that both extremes are uncomfortable with. We had a brief period where our cases were higher than elsewhere but we managed this very well.

    Sweden


  • #7426
    JTMan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,581 ✭✭✭JTMan


    WSJ have obtained details from the current WHO investigation into the origin of the virus here (paywall).

    - WHO have Identifying two animals—ferret badgers and rabbits—that can carry the virus and were sold at a Chinese market where many early cases emerged.
    - These animals, sold at the Wuhan market, came from a region of China near its Southeast Asian borders where the closest known relatives of the virus have been found in bats.
    - Peter Daszak, a zoologist on the WHO team, said in an interview that ferret badgers were among carcasses found in freezers at the market.
    - WHO team is juggling multiple competing hypotheses and still isn’t sure if the virus first jumped from animals to humans at the market or if it was circulating elsewhere first.
    - WHO investigators also want China to conduct widespread testing of its mink farms.


  • #7427
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Paul Reid said 68% of last week's Covid-19 cases were close contacts of confirmed cases, which he said is a "cause of concern".

    Why is that a cause of concern? The more cases that are in close contacts relative to rate in community the better. It means your tracking down most of the outbreaks


  • #7428
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,355 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    seamus wrote: »
    Paul Reid is a classic clueless manager. His competent underlings talk to him about matters, explain the numbers and give him graphs.

    Then when he stands up in public to present that data, he just rattles off the numbers with a completely incorrect interpretation. I'd say the data analysts who gave him the data are just sitting there rolling their eyes when he talks.

    He was talking about "causes for concern", saw "68% are close contacts" on his screen and decided to say "this is a cause for concern", without explaining why. Because he doesn't know. Reid doesn't really understand any of this, he's a bluffer. He should be leaving HSE updates to one of his team.

    68% transmission from close contacts is a good figure. It's where we were the last time we had this thing well under control and it tells us that our trace & test system is back in control.

    Thats what my first though was. Where else than close contacts would it be? If we had 68% unknown transmission now that may be a cause for concern. But close contacts? Surely thats expected and by extension 'good'?


  • #7429
    JP100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 498 ✭✭JP100


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Why is that a cause of concern? The more cases that are in close contacts relative to rate in community the better. It means your tracking down most of the outbreaks

    It's a cause of concern because in this wave far more close contacts are now testing positive than in previous waves. Infections between closecontacts are now running at much higher levels hence cementing the idea that the new variant is much more contagious.


  • #7430
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Does anyone disagree with Ryan here?

    https://twitter.com/GeneKerrigan/status/1362354372299096065?s=20


  • #7431
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Does anyone disagree with Ryan here?

    https://twitter.com/GeneKerrigan/status/1362354372299096065?s=20

    Great words, a caveat though, it is the rich countries predominantly that a suffering the greater effects of this virus, and the longer the rich countries remain in rolling lockdowns the greater the long term economic effects, which ultimately will do more long term damage in developing countries than the virus


  • Advertisement
  • #7432
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 939 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Does anyone disagree with Ryan here?

    https://twitter.com/GeneKerrigan/status/1362354372299096065?s=20

    He is of course correct. The attitude of Europe and the US is also in stark contrast with China and Russia whose vaccines are finding their way to the poorest countries on Earth.


  • #7433
    jackboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,072 ✭✭✭jackboy


    TonyMaloney wrote: »
    Does anyone disagree with Ryan here?

    https://twitter.com/GeneKerrigan/status/1362354372299096065?s=20

    He is correct but I still won’t be turning down the vaccine when offered.


  • #7434
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    He is of course correct. The attitude of Europe and the US is also in stark contrast with China and Russia whose vaccines are finding their way to the poorest countries on Earth.

    o1tctmfjyp9RjcPA6


  • #7435
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,049 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    He is of course correct. The attitude of Europe and the US is also in stark contrast with China and Russia whose vaccines are finding their way to the poorest countries on Earth.

    I presume that’s why the top of the vaccine charts are dominated by oil states, tax havens and luxury holiday destinations?

    The propaganda is working


  • #7436
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,059 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    901 new cases 47 deaths

    Are we going to need a shot of level 6 for a couple of weeks?


  • #7437
    Coybig_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 454 ✭✭Coybig_


    JP100 wrote: »
    It's a cause of concern because in this wave far more close contacts are now testing positive than in previous waves. Infections between closecontacts are now running at much higher levels hence cementing the idea that the new variant is much more contagious.

    Everybody is confined to their homes for the vast majority of the day. By enforced lockdown and through the miserable weather of the last few weeks.

    So the majority of close contacts that people have, are shockingly enough, going to be in their own household.

    We also know that the virus is more easily transmitted indoors!

    If somebody in the home gets it they are likely going to pass it on to other people in the household.

    It's not even remotely a cause for concern. Pure hysteria from another no-nothing 'expert' that people like to say we should be listening to.

    This fear-mongering about this new variant and it's transmissibility is strangly happening at the time of an unprecedented decline in Covid cases worldwide (and not everyone is in this draconian lockdown either).


  • #7438
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 91,612 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Harry Palmr wrote: »
    901 new cases 47 deaths

    Are we going to need a shot of level 6 for a couple of weeks?

    RIP 47

    771 in hospital
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • #7439
    bennyl10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,599 ✭✭✭bennyl10


    Harry Palmr wrote: »
    901 new cases 47 deaths

    Are we going to need a shot of level 6 for a couple of weeks?

    Usual Thursday (sorry head isn’t with it in regards to days!) bump?..

    The swab data today was decent


  • #7440
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,355 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Worldwide daily new cases drop from 850k to 350k in just over a month.


  • Advertisement
  • #7441
    JacksonHeightsOwn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭JacksonHeightsOwn


    bennyl10 wrote: »
    Usual Thursday (sorry head isn’t with it in regards to days!) bump?..

    The swab data today was decent

    Can you explain the difference to the numbers they put out and the "swab data" please?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement