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

Deleted User wrote: »

Because Denmark have made their projection on supply that is as yet uncertain, whereas we have made our projection on secured supply

Thanks.

would you say it's uncertain but probable?
And does it definitely follow that if their projection is correct, that ours is incorrect?

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Right. And how in the name of **** is that not a valid topic for discussion here?
Why the **** is the like of yourself trying to shut it down?

Like is there a good chance the Danish projection is correct and ours is perhaps too conservative?
I've no idea. I'd like to find out. But apparently this topic is just too ****ing negative for some of you to handle.

Thinking that things will be ok, and speculating on what we might do better - Negative!, Doom and Gloom!, Curtain Twitching!

Constantly complaining and whinging on a never ending loop, whilst prophesying Jonestown style mass suicide events - This is fine, more of this please!

SheepsClothing wrote: »

Constantly complaining and whinging on a never ending loop, whilst prophesying Jonestown style mass suicide events - This is fine, more of this please!

And a bonus point for posting it in a way that makes it sound like it's the opinion "of the people".

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So, was looking into the Denmark piece to see where were measured up against them. and found this:

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/vaccine-roll-out-overview



Why is our vaccine doses delivered per 100 population 1.1 in comparison to Germany at 8.2 or Denmark at 8.9? Why are the numbers not the same per country, or at least close? (EDIT: Sorry, they are close per country, if you removed Ireland and Estonia....) Why are Ireland at 1.1 and Estonia at 1.4 when other countris are 6 times or more that number?

I am angry that the vaccine rollout in ireland is slow, and we keep hearing it is keeping pace with Deliveries.... well why are the deliveries so slow in comparions?

Did we get our deliveries on the 15th and our number is now comparible?

Am I just reading the data completely wrong?

Who negotiates this?

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I am angry that the vaccine rollout in ireland is slow, and we keep hearing it is keeping pace with Deliveries.... well why are the deliveries so slow in comparions?

Am I just reading the data completely wrong?

You're not reading the data wrong, the data itself is just wrong.

For whatever reason there's been a constant issue getting this data up-to-date.

It seems to be nearly correct here:
https://qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab

Saying 9 doses per 100 in Ireland, which is about 450,000. Which sounds about right.

The cribbing on Twitter and from the pertually angry needs to be ignored:

Ireland is not slow in rolling out the vaccine

We are fifth in the EU for the proportion of our population who have received at least one dose.

We are second in the EU for the proportion of our population fully vaccinated. (Denamrk, 3.8%, Ireland 3.5%)

is_that_so wrote: »

Underpromising is a better approach. As McCraith has said the situation on supplies has changed numerous times and they've had adjust accordingly. The government no influence over it apart from paying for vaccines, this is all the HSE. Where there is an issue with them is on a total lack of planning and structured communications.

The McEntee comment and the Varadkar 250K from April are good examples of what needs to be included along with proper explanations of why it will be x number of weeks until we see changes. Instead it's this dogmatic nothing till May and the nebulous not set in stone. People need to hear all of it together. I also reckon they need to give up something this side of Easter, even if its not real easing.

I think most people are mature enough to understand

"This is our plan based on X. It's optimistic but we have to be positive.

If X changes; then we will have to adjust the plan. But that will be immediately communicated to you all. But we are going to go hell for leather to deliver on the original plan."

Instead we get a steady stream of misery, pessimistic plans and lockdowns with no end.

seamus wrote: »

You're not reading the data wrong, the data itself is just wrong.

For whatever reason there's been a constant issue getting this data up-to-date.

It seems to be nearly correct here:
https://qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab

Saying 9 doses per 100 in Ireland, which is about 450,000. Which sounds about right.

The cribbing on Twitter and from the pertually angry needs to be ignored:

Ireland is not slow in rolling out the vaccine

We are fifth in the EU for the proportion of our population who have received at least one dose.

We are second in the EU for the proportion of our population fully vaccinated. (Denamrk, 3.8%, Ireland 3.5%)

This is good to read. But why should we have to get it here?

How hard would it be for this to be made public in a clear manner for all?

Are the government afraid that we can't handle good news?

Leo saying 250k in April isn't helpful to my state of mind.

I want to have some freedom again, some places to go again. If they aren't tying vaccine rollout to lockdown easing, I care less about the numbers per week or month - I can only care about when it is finished because the message we are getting is we are going to be in lockdown til the vaccien rollout is finished. Or at least that is what it is feeling like.

IMO, there should be a big easing of restrictions when the vulnerable and at risk groups are vaccinated, but the government don't seem to have a plan to do that. It is infuriating being in this situation with no communication or leadership.

I found the following data on a website that I can't remember and I'm outraged by it:

Everywhere else - Excellent
Ireland - Terrible

caveat emptor wrote: »

I see we are back to positive / negative. Hope vs doom merchants etc. Thanks to Lawred2 for positing an opinion on why Denmark might be able to do it quicker than us. Will be interesting to see. Hopefully our government are being overly negative in their projects. Based on how positive they've been throughout this though I think they might just starting to be realistic which is generally better than both positive and negative projections.

Reducing everything to positive and negative is only really useful when doing something like a PCR test.

I think having a positive outlook, in general, during this pandemic, and all that is brings, really boosts ones resilience day to day. So easy to get ground down by lockdown life.

celt262 wrote: »

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Leo saying 250k in April isn't helpful to my state of mind.
/QUOTE]

250K a week is it not?

Yes, sorry, 250k a week.

hmmm wrote: »

I don't know anything about the quality of the original study or who was involved, but a lot of conclusions are hanging on that being accurate - which seems increasingly unlikely. We haven't seen similar evidence of widespread re-infections anywhere else that I am aware of.

That original study was half propaganda and half science. The local government wanted something to prove that Manaus was through the worst of it and they hadn't totally fvcked it.

Some mathematical models suggested that 50-70% of the population in that region *may* have been infected, and a number of Brazilian government outlets jumped on this as positive news that herd immunity had been achieved in Manaus.

Even if infection rates had been a the upper end of that scale, 70% still isn't sufficient for herd immunity with Covid.

As later scenes proved, Manaus was nowhere near herd immunity, and the subsequent wave was no doubt exacerbated by the public and healthcare workers operating under the presumption that they were "safe" in Manaus.

hmmm wrote: »

I see Brazil/Manaus mentioned frequently. There was one study done in Manaus where they calculated a mathematical model that assumed there had been widespread infection & probable herd immunity in their earlier waves of the virus.

To their surprise, shortly afterwards that there was another wave which again had widespread infection & deaths.

The assumption (if you assume the original model was correct) is that reinfections in Manaus with new variants caused the latest outbreak.

I don't know anything about the quality of the original study or who was involved, but a lot of conclusions are hanging on that being accurate - which seems increasingly unlikely. We haven't seen similar evidence of widespread re-infections anywhere else that I am aware of.

Reinfection is actually a very hard thing to demonstrate.

You have to consider the scope, goal, resources and time frame available to a study. These days studys are shared on social media often times unscrupulously. They purport a narrative where any and all studies are pigeon holed to support that narrative or tear it down. As such the utilisation of various studies from their original scope gets completely overblown. The label of shoddy research gets cast around all too easily.
Don't get me wrong they are crap studies that get far too much PR. Nutrition is really guilty of this. The problem isn't the study per se. The problem is how people report it and use it afterwards.
With stuff like covid, stuff I've seen others label as crap or lies often isn't. The research conducted is just being applied in a context which it really shouldn't.

The Manaus study over estimated the original incidence of infection. That would suggest the initial fears of variants causing reinfections were overblown. Alas, it is not that easy. Avenues of research still at least suggest that variants have pathways to reinfection. Demonstrating that on the other hand isn't easy.

This while dated is a decent read imo.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00121-z

Don't know how true this is. Or how you could prove it. It is a nice illustration of the importance of the public message:

It's possible the heavy over estimates of infection by that study led people to think they were safe and that sparked the extreme wave of resurgence.