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 XXXIV-249,437 ROI(4,906 deaths) 120,195 NI (2,145 deaths)(01/05)Read OP

1…139140142144145…324

Comments

  • #4232
    funnydoggy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,065 ✭✭✭funnydoggy


    Multipass wrote: »
    Irish Times headline today that ‘Ireland is on a knife edge as case numbers could go either way’
    The old worry meter needed a kickstart :pac:

    Another headline claiming that having covid increases mental health problems....


    Some of these media / news outlets are panicking at the thought of our situation getting better, because that means they're screwed. They were already on the way out before COVID, they're riding on COVID's coattails now.



    Be glad to see the back of them tbh


  • #4233
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    spakman wrote:
    A higher positivity rate would lead to a small fraction of previously seen hospitalisation rate, due to the vaccinations of those most likely to be hospitalised!
    Have you figured by age for those hospitalised just after Christmas?
    I don't have those figures but I'm aware of three people who ended up in ICU, one in his forties, two in their fifties and only one with underlying conditions.


  • #4234
    covidrelease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 229 ✭✭covidrelease


    seamus wrote: »
    And they were right.

    On that date, we had seen the daily average cases double in the previous two weeks.

    The number 21 is small, but when you get into exponential growth, 21 cases becomes 300 cases in just 8 weeks.

    I had seen someone else call this out in July too and I dismissed it as "statistical noise". But they were right. 12 weeks later we had 1,000 cases/day.

    NPHET's modelling data spotted this in July and it was ignored.

    If 21 cases a day is the definition of "very precarious" how would you describe the current 500 a day situation?


  • #4235
    covidrelease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 229 ✭✭covidrelease


    seamus wrote: »
    That was nine days ago. It was precarious then.

    So how would you describe the situation today, given that you consider 21 cases a day to be "very precarious"

    :rolleyes:


  • #4236
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    covidrelease wrote: »
    If 21 cases a day is the definition of "very precarious" how would you describe the current 500 a day situation?

    And moreover, Ireland was pretty shut in July compared to the rest of Europe which enjoyed a pretty much a la carte summer where people could go and do as they pleased.

    It cannot have been a situation where 21 cases in July in Ireland is precarious, but that the rest of Europe - which could not have mingled more - is non-precarious but enjoys all freedoms.

    Seasonality was ignored by NPHET - on a gigantic scale.


  • Advertisement
  • #4237
    irishguy1983
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭irishguy1983


    seamus wrote: »
    232 in hospital this morning and likely to keep dropping all week.

    This is the lowest since 20th December.

    For reference, we've never had less than 200 in hospital for any sustained period since early October.

    If we break 200 and manage to dip below it, then we are well on top of this regardless of what the daily numbers or positivity rate is.

    ICU is still taking it time, but it'll get there.


    Hopefully you are right and we get below 200.....HOWEVER I feel govt are still not going to respond to data/figures ie they have it in their mind regarding set dates and that's it.....Like they could bring forward the 26th of April for outdoor stuff but won't happen....I'd imagine they have dates for May also and they won't budge regarding these dates....Of course I am speculating...


  • #4238
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    timmyntc wrote:
    Look, I'd say over 90% of people in this thread would agree that you are scaremongering and pretty clueless about things. The way you go on we should have schools closed, everything closed. So I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

    What scaremongering have I done?


  • #4239
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    covidrelease wrote: »
    If 21 cases a day is the definition of "very precarious" how would you describe the current 500 a day situation?

    Very finely balanced. One little nudge the wrong way and we're in trouble.


  • #4240
    Roger_007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Multipass wrote: »
    Irish Times headline today that ‘Ireland is on a knife edge as case numbers could go either way’
    The old worry meter needed a kickstart :pac:

    Another headline claiming that having covid increases mental health problems....

    I would think that most of the mental health problems are being created by the lockdown(s) and by the fear and anxiety that the public messaging deliberately generates.


  • #4241
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    covidrelease wrote: »
    If 21 cases a day is the definition of "very precarious" how would you describe the current 500 a day situation?
    The number of cases is irrelevant, it's the direction in which they're going.

    21 cases and growing exponentially is alarming.

    500 cases and dropping slowly is stabilising.

    500 cases and unchanging is precarious.


  • Advertisement
  • #4242
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 939 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    covidrelease wrote: »
    Interestingly when there was no mention of new variants the situation last July was "very precarious"

    Lately its just "precarious"

    These people are spoofers plain and simple.

    Of the 4 times they called it "precarious" twice so far there as no spike, the third time was Christmas and we know why that happened, their 4th precarious call was 31st March and its not looking great for their prediction this time either.

    Why?


  • #4243
    Multipass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,678 ✭✭✭Multipass


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    I would think that most of the mental health problems are being created by the lockdown(s) and by the fear and anxiety that the public messaging deliberately generates.

    Yes but they don’t matter, they should suck it up.
    Once covid gets involved it’s a worry, call it part of long covid and it’s headline news.


  • #4244
    purplefields
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 299 ✭✭purplefields


    seamus wrote: »
    The number 21 is small, but when you get into exponential growth, 21 cases becomes 300 cases in just 8 weeks.

    Just a small nit-pick but the growth, by definition, is always exponential. Exponential just means that there is an exponent involved (like 4 squared has an exponent of 2). In this case there there is an exponent because there is an R value. If the curve is flat, doesn't mean it's not exponential.

    As a side note, I do enjoy your posts and find them informative.


  • #4245
    marno21
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,709 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    NPHET seem to describe the situation as precarious when the R number is above 1. They are entirely correct in this view. If the R number is above 1, it’s only a matter of time before this spins out of control

    Rather than case numbers, NPHET seem most content when the R number is below 1. Even at 10 cases a day, R > 1 is cause for concern


  • #4246
    OwenM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 860 ✭✭✭OwenM


    marno21 wrote: »
    NPHET seem to describe the situation as precarious when the R number is above 1. They are entirely correct in this view. If the R number is above 1, it’s only a matter of time before this spins out of control

    Rather than case numbers, NPHET seem most content when the R number is below 1. Even at 10 cases a day, R > 1 is cause for concern

    The R numbers published by NPHET are a total nonsense, the last one I read was 'between 1 and 1.3' which is ridiculous - they are stating cases are not growing or they are growing rapidly - which is it? Another one a while back was 'between 0.6 and 0.9' again totally useless range, a bit like backing all the horses in a race.


  • #4247
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    purplefields wrote: »
    Just a small nit-pick but the growth, by definition, is always exponential. Exponential just means that there is an exponent involved (like 4 squared has an exponent of 2). In this case there there is an exponent because there is an R value. If the curve is flat, doesn't mean it's not exponential.

    As a side note, I do enjoy your posts and find them informative.

    No it isn't. Raising something to a power (exponent) doesn't mean you're on exponential growth. The test for exponential growth is that the rate of change, (acceleration, jerk, etc where applicable) are proportional to the original function.

    Quadratic growth like your example above is not exponential. In fact it can grow faster than an exponential growth at the start but in time the exponential function will outpace it.


  • #4248
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    OwenM wrote: »
    The R numbers published by NPHET are a total nonsense, the last one I read was 'between 1 and 1.3' which is ridiculous - they are stating cases are not growing or they are growing rapidly - which is it? Another one a while back was 'between 0.6 and 0.9' again totally useless range, a bit like backing all the horses in a race.
    They use four models and have always recognised that it's an approximation. It's still a useful tool in terms of predicting future development of the disease.


  • #4249
    purplefields
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 299 ✭✭purplefields


    Turtwig wrote: »
    No it isn't. Raising something to a power (exponent) doesn't mean you're on exponential growth. The test for exponential growth is that the rate of change, (acceleration, jerk, etc where applicable) are proportional to the original function.

    Quadratic growth like your example above is not exponential. In fact it can grow faster than an exponential growth at the start but in time the exponential function will outpace it.

    To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that the growth for coronavirus was a constant power, just giving an example of what an exponent is (ie, 2^6 : 6 is the exponent. or 4^t : t is the exponent)

    I guess using a constant in my exponent example was confusing.


  • #4250
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,974 ✭✭✭plodder


    is_that_so wrote: »
    They use four models and have always recognised that it's an approximation. It's still a useful tool in terms of predicting future development of the disease.
    Does it not depend on accurate contact tracing though?

    And are case number trends not a better measure? A single R number for the whole country always seemed less useful to me. Like, if they said there is an outbreak in some place with an R value of 1.9, based on a close examination of contacts there, then it would seem more credible to me.

    “Fanaticism is always a sign of repressed doubt” - Carl Jung



  • #4251
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    plodder wrote: »
    Does it not depend on accurate contact tracing though?

    And are case number trends not a better measure? A single R number for the whole country always seemed less useful to me. Like, if they said there is an outbreak in some place with an R value of 1.9, based on a close examination of contacts there, then it would seem more credible to me.
    Some level of contact tracing yes but even numbers of close contacts generate data. It can never be fully accurate but the trends are key anyway to understanding what's happening. Localised may influence testing, like the walk-ins but outlier data are always a nuisance to map.


  • Advertisement
  • #4252
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,029 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    seamus wrote: »
    The number of cases is irrelevant, it's the direction in which they're going.

    21 cases and growing exponentially is alarming.

    500 cases and dropping slowly is stabilising.

    500 cases and unchanging is precarious.

    21 cases in an unvaccinated society is alarming.

    500 cases in a society where the known vulnerable are vaccinated, thats not alarming.


  • #4253
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    21 cases in an unvaccinated society is alarming.

    500 cases in a society where the known vulnerable are vaccinated, thats not alarming.

    No logic to that.


  • #4254
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    No logic to that.
    The 21 cases is likely to have a receptive population to grow rapidly, the 500 will have to find enough unvaccinated to have an effect.


  • #4255
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    21 cases in an unvaccinated society is alarming.

    500 cases in a society where the known vulnerable are vaccinated, thats not alarming.

    Exactly. I look forward to the day when we lose this fixation on case numbers. Chris Whitty in the UK was very open this week when he said that case numbers WILL increase substantially, but that that does not pose a threat to the reopening roadmap.


  • #4256
    MerlinSouthDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    GP referral data for yesterday is out. Good news - lower than last Monday. I thought we might see a big spike with the long weekend, but it looks fine.

    https://tomorrowscare.ie/covid/2021-04-07_COVID_GP_Survey_Results.pdf


  • #4257
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    is_that_so wrote: »
    The 21 cases is likely to have a receptive population to grow rapidly, the 500 will have to find enough unvaccinated to have an effect.

    I’d wager there’s more chance of 500 cases spreading then 21.


  • #4258
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,289 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    https://twitter.com/RTENewsPaulC/status/1379765642455318528


  • #4259
    zuutroy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,854 ✭✭✭zuutroy


    Sounds like something Trump would come out with.


  • #4260
    shtpEdthePlum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭shtpEdthePlum


    https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2021/0407/1208370-sna-vaccines/

    A load of education staff in the government ministers constituencies were contacted by the HSE and received their jab last week.

    This is getting beyond a joke. I don't begrudge those people a vaccine for one minute but maybe if the cunts in charge were more interested in actually getting it rolled out than hand picking which menial labourer they deem worthy of selection we would be getting somewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • #4261
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Eod100 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/RTENewsPaulC/status/1379765642455318528

    Jesus. Probably something ridiculous like the UK and the USA


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement