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 XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

1…7071737576…1580

Comments

  • #2162
    kleiner feigling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭kleiner feigling


    Lumen wrote: »
    You need to be clear about what that death rate means. It means in the general population, and depends entirely on what the rate of infection is.

    It absolutely DOES NOT mean "if you get infected you have a 0.00104% chance of dying."

    Therefore it does not support your later point...



    I don't know the risks of hospitalisation and death by age for confirmed cases or infected people. I've tried to find out, and failed.

    To evaluate the "let it rip" proposition, you need to start with some assumption about how many people in a given age group (excluding the vaccinated high and very high people) will get infected or become a confirmed case (don't know, maybe 70%?), and then apply the hospitalisation and death probabilities to those.

    Off you go. :D

    Hi, yes that's correct re. the 0.00104% figure.
    It's difficult to extrapolate to what that would be without restrictions etc., but given the schools have been open quite a bit, the younger cohort is still at an extremely low risk. Even if the non-lockdown risk was 10 times worse the risk would still be extremely low.
    Without further info on the people who did die in the under 35s it is very hard to say why they did die (i.e. underlying conditions), or when they died (the deaths may have been early on when treatments were not well established).
    I don't have that data available to me, but if anyone does do feel free to share.

    You're implying that I propose a let it rip approach, which I don't.
    I think it is important to do a full risk-benefit analysis of any measure, and to take a pragmatic approach based on data.

    The reported data often bins ages into the under and over 65s which is an extremely blunt way of looking at things.
    I did somewhat summarise things in the previous post by looking at under 35s, so attaching an image for reference.


  • #2163
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    The 15% difference would be made up of frontline workers and others who were vaccinated before the age-based cohorts kicked off.

    The under-35s are a large group. Lumping them all together under a single statistic doesn't make sense.

    If you look at the HSPC link you've posted, you can see that someone in the 25-34 age group is nearly five times more likely to die of Covid than someone under 25.

    So if we open up wide without this group done, we could realistically end up with a few hundred thousand new infections again in a matter of weeks. Which, statistically would lead to about 50 deaths of people under 35. That's if we take those HSPC figures and add a few assumptions.

    But it would have a knock-on effect of exposing those who are higher risk and/or the vaccine didn't work; which could be hundreds of deaths.

    Herd immunity requires the entire population to covered, not just those at risk. Without herd immunity, those who can't get the vaccine or for whom it's not effective, are always exposed.

    Ireland have had 255,000 covid cases since the beginning. Its seems beyond the realms of possibility that we would have a few hundred thousand infections in a matter of weeks with 70% of adults vaccinated.

    The R rate drops without herd immunity, its not all or nothing here.


  • #2164
    kleiner feigling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭kleiner feigling


    Lumen wrote: »
    Also



    Do you mean that

    (a) you don't know anyone who will be willing to enroll their child in a clinical trial or
    (b) you don't know anyone who will consent to have their child vaccinated with a vaccine which has been approved for general use, i.e. outside clinical trials?

    The clinical trials will not take a year or two. The FDA has already authorized Pfizer-BioNTech for use in adolescents, and I doubt the EMA will be far behind.

    Smells a bit like "experimental vaccine!!!!" hysteria.

    I don't know anyone who would take a vaccine that doesn't have long term safety data, which they don't as they're scarcely a year old.
    If there's no long term safety data, there's no long term safety data.
    When there is, I will consider taking it and friends who have kids have said similar things.

    Before you go there, I'm not anti-vax.
    Yawn!
    I probably have more vaxxes than most as I lived/traveled in tropical regions etc, and I had no issue taking those vaccines as they come with a wealth of safety data and completed trials.
    The current products have emergency use authorisations, which is entirely different.
    Certainly worth taking if you are in an at-risk group though


  • #2165
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    timsey tiger wrote: »
    Even then could be ok, since that 30% will keep increasing, pushing that doubling time out and out, with less and less severe cases as the vaccines work down the age groups.

    Which is why as the 30% increases the restrictions are also decreasing


  • #2166
    brick tamland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭brick tamland


    seamus wrote: »
    Ignoring hospitalisation, we can at least see how many people in each age cohort have tested positive and how many have died.

    This means that we can say that the IFR for the 25-34 age group is 0.029% (13 deaths out of 44,737 cases).

    If, in a "let it rip" scenario, we saw 50% of this group infected, (330k cases), that would probably result in about 90 deaths. Even 25% infected would lead to 45 deaths.

    Sounds relatively small in the context of nearly 5,000 overall. Not sure I'd be happy to tell those 45 families though that they lost a family member in the prime of life so that people could go clubbing again a few months quicker.


    I know what you are trying to point out, but it wouldnt be that bad, nowhere near in my opinion

    * The likleyhood is that the actual infection number in that age group is probably at least double the above, at least halving the death rate
    * The deaths in this age group will have been a nearly all (possibly even 100%) in the high risk area, who will have been vacinated by the time these restriction ease, so much higher protection.
    * Even in a let it rip scenario, with 50% of the population vacinated, i dont think anywhere near 50% of this grouping get infected


  • Advertisement
  • #2167
    MerlinSouthDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Doubling time from opening until mid october was a reasonably consistent 20 days. If 1/3 of the country is vaccinated, maybe the doubling time is 30 days

    The base doubling time is probably faster (maybe 30% or so faster, so 14 days doubling instead of 20) due to the UK variant (which wasn't around in October). On the other hand, I think by end of June we will have 70% of adults (so 50% of population) with at least one dose. So that brings us back close to your estimate of 30 days.

    If we are at the end of June, and we are still at 400 cases a day or below (seems likely), then we would increase to 800 cases a day by end of July with indoor dining open. That seems perfectly manageable, given it will largely be people under 40. And we will be continuing to vaccinate throughout, so the doubling time will be getting extended every day.


  • #2168
    podgeandrodge
    Site Banned Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    Is this 105 minute rule based in any way on good science? It seems that a lot of experts don't think so.


  • #2169
    PTH2009
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,240 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/music/london-s-o2-arena-to-return-with-full-capacity-concerts-in-august-1.1225197

    Sadly our trial could only be getting started by then with the amount of hemming and hawing that COULD go on about them

    Be great if the 3Arena opened the same time


  • #2170
    Vicxas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,613 ✭✭✭✭Vicxas


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Is this 105 minute rule based in any way on good science? It seems that a lot of experts don't think so.

    Theres no science behind it, its to encourage people to leave so they can get more in.


  • #2171
    celt262
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,720 ✭✭✭celt262


    PTH2009 wrote: »
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/music/london-s-o2-arena-to-return-with-full-capacity-concerts-in-august-1.1225197

    Sadly our trial could only be getting started by then with the amount of hemming and hawing that COULD go on about them

    Be great if the 3Arena opened the same time

    What is even the point in having these trials if they have proved successful over the water it's not as if the results are going to be any different?


  • Advertisement
  • #2172
    podgeandrodge
    Site Banned Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    Vicxas wrote: »
    Theres no science behind it, its to encourage people to leave so they can get more in.

    Ha, don't disagree with you there! But Govt. signed off on this, so on what basis are they approving the time limit, and if it's just about maximising profit, why not simply allow different pubs to implement whatever works for them.


  • #2173
    podgeandrodge
    Site Banned Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    celt262 wrote: »
    What is even the point in having these trials if they have proved successful over the water it's not as if the results are going to be any different?

    Their biological systems are different elsewhere, that's why we needed €9 meals, it's an Irish medical imperative.


  • #2174
    PTH2009
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,240 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    celt262 wrote: »
    What is even the point in having these trials if they have proved successful over the water it's not as if the results are going to be any different?

    This is Ireland were talking about


  • #2175
    hynesie08
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,247 ✭✭✭✭hynesie08


    PTH2009 wrote: »
    This is Ireland were talking about

    So we should blindly follow England's Data, except when it comes to pubs, when we should ignore their data and open up outside and inside together........


  • #2176
    OwenM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 859 ✭✭✭OwenM


    seamus wrote: »
    The 15% difference would be made up of frontline workers and others who were vaccinated before the age-based cohorts kicked off.

    The under-35s are a large group. Lumping them all together under a single statistic doesn't make sense.

    If you look at the HSPC link you've posted, you can see that someone in the 25-34 age group is nearly five times more likely to die of Covid than someone under 25.

    So if we open up wide without this group done, we could realistically end up with a few hundred thousand new infections again in a matter of weeks. Which, statistically would lead to about 50 deaths of people under 35. That's if we take those HSPC figures and add a few assumptions.

    But it would have a knock-on effect of exposing those who are higher risk and/or the vaccine didn't work; which could be hundreds of deaths.

    Herd immunity requires the entire population to covered, not just those at risk. Without herd immunity, those who can't get the vaccine or for whom it's not effective, are always exposed.


    You've been one of the more reasoned posters on here, but that is total nonsense. It's taken 14 months to record approx 255k infections so far, there is no way we could end up with " a few hundred thousand new infections again in a matter of weeks"


  • #2177
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,399 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Their biological systems are different elsewhere, that's why we needed €9 meals, it's an Irish medical imperative.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, bit didn't the UK have the exact same issue we had with sperating out restaurants/gastro pubs with wet pubs (yeah we all hate that term) we went with a €9 value (frozen pizza) they went with scotch eggs.

    So much easier in the US where some states it's done on sales, 51% food you're a restaurant, 51% alcohol your a pub.

    Not to rehash that argument, but making out like Ireland was unique in trying to separate business compared to the UK is incorrect.


  • #2178
    OwenM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 859 ✭✭✭OwenM


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Is this 105 minute rule based in any way on good science? It seems that a lot of experts don't think so.

    It was drawn from guidelines written by Failte Ireland I believe..... It's not going to be policed anyway


  • #2179
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    seamus wrote: »
    Ignoring hospitalisation, we can at least see how many people in each age cohort have tested positive and how many have died.

    This means that we can say that the IFR for the 25-34 age group is 0.029% (13 deaths out of 44,737 cases).

    If, in a "let it rip" scenario, we saw 50% of this group infected, (330k cases), that would probably result in about 90 deaths. Even 25% infected would lead to 45 deaths.

    Sounds relatively small in the context of nearly 5,000 overall. Not sure I'd be happy to tell those 45 families though that they lost a family member in the prime of life so that people could go clubbing again a few months quicker.

    Firstly - your IFR is flawed. There are plenty of vulnerable people in the 25-34 age group, most of which would have made up the death figures sadly. Those people have already been vaccinated, so the real risk of death for 25-34 excluding vulnerable people is no doubt a magnitude of difference lower.

    45 deaths would probably be about 10 deaths to be honest. Possibly even lower. Unfortunately without a better breakdown of data from HPSC we can't estimate to a higher degree of accuracy


  • #2180
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Their biological systems are different elsewhere, that's why we needed €9 meals, it's an Irish medical imperative.

    I cant believe this trope is still being pushed.

    The decision was only premises serving food could open. €9 was an arbitrary figure selected to stop people pulling the piss by selling peanuts with every pint


  • #2181
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,277 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I cant believe this trope is still being pushed.

    The decision was only premises serving food could open. €9 was an arbitrary figure selected to stop people pulling the piss by selling peanuts with every pint

    There has to be a term for this, something like "threshold fallacy".

    It goes like this:

    Why is a €9 meal safe but an €8 meal not? DOES EXPENSIVE FOOD KILL COVID?
    Why it is safe to go 120kph on the motorway but not 121kph? SPEED LIMITS ARE BULLSH!T.
    Why can I buy alcohol on my 18th birthday but not a day before? DOES MY LIVER HAVE A CALENDAR?


  • Advertisement
  • #2182
    lukas8888
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 526 ✭✭✭lukas8888


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I cant believe this trope is still being pushed.

    The decision was only premises serving food could open. €9 was an arbitrary figure selected to stop people pulling the piss by selling peanuts with every pint

    And i can not believe you still think that the decision was not ridiculous and completely abused wholesale.All it lead to was jammed pubs ignoring the meal criteria.Where as if all were open the numbers indoors might not have lead to the same outcome.Probably best though not to rehash the debate that was flogged to death months ago.


  • #2183
    JDD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭JDD


    People forget that lockdowns, and restrictions in general, were not put in place in order to avoid every hospitalisation and every death from covid.

    They were put in place in order to prevent hospitals becoming overwhelmed.

    If we fully open before the under 35 cohort is vaccinated then yes, we risk infections in that category rising steeply, for a period of time until the critical mass of that age group is vaccinated. So, say we fully opened tomorrow and most of that category is vaccinated by end July, that is a window of two months.

    I think it's very unlikely, even in a fully open scenario, that we will have a number infected over 10 weeks that is over the total number of infections in the state for 14 months.

    But say we have the same steep rise we had at Christmas/New Years - but in a cohort that is 15% of the overall population. You might see 70-100k infections, at the very high end, over that eight week window. And remember, not everyone will be infected at the same time, so hospitalisations will only be at the highest at the end of that window.

    There will of course be people hospitalised. But no where near the numbers in January/February simply because under-35s don't tend to suffer badly enough to be hospitalised. There may again be a handful of deaths.

    As awful as this is, if we cast our minds back to March last year there is absolutely NO WAY the country would have shut down if we were going to have a few hundred hospitalisations and a handful of deaths over an eight week window. Advocating for extending restrictions simply because we are now used to them, in circumstances where our hospitals are not going to become overwhelmed, is simply not a decision a government who has the best interests of the whole population at heart should make.


  • #2184
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    marno21 wrote: »
    By the time indoor dining reopens, we'll be at vaccination levels that there's a good chance 2 of 3 tables in a row in a pub will be fully vaccinated, and there will be no risk of transmission anyway.

    It's absolute nonsense of the highest order.

    +1; and those perhaps not vaccinated by then (ie, in their 20s) are the ones who will just go on a pub crawl spreading it wider.

    Genius.


  • #2185
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    JDD wrote: »
    People forget that lockdowns, and restrictions in general, were not put in place in order to avoid every hospitalisation and every death from covid.

    They were put in place in order to prevent hospitals becoming overwhelmed.

    If we fully open before the under 35 cohort is vaccinated then yes, we risk infections in that category rising steeply, for a period of time until the critical mass of that age group is vaccinated. So, say we fully opened tomorrow and most of that category is vaccinated by end July, that is a window of two months.

    I think it's very unlikely, even in a fully open scenario, that we will have a number infected over 10 weeks that is over the total number of infections in the state for 14 months.

    But say we have the same steep rise we had at Christmas/New Years - but in a cohort that is 15% of the overall population. You might see 70-100k infections, at the very high end, over that eight week window. And remember, not everyone will be infected at the same time, so hospitalisations will only be at the highest at the end of that window.

    There will of course be people hospitalised. But no where near the numbers in January/February simply because under-35s don't tend to suffer badly enough to be hospitalised. There may again be a handful of deaths.

    As awful as this is, if we cast our minds back to March last year there is absolutely NO WAY the country would have shut down if we were going to have a few hundred hospitalisations and a handful of deaths over an eight week window. Advocating for extending restrictions simply because we are now used to them, in circumstances where our hospitals are not going to become overwhelmed, is simply not a decision a government who has the best interests of the whole population at heart.

    People also forget that 93%+* of all deaths from covid were from people with an underlying condition.
    People with those underlying conditions were in the priority vaccination cohorts, and at this stage should all be fully vaxxed.

    The risk to the general public now is miniscule.


    *93%+ comes from HPSC report on underlying conditions, data up to end of last year. https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/underlyingconditionsreports/Underlying%20conditions%20summary_1.0v%2014122020.pdf


  • #2186
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    timmyntc wrote: »
    People also forget that 93%+* of all deaths from covid were from people with an underlying condition.
    People with those underlying conditions were in the priority vaccination cohorts, and at this stage should all be fully vaxxed.

    The risk to the general public now is miniscule.


    *93%+ comes from HPSC report on underlying conditions, data up to end of last year. https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/underlyingconditionsreports/Underlying%20conditions%20summary_1.0v%2014122020.pdf
    Deaths have always been the red herring in this. Sure it is a sobering and sad headline but it's always been about the potential of clogged hospitals with the 16-20% who could end up there, never mind the massive knock on to normal services. As for the rest of us based on the vaccination groups there could be up to 1m with some of those underlying conditions in some form.


  • #2187
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Deaths have always been the red herring in this. Sure it is a sobering and sad headline but it's always been about the potential of clogged hospitals with the 16-20% who could end up there, never mind the massive knock on to normal services. As for the rest of us based on the vaccination groups there could be up to 1m with some of those underlying conditions in some form.

    The underlying conditions mentioned are an explicit set - and its those conditions that were part of the priority cohorts for vaccinations. The conditions that 93% of people who died had, almost everyone who has those should now be vaccinated.

    Unless you have chronic heart disease or a chronic respiratory problem and dont know about it - I'd say people in that category are in the 100s if not below. Not a significant amount, and also more likely to be vaccinated due to age anyways.

    60% of those admitted to hospital, and 88% of ICU admissions were also a subset of those underlying conditions. The risk is miniscule now, it really is.


  • #2188
    podgeandrodge
    Site Banned Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I cant believe this trope is still being pushed.

    The decision was only premises serving food could open. €9 was an arbitrary figure selected to stop people pulling the piss by selling peanuts with every pint

    It was bollox and just annoyed people, and sent plenty into houses to continue mixing in a more dangerous situation.

    But now, with a significant amount of vulnerable people vaccinated to a degree e.g. older people, it makes even less sense.


  • #2189
    corkie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭corkie


    https://twitter.com/roinnslainte/status/1397589213474926593

    As of midnight, Tuesday 25 May, we are reporting
    448* confirmed cases of #COVID19.

    41 in ICU. 99 in hospital.

    *Daily case numbers may change due to future data review, validation and update.



    Updated COVID-19 case numbers for 15-26 May 2021
    ^^^ Cases where under reported in most days.

    ⓘ "At some point something inside me just clicked and I realized that I didn't have to deal with anyone's bullshit ever again."
    » “mundus sine caesaribus” «



  • #2190
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,399 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    timmyntc wrote: »
    The underlying conditions mentioned are an explicit set - and its those conditions that were part of the priority cohorts for vaccinations. The conditions that 93% of people who died had, almost everyone who has those should now be vaccinated.

    Unless you have chronic heart disease or a chronic respiratory problem and dont know about it - I'd say people in that category are in the 100s if not below. Not a significant amount, and also more likely to be vaccinated due to age anyways.

    60% of those admitted to hospital, and 88% of ICU admissions were also a subset of those underlying conditions. The risk is miniscule now, it really is.
    Worth noting, 35% of those hospitalised in that report had no underlying conditions. Before the hack, we were still seeing roughly 10-15 admissions per day. We've no way to know if they have underlying conditions, just testing positive with no symptoms on admission etc...
    Likewise we don't know their ages etc...
    You can't assume everyone at risk is fully protected yet.


  • Advertisement
  • #2191
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,399 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    corkie wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/roinnslainte/status/1397589213474926593

    As of midnight, Tuesday 25 May, we are reporting
    448* confirmed cases of #COVID19.

    41 in ICU. 99 in hospital.

    *Daily case numbers may change due to future data review, validation and update.
    Nice to see it back under 100!

    As the daily cases are just swabs (due to the hack), has anyone compared swab count week to week to see the trend?
    I think alot of people have really taken less interest now with daily figures (apart from ICU and hospital) and everyone is missing the daily vaccination figures. A much better place to be in mentally!


Advertisement