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

The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

Options
24567…33

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    theoneeyedman
    Registered Users Posts: 6,357 ✭✭✭theoneeyedman


    On one of the big threads at the weekend, there was a twitter link to a lad that had compared the March death rate for 2020 to each March for the last several years.
    He was using unofficial data, rip.ie mostly, as CSO data is not provided yet, and won't be for quite a while.
    Was an interesting exercise I thought. If anyone has a link I'd appreciate it, impossible to find anything on those big, fast moving threads.


  • Options
    #33
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    normanoffside wrote: »
    In Spain, officials think at least 15 out of every 16 cases have not been recorded. They estimate at least 40% of the population of Madrid have been infected.

    https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-04-08/spain-to-test-30000-families-for-the-coronavirus.html

    It'll be hard to get an accurate estimate of mortality until a functioning antibody test is developed IMO

    The more infections the better. It means that fatality rates are actually lower and that a second wave is likely to be less severe.


  • Options
    #34
    snotboogie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,568 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    The HSE worker doing the AMA said that 80% of the fatalities in Ireland will likely be in the second wave of it this Winter

    I think the timeline could go:
    • Now till June - wave one
    • June till October - the calm before the second storm
    • October till ?? - wave two

    But who the hell knows anymore. This thing will probably come and go in surges and drops till a vaccine comes along in mid 2021. And even then it'll still take some people out every year, but to a much lesser degree

    Why a second wave in October? Why 4 or 5 months of calm? Is there any evidence this virus is seasonal? Singapore just shut down again, cases in Brazil are surging, Florida would be hotter in April than we would be in July and its surging there too.


  • Options
    #35
    Jurgen Klopp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,807 ✭✭✭Jurgen Klopp


    normanoffside wrote: »
    In Spain, officials think at least 15 out of every 16 cases have not been recorded. They estimate at least 40% of the population of Madrid have been infected.

    https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-04-08/spain-to-test-30000-families-for-the-coronavirus.html

    It'll be hard to get an accurate estimate of mortality until a functioning antibody test is developed IMO

    I'd take that over winning the fcukin euromillions if true Norman


  • Options
    #36
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 9,936 ✭✭✭normanoffside


    Jurgen Klopp wrote: »
    I'd take that over winning the fcukin euromillions if true Norman

    It's undoubted that the real infection rates are vastly under reported the world over, especially when so many (80%?) of carriers are asymptomatic.

    Even in countries with a 'decent' amount of testing you have to pass a high threshold in order to get tested, therefore lots of people even with significant symptoms are missed out.

    The country with the highest rate of testing per head of population-Iceland- has still only tested 5% of the population. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/10884442-181/a-coronavirus-test-for-anyone?sba=AAS

    They have found the highest rate of infection in the world per head of population (1,200 infected from a population of 300,0000) of those found to be infect only 6 have died. That's a mortality rate of 0.37% of those found to be infected.

    When you factor in the fact that even in Iceland people showing symptoms were clearly more likely to have been tested then the mortality rate must be a lot lower again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Clearly and in spite of your handle you've not that much info on palaeolithic(or later) human populations.

    ah okay. If that's what you think you have no ****ing clue what you're talking about and not only that but you think you know stuff and that others don't. If that's your attitude forget it. There's having a different opinion and coming up with ****. You are living in a world of delusion and you don't deserve a reply. I assure you I know all about the paleolithic era and more than you will ever know.

    I will not read the rest of your post which can only be ill-informed nonsense and toxic and will have you on ignore from now on.


  • Options
    #38
    Hmmzis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭Hmmzis


    normanoffside wrote: »
    It's undoubted that the real infection rates are vastly under reported the world over, especially when so many (80%?) of carriers are asymptomatic.

    Even in countries with a 'decent' amount of testing you have to pass a high threshold in order to get tested, therefore lots of people even with significant symptoms are missed out.

    The country with the highest rate of testing per head of population-Iceland- has still only tested 5% of the population. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/10884442-181/a-coronavirus-test-for-anyone?sba=AAS

    They have found the highest rate of infection in the world per head of population (1,200 infected from a population of 300,0000) of those found to be infect only 6 have died. That's a mortality rate of 0.37% of those found to be infected.

    When you factor in the fact that even in Iceland people showing symptoms were clearly more likely to have been tested then the mortality rate must be a lot lower again.

    If that is indeed the case, then the R0 value must be a gross underestimation by an order of magnitude or thereabouts. That would still mean the lockdowns and all the other measures are well placed to prevent or at least dampen the onslaught to hospitals. With an R0 or 12 to 14 this would be in a league along with the measles (you can't be within 10m or in the same room with a measles patient without getting it yourself).

    Are we indeed breathing that sh!t out when infected and asymptomatic? I haven't read any credible reports stating that. It can be viable in aerosols for up to 3h though. Then again, would not all of the care homes be completely infected by now if that's indeed the case?


  • Options
    #39
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    normanoffside wrote: »
    It's undoubted that the real infection rates are vastly under reported the world over, especially when so many (80%?) of carriers are asymptomatic.

    Even in countries with a 'decent' amount of testing you have to pass a high threshold in order to get tested, therefore lots of people even with significant symptoms are missed out.

    In the town of Castiglione d'Adda in Lombardy as group of people claiming to have not had symptoms of CV-19 donated blood. 70% of the donations were found to have the antibody, showing they had been infected. That indicates an enormous infection rate with potentially a majority of people who believed they were well through the peak in Lombardy actually being infected. I suspect that it's possible some of those donors had been symptomatic and made the donation in the hope of finding out that they had the antibody. Having an illness with symptoms that match the global pandemic you are living through is absolutely head wrecking. So plenty of people could be so desperate for clarity about their own health that they'd find a way to justify donating even if they suspected they were infected. So it's not a true indication of asymptotic spread in the way that testing a randomly selected group would be. But it still implies the potential for a massive spread of the virus, far beyond what is currently assumed.


  • Options
    #40
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 9,936 ✭✭✭normanoffside


    iguana wrote: »
    In the town of Castiglione d'Adda in Lombardy as group of people claiming to have not had symptoms of CV-19 donated blood. 70% of the donations were found to have the antibody, showing they had been infected. That indicates an enormous infection rate with potentially a majority of people who believed they were well through the peak in Lombardy actually being infected. I suspect that it's possible some of those donors had been symptomatic and made the donation in the hope of finding out that they had the antibody. Having an illness with symptoms that match the global pandemic you are living through is absolutely head wrecking. So plenty of people could be so desperate for clarity about their own health that they'd find a way to justify donating even if they suspected they were infected. So it's not a true indication of asymptotic spread in the way that testing a randomly selected group would be. But it still implies the potential for a massive spread of the virus, far beyond what is currently assumed.

    The great thing however is that there is a strong possibility that blood donors who have the antibody could be very valuable.
    Apparently their plasma can help people infected to recover.

    Not at a Computer right now but I have read several articles where such blood was transfused into people in critical care and it aided their recovery.


  • Options
    #41
    jimmyrustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭jimmyrustle


    Something I was wondering, and it's something that our media should really have put out there.

    How many frontline healthcare staff do we have in hospitals, GP surgeries, care homes?

    i.e. how many doctors, nurses, care assistants, paramedics, porters and others who have close contact with the general public.

    Just interested to see what percentage of these people have caught the virus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users Posts: 4,467 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    Here's my maths.

    If 2.5 million get it, 90% or 2.25 million will get a mildish form which can be cured at home.

    5% will get a more severe form - still probably able to cure it at home. So that's 125,000.

    2.5% will require hospital treatment of some sort - 62,000

    And another 2.5% may end up in ICU - 62,000

    At the moment we've had 6000 confirmed cases and something like 250 in ICU. But we know the 6000 cases is conservative and there's very likely to be 12,000 cases in reality if not more. So about 1.25% of cases ended up in ICU.

    There is certainly a value to randomised testing of the population on an ongoing basis to see how we could cope if most of the population were infected. Beyond the HSE and government to do that as unless a proposal like this comes from the WHO, they won't do it.


  • Options
    #43
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    tobefrank321 wrote: »
    Here's my maths.

    If 2.5 million get it, 90% or 2.25 million will get a mildish form which can be cured at home.


    Hi Frank

    Where did you see that about 90% of the people getting it so far are getting the milder Treat At Home strain? Last I saw it was 80%. Obviously 90% is a much better number

    Cheers


  • Options
    #44
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Hi Frank

    Where did you see that about 90% of the people getting it so far are getting the milder Treat At Home strain? Last I saw it was 80%. Obviously 90% is a much better number

    Cheers

    According to Worldometers the current amount of active cases are recorded at 96% Mild/ 4% Serious/Critical. And that's only confirmed cases. There are in all likelihood significant multiples more untested people currently having an active mild or asymptotic case right now.


  • Options
    #45
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    iguana wrote: »
    According to Worldometers the current amount of active cases are recorded at 96% Mild/ 4% Serious/Critical. And that's only confirmed cases. There are in all likelihood significant multiples more untested people currently having an active mild or asymptotic case right now.

    Cheers for that Iguana

    I understood it previously to be:
    • 80% Mild. You'll get anything from barely noticing it, to feeling the worst flu of your life
    • 20% needing hospital treatment
    • Of that 20% about 4% needing ICU treatment
    • And of that 4% only half come back out alive

    That gives us a mortality rate of 2% though, when many are saying it's more around 1%


  • Options
    #46
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 9,936 ✭✭✭normanoffside


    ShineOn7 wrote: »

    That gives us a mortality rate of 2% though, when many are saying it's more around 1%

    Iceland says it's 0.37% of those tested (not everyone has been tested but a lot more than anyone else)

    I'd say the real rate is lower than that again.

    Asymptomatic people are not being tested and they make up the majority of the infected.
    In most countries even people with clear symptoms are not being tested if they are not in a vulnerable/critical condition.


  • Options
    #47
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users Posts: 4,467 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Hi Frank

    Where did you see that about 90% of the people getting it so far are getting the milder Treat At Home strain? Last I saw it was 80%. Obviously 90% is a much better number

    Cheers

    I had a look at yesterdays figures and they seem to be inconsistent with the 80 - 14 - 6% model as usually reported by RTE.
    By Monday night, 25% of all the 5981 confirmed cases had been hospitalised (1,472 patients) and 224 people (3.7%) had been admitted to ICU.

    This would mean that 75% of cases were not hospitalised and while this could range from mild to severe, they weren't severe enough for hospitalisation (unless some died outside of hospital).

    In testing in Iceland 50% of cases were found to be asymptomatic. In an area of Italy they found antibodies in something like 75% of local residents.

    So you'd have to say our 6000 confirmed cases are a huge under reporting of real cases. Everyone will have an estimate. I'm going for 12,000 cases here in reality, of which about 1500 (12.5%) ended up in hospital and 250 (2%) in ICU.

    So probably 85% are mild, 15% are severe. Slight correction there. All based on estimate of course. No-one can say exactly how many were infected with covid19 here.


  • Options
    #48
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    tobefrank321 wrote: »

    This would mean that 75% of cases were not hospitalised and while this could range from mild to severe, they weren't severe enough for hospitalisation (unless some died outside of hospital).


    Cheers for the update

    It's this bit that would definitely skew the numbers. It's hard to know if all of the Nursing Home fatalities are being reported for example

    Bottom line is governments all over the world need to be far more transparent about figures and statistics

    The Chinese government in particular have been fúcking appalling in reporting their cases


  • Options
    #49
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,790 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    IHME (as reported in the IT on Monday) are predicting ~400 deaths in the first wave, but possibly up to 800 (their figures for ireland are a few days behind, I think we're actually doing slightly worse now):
    https://covid19.healthdata.org/ireland

    I'm assuming the actual infected population is at least 10x the number of confirmed cases

    As mentioned above the overall death rate for the year may not be that much higher than usual (given the demographic of most of the casualties) but it will hopefully be a lot lower than the likes of Italy, Spain etc where they have let things get out of control.


  • Options
    #50
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    loyatemu wrote: »
    As mentioned above the overall death rate for the year may not be that much higher than usual (given the demographic of most of the casualties) but it will hopefully be a lot lower than the likes of Italy, Spain etc where they have let things get out of control.
    To add to this, we don't actually know what the mortality is in Italy and Spain because the testing is so limited. Pretty much like most countries.


  • Options
    #51
    jimmyrustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭jimmyrustle


    jimmyrustle wrote: »
    Something I was wondering, and it's something that our media should really have put out there.

    How many frontline healthcare staff do we have in hospitals, GP surgeries, care homes?

    i.e. how many doctors, nurses, care assistants, paramedics, porters and others who have close contact with the general public.

    Just interested to see what percentage of these people have caught the virus.

    Anyone?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    Beasty wrote: »
    97 reported in 2018/19


    Thanks for the link

    So in Ireland - in an average year - flu and pneumonia combined account for that many fatalities

    If we take the HSE doing the AMA's Best Case Scenario figure of 10,000 fatalities from Covid, quick in the head Maths would make it 100 times more lethal than flu and pneumonia


  • Options
    #53
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    Could any Maths or stats people give me the mortality rate (so far) in Ireland for Covid with the:

    - Over 60s

    - Over 60s with underlying conditions

    Thanks


  • Options
    #54
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    Boggles wrote: »
    This is a "perfect" virus.

    The mortality rate for them is between 1 and 2.5 %.

    I think Germany with world class health care and spare capacity is running between 1 and 1.5%

    So that is probably the figure.

    Remove mitigation and the figure balloons.

    Maybe a 75,000 - 200,000 dead in Ireland.

    Have you started salivating yet?

    Rubbing your knees?


  • Options
    #55
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    Have you started salivating yet?

    Rubbing your knees?


    I shouldn't be laughing in such a dark thread but ...


  • Options
    #56
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    I shouldn't be laughing in such a dark thread but ...

    We seem to be hitting a growth figure of circa 7% in deaths every day. At that rate of increase we could have towards 1,000 deaths by the end of this month. However I don't think we will get there on this first wave, maybe we will. At some point the serious restrictions implemented will kick in and death numbers shall recede.

    There will be a second wave and hopefully we are learning our own mistakes here. I don't think it has really got its teeth into other urban areas outside of Dublin, which is great news currently but I think this virus is slow burner, I would not be complacent living in any area, it is coming.

    But it so will not get anywhere near the 75,000-200,000 monsieur Doom was prophesising, what a phuckfest, some people get off on the scaremongering. This is not going to be a Zombie Armageddon. We don't even have enough septuagenarians to cover such a number... such waffles.

    I know it gets sneered at but over time Herd Immunity will begin to influence how we tackle the spread via numbers on a macro level. It will help to counter growth. Also I think this virus has your number or it doesn't, the way it has rifled through the old persons homes would indicate its' potency, but I think while it is a killer it is also proving harmless to a lot of people. I think a lot more people will have generated Antibodies by now. It cannot last for ever.

    Every day we are also learning new ways to cure and tackle the virus. Humans evolve faster than everything else on this planet, we will win.

    I reckon somewhere between 2,500 - 3,000 and I seriously hope that is a massive overestimation. Regrettably we cannot currently tell for sure.


  • Options
    #57
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    IAMAMORON wrote: »

    There will be a second wave and hopefully we are learning our own mistakes here.


    That was a great post, thanks.

    What's this second wave everyone keeps mentioning though? What is leading us to think there will be one?

    Is it because Winter = Flu season, so it'll mean fresh Covid too?


  • Options
    #58
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    That was a great post, thanks.

    What's this second wave everyone keeps mentioning though? What is leading us to think there will be one?

    Is it because Winter = Flu season, so it'll mean fresh Covid too?

    No I would put it down to basic complacency. At some point in the future a bad decision will be made, we don't know what it will be, but it will lead to a further increase in infections.

    For example a hypothetical scenario, by Mid May deaths rates and infection rates have plummeted to say 5 deaths a day for 2 weeks and maybe 100 odd infections a day, the numbers are kind of immaterial. But what will start happening is that other countries will start changing approaches and put simply the political environment can, could or will change as a consequence. But something will change which can lead to further spikes in numbers as a result of human complacency around it, this is inevitable. If say Germany suddenly opens it schools again and this is followed by France and Holland, what do we do then? These type of imponderables will be facing decision makers and throw in pressure from business stakeholders and before you know it the politicians will be looking for a whitewash from the Dept of Health ( usually in the form of a report, externally procured of course ) , which will allow them the make the unenviable decision of opening up the gates again. This will lead to further infections. The virus then becomes a PR exercise for government, it kind of is already, but in 2 months this thing will be a numbers game. During 2nd or 3rd phases of infections the numbers may not be as aggressive initially, but over time they will add up.

    I would also slightly worry about the infection getting into " virgin" areas of Ireland which have not yet been exposed. I see the low numbers in Cork and Limerick look fantastic now, but that is because both cities have not been largely exposed to it fully yet. They could both be sitting ducks if the restrictions are lifted rashly. This is anther problem that has been kicked down the street. With the absence of a vaccine the whole Country will face infection sooner or later. That is assuming Dublin survives the current wave.


  • Options
    #59
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    That is assuming Dublin survives the current wave.


    Thanks for the post

    I can't see it wiping out a million people though. Or even 2% (20,000 people) in it


  • Options
    #60
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    ShineOn7 wrote: »
    Thanks for the post

    I can't see it wiping out a million people though. Or even 2% (20,000 people) in it

    It sure won't, but it could be lethal if you turned your back on it. Look what happened in Bergamo. Dublin is lucky insofar as it saw it coming, but we are not out of the woods yet, it is bad in the city centre.

    The 10,000 deaths in the UK are small when you consider the London underground and other transport networks they have. This still leaves me head scratching about northern Italy. I am convinced that it was spreading there in December and they just didn't know it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ShineOn7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭ShineOn7


    IAMAMORON wrote: »

    The 10,000 deaths in the UK are small when you consider the London underground and other transport networks they have.


    True



    It's a miracle London aren't as bad as New York given it's dense population and transport system


Advertisement