Pubs when/will they re-open - the Megathread

ShyMets

Scotty # wrote: »

I couldn't see us closing pubs for St. Patrick's Day, nor see us making 150k+ workers unemployed overnight. Keeping non essential business closed for a year+ is not beyond the realms of possibility at all.

If things calm down it will be because the stringent measures we have taken have worked. It would be foolish to relax those measures if they are working. As evidence in other countries has shown, the tighter the lockdown, the slower the spread.

The alternative is tens, maybe even hundreds of people dying per day. They're not going to open non essential businesses as long as long as people are dying.

The ONLY way things can return to normal is if we are vaccinated or have herd immunity but bare in mind that herd immunity is still only a theory, no evidence yet that it would work.

I don't necessarily disagree. We are living in a very new and scary reality. But economically we can only lockdown the country for a certain period of time. Beyond that the economic impact will outweigh the health impact.

SuperRabbit

Wouldn't the thing to do be to get it to a point where the number of infections per day is almost controlled and predictable and set at a rate that the hospitals can handle, let's say can probably handle like 3,000 cases at a time and after that have to start making "decisions" ( ) so when you "flatten the curve" to around 2,000, you keep everyone who can work from home at home, and alternate weeks on and weeks off for other businesses.

But if you let it get to where Italy is nothing like that would be possible, the number is so high all they can do is stay completely shut down for months and months and they have no other options apart from letting the % of deaths get even higher than 9% of confirmed cases, where it is now. If we can keep this very low we have more options about what to do. If we can keep it low we have wiggle room to try things and see if they work.

There is no happy answer. There is no way to avoid global recession. There is a way to avoid millions of people around the world dying though.

1Q2WHYUUU

Has anyone received the special payment if you lost your job yet

trapp

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The lack of empathy for people who are naturally extroverted is truly astounding tbh. Maybe as other posters have pointed out it's because websites like Reddit, Boards etc potentially skew more towards an introverted crowd, but regardless, there's been an incredibly nasty and heartless element to a lot of the commentary I've seen this week.

Nobody is defending the muppets who were packing the pubs last weekend or who were thronging beaches today. But at the same time, this "how hard can it be to isolate yourself indoors for a few months" attitude is f*cking moronic.

We're just coming out of an extremely mucky and miserable Winter even by Irish standards. The temperature plummeted immediately after Halloween and the incessant rain rolled in just after Christmas - this is the first week I can remember so far in 2020 where we've had entire days without rain falling, and that's saying a lot even for this country. People have already endured long periods of being stuck in the house due to this - in fact, I remember a discussion at some stage in February on the subject of how most of the proper storms we've had seemed to always arrive like clockwork on a Friday night and keep the place under a siege of rain for the entire weekend. On top of this, January is generally a very quiet month for peoples' social lives and even that takes its toll on people, which is where the concept of the third week in January being the most depressing week of the year originated.

If you're genuinely the kind of person who doesn't need physical interaction with other humans to get by, then that's fantastic and fair play to you. There is, however, a whole other segment of society out there - extroverts - for whom the intense feeling of loneliness caused by this kind of isolation is utterly soul crushing.

I'm not saying those people should break the guidelines or that they're justified in doing so. But I am saying that people should try to be sympathetic. "Social distancing" as a concept is the very definition hell for a very large number of people, and as humans are inherently social creatures it's absurd to claim that this is somehow unreasonable.

You don't have to excuse or justify the people who are being ignorant gobsh!tes by flagrantly taking the piss, such as those lining up at the Glendalough chip vans earlier this weekend. But have some compassion FFS. Social isolation has been scientifically documented for decades upon decades to have real, measurable, and devastating impacts not just on mental health but on physical health also, and to downplay this with the "people need to get over themselves" attitude is cruel and frankly nonsensical.

Yes, we need to socially isolate at the moment. But it's hard. The people who are finding it emotionally soul destroying are not weak or selfish, they're human beings who have been hardwired by millions of years of successful evolution to feel an innate need for the social company of other human beings. They are not exaggerating or being snowflakes in expressing how difficult this situation is, they are experiencing and expressing a measurable and medically recognised precursor to depression.

To act as if this is something we can or should just ignore as if it isn't a legitimate and very dangerous aspect of what our country is going through right now is to be entirely ignorant of how peoples' brains work.

Honestly, in a more general sense beyond COVID-19, the complete lack of empathy between extroverts and introverts is something which has always massively pissed me off - and I'm acknowledging in this very sentence that this phenomenon does go both ways, and it's utterly sh!tty on the part of both sides to act as if the others' perspective is inferior or invalid. But in this particular situation, introverts are going to have an easier time and extroverts are going to be hit particularly hard. There's absolutely no need, if you're one of the lucky ones who doesn't need to socialise physically in order to function psychologically, to behave like a smug, holier-than-thou, elitist asshole about it.

Brilliant post.

And eventually people will start breaking the rules, not out of badness but because as I keep saying Eventually the human need for friendship and relationships overcomes the fear of death.

Very true about internet forums attracting people who naturally spend much of their time alone anyway, reality is that in the real world these restrictions long term are never going to happen, most posters on internet forums don't live in the real world.

As another poster said there's an element of the media who benefit from this also.

These are dangerous times but there are other dangers alongside the virus.

trapp

Scotty # wrote: »

I'm afraid it's actually 43%.

Recovered: 7,024
Deaths: 5,476

= mortality rate of 43.8%

I don't even know where to start with this.

Possibly one of the most stupid things I've ever seen written down.

Do you have even a basic understanding of how these things are calculated my friend?

bladespin

Scotty # wrote: »

I'm afraid it's actually 43%.

Recovered: 7,024
Deaths: 5,476

= mortality rate of 43.8%

Need to work on those maths:


Currently Italy has had 59,138 cases, 5476 deaths, that's about 10%, 7k recovered and 47k active.

Scotty #

trapp wrote: »

I don't even know where to start with this.

Possibly one of the most stupid things I've ever seen written down.

Do you have even a basic understanding of how these things are calculated my friend?

7024 have recovered.
5046 have died.

Therefore there are 12070 closed cases.

(5046/12070)*100 = 41.8%

Therefore, of the people who have HAD (not HAVE!!) coronavirus in Italy SO FAR... the mortality rate is 41.8%

Or do you think people who are going to die/recover in the future should be included in the current data???

bladespin

Scotty # wrote: »

7024 have recovered.
5046 have died.

Therefore there are 12070 closed cases.

(5046/12070)*100 = 41.8%

Therefore, of the people who have HAD (not HAVE!!) coronavirus in Italy SO FAR... the mortality rate is 41.8%

Or do you think people who are going to die/recover in the future should be included in the current data???

That's not how you calculate a mortality rate, it's the number of infections vs the number of deaths - just to be clear.

Experts define the case fatality rate as “the ratio of deaths occurring from a particular cause to the total number of cases due to the same cause.”

Scotty #

bladespin wrote: »

Experts define the case fatality rate as “the ratio of deaths occurring from a particular cause to the total number of cases due to the same cause.”

That's exactly what I've given you.

You want to include active/ongoing cases, cases where the outcome is still to be determined, and include them as if they ALL recover. That's pointless.

We don't know how many people are infected, we're only guessing, so we can't come to a conclusive rate. On the other hand we know exactly (based on official data) how many closed cases there are and can work out conclusive rate.

whisky_galore

Poll is like asking people the length of a piece of string.

bladespin

Scotty # wrote: »

That's exactly what I've given you.

You want to include active/ongoing cases, cases where the outcome is still to be determined, and include them as if they ALL recover. That's pointless.

Well, that's how statisticians do it, if you want to use your system then you'll have to wait until it's over then do the calculations otherwise that's pointless.

Scotty #

bladespin wrote: »

Well, that's how statisticians do it, if you want to use your system then you'll have to wait until it's over then do the calculations otherwise that's pointless.

No, it's not!

Look, the mortality rate can only be determined from the OUTCOME of cases. Why is that so hard to accept?

bladespin

Scotty # wrote: »

No, it's not!

Look, the mortality rate can only be determined from the OUTCOME of cases. Why is that so hard to accept?

Not in an on-going situation it can't, as I said you'll need to wait until it's over for an accurate stat otherwise you have to take the live cases into account.

But keep pushing whatever you need to believe in, it's wrong but whatever gets you through.

trapp

Scotty # wrote: »

7024 have recovered.
5046 have died.

Therefore there are 12070 closed cases.

(5046/12070)*100 = 41.8%

Therefore, of the people who have HAD (not HAVE!!) coronavirus in Italy SO FAR... the mortality rate is 41.8%

Or do you think people who are going to die/recover in the future should be included in the current data???

That is not how a mortality rate is calculated.

A virus with a mortality rate of 42% as you suggest would be the end of civilisation, governments wouldn't even be trying to contain it, they'd all just resign and try save themselves and their families!

Keep believing this if you want but, no offence intended, it's extremely stupid.

LuasSimon

Many young people shouldn't have an issue with social distancing as long as they have their phone.....many younger people have been practicing social distancing for a number of years at this stage...on their phones ignoring anyone around them.

Scotty #

trapp wrote: »

That is not how a mortality rate is calculated.

LOL... it's exactly how it's calculated. Do you think the mortality rate for stage 4 lung cancer is calculated on the whole population or other people who have had stage 4 lung cancer? AIDS, Flu, measles, TB, etc, etc, etc, the mortality rate is calculated bases on how many died and how many survived. Not on how many could have had it!

trapp wrote: »

A virus with a mortality rate of 42% as you suggest would be the end of civilisation, governments wouldn't even be trying to contain it, they'd all just resign and try save themselves and their families!

Keep believing this if you want but, no offence intended, it's extremely stupid.

The rate is 42% in Italy which has been hit particularly bad because their healthcare was overwhelmed very quick. The global rate is much lower at 15%. Experts believe by year two or three, as immunity builds, it will settle somewhere between 1-3%. The common flu is 0.1% on a bad year.

Trapp, I don't think you understand just how serious this virus is. It has the potential to kill hundreds of millions. You do realise that??

trapp

Scotty # wrote: »

LOL... it's exactly how it's calculated. Do you think the mortality rate for stage 4 lung cancer is calculated on the whole population or other people who have had stage 4 lung cancer? AIDS, Flu, measles, TB, etc, etc, etc, the mortality rate is calculated bases on how many died and how many survived. Not on how many could have had it!

The rate is 42% in Italy which has been hit particularly bad because their healthcare was overwhelmed very quick. The global rate is much lower at 15%. Experts believe by year two or three, as immunity builds, it will settle somewhere between 1-3%. The common flu is 0.1% on a bad year.

Trapp, I don't think you understand just how serious this virus is. It has the potential to kill hundreds of millions. You do realise that??

Without wanting to be ignorant though, have you any awareness of how stupid your method of calculating is?

Serious as the virus may be it does not have a 42% mortality rate in Italy or a 15% rate worldwide.

Your method of calculating is completely false.

It's like someone saying 3 + 3 = 7.

Actually on second thoughts it's like someone saying 3 + 3 = 437.425

It's just complete nonsense my poor friend!!

DeVore

We should be clear on numbers and their meaning. Let me explain using Italy. Here are the latest up to date numbers from this, trusted WHO source.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

Active Cases : 46,638
Of
Currently Infected Patients
43,638 (94%) are in Mild Condition

3,000 (6%) Serious or Critical


There are 12,500 Closed Cases.
Of This cases:
7,024 (56%)
Recovered / Discharged

5,476 (44%)
Deaths


Now, its possible to interpret this data as a 44% CFR (Case Fatality Rate) but thats not a real reflection of the underlying data. Why? Because it takes a long time to be marked as "recovered" and unfortunately a short time to die.

It would be more reasonable to include the 43,638 people with "mild" symptoms as being in the "recovered" group. Some will not recover its true but lets just go with that.

Equally it would be reasonable if gruesome to include the 3000 serious cases in the deaths. Again, slightly inaccurate as some will recover but lets allow the two inaccuraces to cancel each other.

This leads to a CFR of 16% which is still pretty awful.

Beyond this we have to consider tests that would have wanted to do which they didnt have kits for, and also tests that they didnt do on people with mild symptoms which didnt seem to need a test (to keep the kit for someone older). Both of these can skew the numbers.

Finally, we need to consider that we wont know a true CFR until this all washes through, so there are some very big assumptions here.
From all the data I've seen, the CFR seems to wash out around the 3.5% range (which is, admittedly horrific, but still not world ending). It spikes to 8-10% where ventilator beds are not available and will probably spike higher if that continues or if numbers continue to grow.

Either way, you dont want this. Stay in, Stay Clean.

trapp

DeVore wrote: »

We should be clear on numbers and their meaning. Let me explain using Italy. Here are the latest up to date numbers from this, trusted WHO source.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

Active Cases : 46,638
Of
Currently Infected Patients
43,638 (94%) are in Mild Condition

3,000 (6%) Serious or Critical


There are 12,500 Closed Cases.
Of This cases:
7,024 (56%)
Recovered / Discharged

5,476 (44%)
Deaths


Now, its possible to interpret this data as a 44% CFR (Case Fatality Rate) but thats not a real reflection of the underlying data. Why? Because it takes a long time to be marked as "recovered" and unfortunately a short time to die.

It would be more reasonable to include the 43,638 people with "mild" symptoms as being in the "recovered" group. Some will not recover its true but lets just go with that.

Equally it would be reasonable if gruesome to include the 3000 serious cases in the deaths. Again, slightly inaccurate as some will recover but lets allow the two inaccuraces to cancel each other.

This leads to a CFR of 16% which is still pretty awful.

Beyond this we have to consider tests that would have wanted to do which they didnt have kits for, and also tests that they didnt do on people with mild symptoms which didnt seem to need a test (to keep the kit for someone older). Both of these can skew the numbers.

Finally, we need to consider that we wont know a true CFR until this all washes through, so there are some very big assumptions here.
From all the data I've seen, the CFR seems to wash out around the 3.5% range (which is, admittedly horrific, but still not world ending). It spikes to 8-10% where ventilator beds are not available and will probably spike higher if that continues or if numbers continue to grow.

Either way, you dont want this. Stay in, Stay Clean.

But we can agree it's not a mortality rate of 42%??

DeVore

If it means that much to you, sure... go nuts

Scotty #

DeVore wrote: »

If it means that much to you, sure... go nuts

Welcome back to the nut house Tom! You've been missed.

rob316

trapp wrote: »

But we can agree it's not a mortality rate of 42%??

42% mortality rate would be apocalyptic

Scotty #

rob316 wrote: »

42% mortality rate would be apocalyptic

Some say closing all pubs in Ireland would be apocalyptic! And yet....

bladespin

rob316 wrote: »

42% mortality rate would be apocalyptic

Scotty # wrote: »

Some say closing all pubs in Ireland would be apocalyptic! And yet....

nuclear war apocalyptic, it's bad but not sure we're there just yet.

SuperRabbit

South Korea are still allowing Europeans into their country... I mean that's very kind of them and everything but STOP S. Korea! It's ok! We won't be offended!

brick tamland

SuperRabbit wrote: »

South Korea are still allowing Europeans into their country... I mean that's very kind of them and everything but STOP S. Korea! It's ok! We won't be offended!

South korea are doing great by themselves, they don't need anyones advice. Heres hoping we learn from them (we seem to be following their approach in many ways)

DeVore

The CFR is going to vary widely by things like:
1. How much testing was done and how quick intervention happened.
2. How quickly did the country go into lock down to flatten the curve.
3. How many spare ventilators are in the system and how much did the critical cases exceed that amount.
4. How old was the population of the country.

Varying these is going to have a huuuge impact on the CFR (Case Fatality Rate) and it will vary from country to country. Probably from something like 1% in very obedient, well stocked countries with young pops who acted fast up to 10% or more in the opposite. This is my guess work and that range could be wider, much wider, in countries like Iran.

This isnt something you want to catch. Stay in. Stay Clean.

brick tamland

DeVore wrote: »

The CFR is going to vary widely by things like:
1. How much testing was done and how quick intervention happened.
2. How quickly did the country go into lock down to flatten the curve.
3. How many spare ventilators are in the system and how much did the critical cases exceed that amount.
4. How old was the population of the country.

Varying these is going to have a huuuge impact on the CFR (Case Fatality Rate) and it will vary from country to country. Probably from something like 1% in very obedient, well stocked countries with young pops who acted fast up to 10% or more in the opposite. This is my guess work and that range could be wider, much wider, in countries like Iran.

This isnt something you want to catch. Stay in. Stay Clean.

Good post

Still dont believe the true rate in italy is remotely close to 10%. Huge volumes of people with mild or no symptoms would not have been tested. Amazed if its over 2% in reality. But we'll probably never know

skallywag

brick tamland wrote: »

But we'll probably never know

With time we will have a fairly good idea I guess.

The Spanish flu had a mortality rate of somewhere between 2.5% to 10% by most accounts, and I guess it is all we really have to go on in relatively recent times for such a flu like deadly virus.

SuperRabbit

I just want to say something about the age of the population thing that is going around

Italy only have an older population than Britain because their life expectancy is higher (I've only seen it compared to the UK, don't hit me)
Their life expectancy is higher because they have a healthier lifestyle and better immune system, throughout their life, and a better health care system