Are we better off getting it now and out of the way?

Del Griffith

KildareP wrote: »

No-one knows enough about Covid-19 to debunk anything at this stage.

So no one knows enough to 'bunk' anything either, by that measurement.

We can however work with the data we have and reasonable assumptions.

Del Griffith

KildareP wrote: »

Off you go.

Would you sign a declaration that someone with a more genuine need for ICU care that comes about through no fault of their own gets ahead of you though?

Sure why would I need to, there is tons of spare ICU capacity. Or does that not fact not suit your narrative?

thegetawaycar

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

I'm sorry but we need to get on with it. The virus isn't going away anytime soon unfortunately, life must go on otherwise the fall out from this will be a lot worse for everybody, we've played our part, the general public, that is, time to get it under control in nursing homes/residential care homes.

We need to get on with it? We are getting on with it. Nobody has any idea what the long term effects of contracting the virus is, does it impact lung capacity in the long term for those who get it the apparent link to Kawasaki syndrome in children etc... why the hell would anyone deliberately want to contract it with so many unknowns (not to mention spreading to more vulnerable people and possible hospitalisation etc...)?

The case numbers are down, we are re-opening slowly and have a planned return to relative normality, if the numbers stay low and people are checked regularly we will be more or less completely re-open for the Autumn. Indoors masks will be the norm and social distancing will remain for a long time period but except for that I can't see many (there will be some) long term changes.

What are the major issues you need to happen that aren't planned in the re-opening that take precedence over peoples lives (In your opinion)?

KildareP

Del Griffith wrote: »

Sure why would I need to, there is tons of spare ICU capacity. Or does that not fact not suit your narrative?

At the moment, yes.
If we all go about our day, what %age of the population contracting Covid-19 and requiring admission to ICU can the HSE support before it fills up? Does it go above single figures?

Next you'll be telling me we overreacted because the transmission and contraction rates are way lower than the worst case scenarios predicted! Ignoring, of course, that they are so low precisely because we reacted in the way we did.

Polar101

Del Griffith wrote: »

Sure why would I need to, there is tons of spare ICU capacity. Or does that not fact not suit your narrative?

Tons, also known as 141 available critical care beds in the whole country.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0519/1139229-covid19-coronavirus-ireland/

KildareP

Del Griffith wrote: »

So no one knows enough to 'bunk' anything either, by that measurement.

We can however work with the data we have and reasonable assumptions.

No you can't so you either proceed with caution or you take an uncalculated risk. We do not have near enough data to make a calculated risk around Covid-19 at this point.

Ballso

Del Griffith wrote: »

Sure why would I need to, there is tons of spare ICU capacity. Or does that not fact not suit your narrative?

There is "tons" of spare capacity because of the lockdown. Just do what you're told, nobody asked for your input.

Del Griffith

Ballso wrote: »

There is "tons" of spare capacity because of the lockdown. Just do what you're told, nobody asked for your input.

LOL

Del Griffith

KildareP wrote: »

No you can't so you either proceed with caution or you take an uncalculated risk. We do not have near enough data to make a calculated risk around Covid-19 at this point.

This just doesn't make sense. We're already taking huge calculated risks (€28 billion deficit and counting) based on data modeling from a report from the Imperial College and all its assumptions, despite no peer review.

Yet your saying we can't take any risks based on anything we do know from the data we do have from experience so far, because we don't know everything.

Non sensical.

Ballso

Every stage of this pandemic has had angry little men ranting on the internet about how we're doing everything wrong, that they in fact have the correct approach and that everyone should listen to them instead of the people running the emergency response. All of these people appear to be completely unqualified to make any judgements on what is happening but lack the intelligence to recognise this simple fact.

It's very tiresome.

Cuddlesworth

Del Griffith wrote: »

For under 65's it's 0.06%.

Statistically if you're under 65 you are more likely to die in a car crash.

Covid death Rates
Car crash death Rates for 2019

2019 Car crash fatalities under 64 = 111
2020 Covid 19 deaths under 64 = 95

Statistically, with a lockdown, you are nearly four times as likely to die from Covid19 then a car crash when under 65. Since the majority of deaths have been over 3 months, while 2019 is over the whole year.

Also there is a reduced death rate due to minimal driving this year, so its probably higher.

Where do you want to move the goalposts to next?

Del Griffith

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Covid death Rates
Car crash death Rates for 2019

2019 Car crash fatalities under 64 = 111
2020 Covid 19 deaths under 64 = 95

Statistically, with a lockdown, you are nearly four times as likely to die from Covid19 then a car crash when under 65. Since the majority of deaths have been over 3 months, while 2019 is over the whole year.

Also there is a reduced death rate due to minimal driving this year, so its probably higher.

Where do you want to move the goalposts to next?

Sorry, did you just quadruple the Covid19 death figure to suit your point?

You also seem to have forgotten that we are talking about rates here and statistical likelihood of fatality. Your total numbers, even x4 as you like to present them, are meaningless until we have the same number of Covid19 cases as we do car journeys every year.

Cuddlesworth

Del Griffith wrote: »

Sorry, did you just quadruple the Covid19 death figure to suit your point?

I don't think numbers are a strong point with you.

Edit:I see your edit, so you have moved the goalposts to people should have multiple covid infections a day for the two to be equivalent as a meaningful statistic.

Del Griffith

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I don't think numbers are a strong point with you.

Edit:I see your edit, so you have moved the goalposts to people should have multiple covid infections a day for the two to be equivalent as a meaningful statistic.

I didn't move any goalposts. You don't seem to have a good grasp of statistical likelihood. Stick to the whole numbers if its easier for you but please pretend to be relevant to the point I made.

CramCycle

Del Griffith wrote: »

Sorry, did you just quadruple the Covid19 death figure to suit your point?

Number looks right

You also seem to have forgotten that we are talking about rates here and statistical likelihood of fatality. Your total numbers, even x4 as you like to present them, are meaningless until we have the same number of Covid19 cases as we do car journeys every year.

That isn't true at all, in a population level analysis the amount you drive or the number who get infected is irrelevant for the comparison. The statement made was you are more likely to die in a car crash than die of Covid 19. Using a comparable time period, this isn't true. I would have quoted a higher death rate for road usage and went with 142. I don't have the splits for when these happened but if you take a half year comparison, Covid 19 is greater. If we keep up good practice, Car deaths will overtake Covid 19 deaths in a comparable time period, but for now, no. we also can exclude some road deaths if we are doing the age comparison so the road death for comparison is lower again.

So, greatly skewing the discussion in your favour.
95 deaths (Covid 19, under 65, Ireland) vs. 89 deaths (road deaths, January 1st 2019 to 1st August 2019, does not exclude deaths over 65, includes non car road deaths )

Ballso

Every stage of this pandemic has had angry little men ranting on the internet about how we're doing everything wrong, that they in fact have the correct approach and that everyone should listen to them instead of the people running the emergency response. All of these people appear to be completely unqualified to make any judgements on what is happening but lack the intelligence to recognise this simple fact.

It's very tiresome.

Del Griffith

CramCycle wrote: »

Number looks right

That isn't true at all, in a population level analysis the amount you drive or the number who get infected is irrelevant for the comparison. The statement made was you are more likely to die in a car crash than die of Covid 19. Using a comparable time period, this isn't true. I would have quoted a higher death rate for road usage and went with 142. I don't have the splits for when these happened but if you take a half year comparison, Covid 19 is greater. If we keep up good practice, Car deaths will overtake Covid 19 deaths in a comparable time period, but for now, no. we also can exclude some road deaths if we are doing the age comparison so the road death for comparison is lower again.

So, greatly skewing the discussion in your favour.
95 deaths (Covid 19, under 65, Ireland) vs. 89 deaths (road deaths, January 1st 2019 to 1st August 2019, does not exclude deaths over 65, includes non car road deaths )

Who am I replying to here, you seem to have multiple accounts.

CramCycle wrote: »

That isn't true at all, in a population level analysis the amount you drive or the number who get infected is irrelevant for the comparison.

I cannot agree with this.

CramCycle

Del Griffith wrote: »

Who am I replying to here, you seem to have multiple accounts.

Just the one, please report though if you think I have multiple as that is a breach of the terms and conditions of site use.

I cannot agree with this.

That is your choice but that is what was stated and these are the numbers. What you are suggesting comparing would be almost impossible to get reliable data on and you know that. Best I could see was that we compare chances of someone dying over a two week period from Covid 19 vs chances of dying over cumulative driving hours that add upto 2 weeks. How many hours does the average person drive a week, how long a time frame is that. Are we flat out going for deaths only or do we include other life changing issues caused by it. Its a rabbit hole but I suspect you know that.

KildareP

Del Griffith wrote: »

This just doesn't make sense. We're already taking huge calculated risks (€28 billion deficit and counting) based on data modeling from a report from the Imperial College and all its assumptions, despite no peer review.

Yet your saying we can't take any risks based on anything we do know from the data we do have from experience so far, because we don't know everything.

Non sensical.

No - that is no what I am saying as well I suspect you know.

I am saying that we do not know sufficient information regarding Covid-19, its symptoms, contractability, long term immunity rates (will it develop new strains like the flu?) to go "ah sure it's grand, away with you".

The economy can and will recover. We will go into recession, we will all be a little poorer for a few years but we'll get back.

If you want to look at this from a pure economic view, tell me where do you tip that balance between excessive economic damage and excessive loss of human life? If you can't answer that question, then you have absolutely no grounds on which to complain about the current measures taken to date.

If you were given the position to make the decision about whether to proceed ahead and be answerable and responsible for making us all collectively poorer or making a lot of us dead, which would you rather be responsible for? If you can't straight up answer that question, then you have absolutely no grounds on which to complain about the current measures taken to date.

If you choose to willingly mix publicly with other like minded people and you and a large amount of those other people subsequently require ICU treatment to avoid potential death, will you willingly forego said treatment? If the answer is no, then you have absolutely no grounds on which to complain about the current measures taken to date.

Del Griffith

CramCycle wrote: »

That is your choice but that is what was stated and these are the numbers. What you are suggesting comparing would be almost impossible to get reliable data on and you know that. Best I could see was that we compare chances of someone dying over a two week period from Covid 19 vs chances of dying over cumulative driving hours that add upto 2 weeks. How many hours does the average person drive a week, how long a time frame is that. Are we flat out going for deaths only or do we include other life changing issues caused by it. Its a rabbit hole but I suspect you know that.

Can we make it easier than this 'rabbit hole' then and use another countrys data?

USA - 1/83
France - 1/158
or more comparable to us, our nearest neighbour - UK - 1/240 , or 0.41%

Source: http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html

v. Covid19: 0.06%.

Cuddlesworth

Del Griffith wrote: »

I didn't move any goalposts. You don't seem to have a good grasp of statistical likelihood. Stick to the whole numbers if its easier for you but please pretend to be relevant to the point I made.

I provided the figures in direct contradiction to the statement you made.

I could go over the maths but you will continue to believe what you want to believe and continue to pick and choose the bits of information that suit your narrative.

Cuddlesworth

Del Griffith wrote: »

Can we make it easier than this 'rabbit hole' then and use another countrys data?

USA - 1/83
France - 1/158
or more comparable to us, our nearest neighbour - UK - 1/240 , or 0.41%

Source: http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html

v. Covid19: 0.06%.

Did you just quote the lifetime odds of getting into a car accident, based on data from 2004 in comparison to the virus that has been in the wild for roughly 4 months in Europe.

England has really good death statistic reporting.

From Jun 2017 to June 2018, England and Wales experienced 1624 fatalities due to road accidents.

From the 13th of March to the 8th of May, England and Wales experienced 37,295 Covid Fatalities with 4267 under the age of 64.

From 2004 to 2019, the entire of the UK experienced 36110 deaths to road accidents.

CramCycle

Del Griffith wrote: »

Can we make it easier than this 'rabbit hole' then and use another countrys data?

USA - 1/83
France - 1/158
or more comparable to us, our nearest neighbour - UK - 1/240 , or 0.41%

Source: http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html

v. Covid19: 0.06%.

That's grand, I thought we were talking about Ireland when you made your statement, apologies.

The UK had 1,870 road deaths last year (June to June, source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/848485/road-casualties-year-ending-june-2019.pdf ). Total UK Covid 19 deaths 34,796 so far this year.

No matter what way you look at that, they are not doing well. Based only on 1/3 of a year vs a total number.

Covid 19 deaths in the UK under 65, total 5177 (Office of National Statistics UK) so far, so again, a fair bit worse than road fatalities, which I am including over 65s by the way, so heavily skewed in that regard.

Del Griffith

And.. we quote absolutes again, when I'm talking statistical likelihood percent.

Has anyone here said that there were more deaths on the road this year, than deaths from Covid19? I know I didn't. Anyone? Anyone?

Cuddlesworth

Del Griffith wrote: »

And.. we quote absolutes again, when I'm talking statistical likelihood percent.

Has anyone here said that there were more deaths on the road this year, than deaths from Covid19? I know I didn't. Anyone? Anyone?

Yes, you said it here.

Del Griffith wrote: »

For under 65's it's 0.06%.

Statistically if you're under 65 you are more likely to die in a car crash.

So to work that out, you take the number of car crash deaths for people under 65 over a timeframe and then compare them to the number of Covid deaths over a similar time frame.

Del Griffith

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Yes, you said it here.



So to work that out, you take the number of car crash deaths for people under 65 over a timeframe and then compare them to the number of Covid deaths over a similar time frame.

Still not grasping statistical likelihood I see

Cuddlesworth

Del Griffith wrote: »

Still not grasping statistical likelihood I see

John picks up pennys off the roadside every year.
John picked up 110 pennys last year.
In 2018, John picked up 115 pennys.
In 2017, John picked up 112 pennys.
The median amount of pennys John picked up per year,over the last 10 years was 112.
John hasn't gotten out so much this year due to lockdown, his numbers are likely down.

This year Mary has started picking up pennys, getting into it in late March.
Mary initially exhibited signs of exponential growth in picking up pennys.
The community has being their best so far to stop Mary picking up pennys fearing a penny shortage.
So far, Mary has picked up 105 pennys.

There are 6 months left to the year, or half the remaining time in which to pick up pennys.

How many pennys is John likely to pick up this year?
How many pennys will John have usually picked up within 6 months?
How many pennys has John likely picked up this year so far?
Who is likely to pick up the most amount of pennys during the entire year?

Statistical likelihood is working out the probability of something by estimating unknowns from known data. For example, time is a known factor.

I could contact the guy who did the Barry and Ann books to make one for you if it makes simple concepts easier to understand.

Del Griffith

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

John picks up pennys off the roadside every year.
John picked up 110 pennys last year.
In 2018, John picked up 115 pennys.
In 2017, John picked up 112 pennys.
The median amount of pennys John picked up per year,over the last 10 years was 112.
John hasn't gotten out so much this year due to lockdown, his numbers are likely down.

This year Mary has started picking up pennys, getting into it in late March.
Mary initially exhibited signs of exponential growth in picking up pennys.
The community has being their best so far to stop Mary picking up pennys fearing a penny shortage.
So far, Mary has picked up 105 pennys.

There are 6 months left to the year, or half the remaining time in which to pick up pennys.

How many pennys is John likely to pick up this year?
How many pennys will John have usually picked up within 6 months?
How many pennys has John likely picked up this year so far?
Who is likely to pick up the most amount of pennys during the entire year?

Statistical likelihood is working out the probability of something by estimating unknowns from known data. For example, time is a known factor.

I could contact the guy who did the Barry and Ann books to make one for you if it makes simple concepts easier to understand.

Are you still babbling on like a fool? Here is a link, I can't make it much clearer than this

Cuddlesworth

Del Griffith wrote: »

Are you still babbling on like a fool? Here is a link, I can't make it much clearer than this

Answer my questions.

How many pennys is John likely to pick up this year?
How many pennys will John have usually picked up within 6 months?
How many pennys has John likely picked up this year so far?
Who is likely to pick up the most amount of pennys during the entire year?

CramCycle

Del Griffith wrote: »

Are you still babbling on like a fool? Here is a link, I can't make it much clearer than this

Actually, that is just misrpresenting data. That is the lifetime risk of being involved in a fatal road traffic accident. This is not the right comparator to make. At the current point in time, the correct one would be to compare it to the likelihood of death from a transport accident in a year. Your link makes the claim 1:20000. At the minute, while it will change over time (and hopefully go down if people make the right choices), in the UK, at the minute, if no action had been taken that mitigated death rates, I take it as at least the same a have died. This puts the death rates compared to all transport at 10fold the risk based on current reported population size and taking reported deaths as factual). Now that will change over time with emergent technologies and measures taken, change in behaviour (mandated or not), and other factors, but at this point in time, those are the numbers. At this point we cannot compare the numbers you have given as Covid 19 has not been around long enough.