Dublin is NOT significantly more infected than any other county.

DeVore

The suggest was made on the 6-One news that Dublin be stopped from travelling and left in lockdown while the rest of the country wasnt (it was a question to the CMO).

I'm not suggesting Dubliners head off to Kerry for the weekend, in fact I'm suggesting that NO ONE DOES. I'm also saying there is little evidence to treat Dublin differently (as Twitter has been very vocal about today with some pretty nasty comments from non-Dubliners).


Quick analysis of infections by county. (data from Gov.ie)

Dublin is up there at the top alright. Now consider that 1,300 healthcare workers are infected and lets guess that 2/3rds are in Dublin hospitals.

Removing them out brings Dublin down to 0.15 which is about the middle of the leading pack.

Dublin has bigger numbers, because Dublin is... wait for it... bigger. 1.3M Live here... but its not really more infected by % than anywhere else particularly.


Lets not lose our social cohesion and unity because some people cant understand %'s and math.

DeVore

the way to think about this is simply:

If you meet someone from Dublin and someone from Cavan they have about the same likelihood of being infected.

suicide_circus

DeVore wrote: »

Lets not lose our social cohesion and unity because some people cant understand %'s and math

these are pre-existing animosities, no?

TheChizler

Not necessarily disagreeing with you but what's the rationale behind removing healthcare workers from the figures? Everywhere has healthcare workers, is Dublin particularly dense with them? Even if so why remove them?

MarkR

I see too many stats. Now I want to see percentage of those infected, vs those tested, by county. Have to stop looking at all these power bi videos...

Wibbs

DeVore wrote: »

the way to think about this is simply:

If you meet someone from Dublin and someone from Cavan they have about the same likelihood of being infected.

Not simply at all and quite obviously not. You're more likely to meet someone who is infected in Dublin than you are in Cavan, "because Dublin is... wait for it... bigger" and has a higher population density. So for all your understanding of % and "math" yet again wood for the trees thinking on display. And I've not seen any loss of "social cohesion" of late.

JCX BXC

Well, your figures show that Dublin is significantly more infected!

Removing healthcare workers doesn't particularly make a difference, these people are still infected, yes they often take more precautions than your average man but many still go to supermarkets/takeaways which is your main social contact nowadays.

cdeb

Wibbs wrote: »

Not simply at all and quite obviously not. You're more likely to meet someone who is infected in Dublin than you are in Cavan, "because Dublin is... wait for it... bigger" and has a higher population density. So for all your understanding of % and "math" yet again wood for the trees thinking on display. And I've not seen any loss of "social cohesion" of late.

That's not what he said though.

Take one person from Dublin and one person from Cavan, and they have an equal chance of being infected.

The fact that there are more people in Dublin to meet is irrelevant, but seems to be part of your argument.

As an addendum, I have a special hatred for people who use the word "math"...

Salary Negotiator

DeVore wrote: »

the way to think about this is simply:

If you meet someone from Dublin and someone from Cavan they have about the same likelihood of being infected.

Do you not have to factor in the likelihood of meeting someone from Dublin and Cavan to get the actual risk factor?

GreeBo

DeVore wrote: »

the way to think about this is simply:

If you meet someone from Dublin and someone from Cavan they have about the same likelihood of being infected.

Thats not correct though.
Someone in Dublin is more likely to be infected, exactly because we have more healthcare workers.

Someone from Dublin and someone from Cavan have the same inherent likelihood of getting infected, but due to their environs, someone from Dublin is more likely to get/be infected.

JCX BXC

cdeb wrote: »

That's not what he said though.

Take one person from Dublin and one person from Cavan, and they have an equal chance of being infected.

The fact that there are more people in Dublin to meet is irrelevant, but seems to be part of your argument.

As an addendum, I have a special hatred for people who use the word "math"...

Not from those figures provided though. It clearly shows that take 1 person from Dublin and 1 person from Cavan and the Dublin person is more likely to have it. Removing healthcare workers at an imaginary guesswork number doesn't particularly add much weight.

GreeBo

Bottom line is, unless you are avoiding healthcare workers in your day to day, you simply cant remove them from the stats.

GreeBo

JCX BXC wrote: »

Not from those figures provided though. It clearly shows that take 1 person from Dublin and 1 person from Cavan and the Dublin person is more likely to have it. Removing healthcare workers at an imaginary guesswork number doesn't particularly add much weight.

You could equally remove all the people that have it and then every country has the exact same infection rate....and it would be just as useful

Wibbs

cdeb wrote: »

That's not what he said though.

Take one person from Dublin and one person from Cavan, and they have an equal chance of being infected.

The fact that there are more people in Dublin to meet is irrelevant, but seems to be part of your argument.

But it's not irrelevant C. Yes in isolation it is, or you have the horn for maths, but in the actual real world it's mindwank. The true fact(tm) remains that if you are in a high population dense area you're more likely to meet someone who is infected. If I put you in a room with a bloke from Cavan, or a bloke from Dublin, yep the odds are even. However if I put you in a room with ten people...

As an addendum, I have a special hatred for people who use the word "math"...

That we agree on C.

YFlyer

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Do you not have to factor in the likelihood of meeting someone from Dublin and Cavan to get the actual risk factor?

Higher risk for meeting a Cavan person.


Not a Cavan low blow.

Harry Palmr

Wexford is interesting, given it has a population of 150,000

The_Dave

DeVore wrote: »

Quick analysis of infections by county. (data from Gov.ie)

Dublin is up there at the top alright. Now consider that 1,300 healthcare workers are infected and lets guess that 2/3rds are in Dublin hospitals.

Removing them out brings Dublin down to 0.15 which is about the middle of the leading pack.

Why aren't you removing 2/3rds of the stats for the other counties, are their healthcare workers magically more immune?

Mickeroo

Obviously pretending almost half the cases in Dublin don't count would make it appear to have a lower infection rate

Wibbs

TBH I'm finding all these projections to be largely a waste of bloody time. No matter how good anyone is at sums and countin' an' that, the data is foggy at best, useless at worst. Take this example. It's based on what test results? The same testing programme that's to be kind kinda lagging behind with some people weeks waiting for results? How many are not being tested? How many won't bother going for testing? How many asymptomatic cases are in the population? How many testing centres in which areas? Crap data in - fancy number crunching - crap data out. I;m reminded of the US army intelligence crowd running projections on computers in the Vietnam war, that when they were pulling out diplomats from their Saigon embassy the projections were telling them they were winning...

The only numbers we can actually go on with any confidence are our population size, ICU numbers and deaths.* That's your lot. Anything else is plucked from the sky and utter conjecture and distraction. Now I'll happily admit I run outa mathmatical ability when I run outa fingers, but when I see things like "projections" ranging from 5,000 dead to 50,000 dead my BS detector starts banging into the red zone.





*in some cases I'm sure there are deaths from covid that aren't tracked, or deaths with covid rather than from it, but likely small enough?

Why are you removing health care workers?

Doesn't make a huge amount of sense. We are people too. :P

hetuzozaho

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I'm finding all these projections to be largely a waste of bloody time

You could argue this whole forum is a waste of time

Wibbs

hetuzozaho wrote: »

You could argue this whole forum is a waste of time

Or a happy distraction. Actually, I really don't believe it's a waste of time at all. We need an outlet for discussion, to debate and agree and disagree. If we were only going on what the HSE etc were telling us we'd be in the dark way more.

cdeb

JCX BXC wrote: »

Not from those figures provided though. It clearly shows that take 1 person from Dublin and 1 person from Cavan and the Dublin person is more likely to have it. Removing healthcare workers at an imaginary guesswork number doesn't particularly add much weight.

Well that's true. Comparing an infection rate of 0.227% to 0.161% means that Dublin is around 40% more infected than Cavan, and ten times more infected than Carlow (although I don't know at what stage statistical significance comes in, because the numbers in Carlow are tiny). Healthcare workers are people too of course.

Wibbs wrote: »

But it's not irrelevant C. Yes in isolation it is, or you have the horn for maths, but in the actual real world it's mindwank. The true fact(tm) remains that if you are in a high population dense area you're more likely to meet someone who is infected. If I put you in a room with a bloke from Cavan, or a bloke from Dublin, yep the odds are even. However if I put you in a room with ten people...

You may be more likely to meet someone with coronavirus in Dublin, but the initial premise was that Dublin isn't significantly more infected than elsewhere. Population density doesn't come into that argument at all.

ShineOn7

Normally love your posts DeVore but a strong disagree on your reasoning behind this. You can't just take the HSE numbers out of the Dublin figures

When the dust settles on this it'll be capital/major cities with the highest numbers in their country.

See: New York, London (in time) and - yes - Dublin

DeVore

GreeBo wrote: »

Bottom line is, unless you are avoiding healthcare workers in your day to day, you simply cant remove them from the stats.

I removed them because

1. right now they are far to busy to be going anywhere.

2. they dont just treat Dubliners, people are shipped to Dublin for treatment from all over the country and these health care workers got infected treating everyone so it seems a little "mean" to put them into Dublin numbers and then try to insinuate Dublin needs to be quarantined.

3. They are considerably more aware of the vectors of transmission and far less likely to break social measures.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

cdeb wrote: »

As an addendum, I have a special hatred for people who use the word "math"...

Is that because they subtracted the "S" ... or because they are adding to the already flagrant use of Americanisms in our daily lives?

Please sum up for us, exactly what your beef is dude?

osarusan

There's no justification for removing healthcare workers in a statistics-based argument.

Tom Mann Centuria

GreeBo wrote: »

Bottom line is, unless you are avoiding healthcare workers in your day to day, you simply cant remove them from the stats.

To be fair, people were avoiding me long before they knew what I did for a living.

The_Dave wrote: »

Why aren't you removing 2/3rds of the stats for the other counties, are their healthcare workers magically more immune?

I feckin hope I'm immune, that'd be very handy :pac:

DeVore

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I'm finding all these projections to be largely a waste of bloody time. No matter how good anyone is at sums and countin' an' that, the data is foggy at best, useless at worst. Take this example. It's based on what test results? The same testing programme that's to be kind kinda lagging behind with some people weeks waiting for results? How many are not being tested? How many won't bother going for testing? How many asymptomatic cases are in the population? How many testing centres in which areas? Crap data in - fancy number crunching - crap data out. I;m reminded of the US army intelligence crowd running projections on computers in the Vietnam war, that when they were pulling out diplomats from their Saigon embassy the projections were telling them they were winning...

The only numbers we can actually go on with any confidence are our population size, ICU numbers and deaths.* That's your lot. Anything else is plucked from the sky and utter conjecture and distraction. Now I'll happily admit I run outa mathmatical ability when I run outa fingers, but when I see things like "projections" ranging from 5,000 dead to 50,000 dead my BS detector starts banging into the red zone.





*in some cases I'm sure there are deaths from covid that aren't tracked, or deaths with covid rather than from it, but likely small enough?

A very good point, and one I agree with BUT STILL a question was asked on RTE 6 One news as to whether Dublin should be locked down while the rest of the country is released.

What I'm showing here is that that was not based on ANY data and even using the "foggy" data we have at the moment certainly does NOT point in that direction.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

DeVore wrote: »

I removed them because

1. right now they are far to busy to be going anywhere.

2. they dont just treat Dubliners, people are shipped to Dublin for treatment from all over the country and these health care workers got infected treating everyone so it seems a little "mean" to put them into Dublin numbers and then try to insinuate Dublin needs to be quarantined.

3. They are considerably more aware of the vectors of transmission and far less likely to break social measures.

Decisions over whether to quarantine an area, ultimately comes down to size and population density.

A large city with a high pop density, is much harder to control... you have referred to vectors of transmission. Large cities are exactly that.

Locking down wuhan, probably saved millions.

Fr_Dougal

DeVore wrote: »

the way to think about this is simply:

If you meet someone from Dublin and someone from Cavan they have about the same likelihood of being infected.

Nice try, DeV.

But you’re still not allowed go to Connemara.