Dublin is NOT significantly more infected than any other county.

Xertz

We are all supposedly observing a 2km area restriction to prevent spread by creating relatively contained (except for essential food shopping as near as we can) bubbles. So if you get a hot spot, it will be contained in that 2km radius.

So essentially we are all “locked down” be it in Dublin, Cork or rural Leitrim.

People should absolutely not be driving around for the craic. If they are, they’re flouting restrictions and undermining everyone else.

The reality is that we need to get this contained and under control ASAP so that we can get back to normal sooner.

The more people who flout the rules, the longer this goes on.

So all this Dublin vs down the country and urban rural discussion is genuinely pointless. Just observe the restrictions and hopefully we won’t need them fairly soon, or at least can deal with this in a more relaxed way.

It’s frustrating to hear stories of people wandering around ignoring this or being deliberately contrarian just to prove a point. Most of us are making a huge effort to get this solved be it in front line health and other services or just by having our lives hugely disrupted.

Those who are just refusing to play ball are undermining massive efforts and also putting people’s lives and our economic restoration at risk. The longer this drags out the more negative impact it’s likely to have.

We need to follow the South Korean example, not behave like contrarian, self righteous fools, as has been the case in quite a few anglophone countries.

irishguy1983

I actually suggested this a week ago....I think Dublin should be closed off - no one in or out - this should be happening anyway...Some of you seems to be struggling with maths but Dublin has over 50% of cases or roughly that....

I think certain areas of Ireland (low density pop) should adopt Swedish model...Would give economy/people a boost having people back in work in certain areas...

Ballso

irishguy1983 wrote: »

I actually suggested this a week ago....I think Dublin should be closed off - no one in or out - this should be happening anyway...Some of you seems to be struggling with maths but Dublin has over 50% of cases or roughly that....

I think certain areas of Ireland (low density pop) should adopt Swedish model...Would give economy/people a boost having people back in work in certain areas...

No one in or out? Does that include to and from hospitals?

irishguy1983

Ballso wrote: »

No one in or out? Does that include to and from hospitals?

Of course essential staff are exempt but by in large nobody gets in or out - that is pretty much meant to be happening anyway...

Ballso

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Of course essential staff are exempt but by in large nobody gets in or out - that is pretty much meant to be happening anyway...

I wasn't talking about staff. Will country people still be looking to be admitted to urban hospitals when you lock us all down and relax your own conditions?

I think I can guess.

Jurgen Klopp

The one reason I'd be against quarantining off Dublin like the Finn's have Helsinki is once it would be announced no matter the rules in place you'd see a run on people trying to head down the country just like what happened in Italy when they brought it lockdown for Northern Italy only and all our plans and efforts so far would be bolloxed and thrown into disarray

irishguy1983

Ballso wrote: »

I wasn't talking about staff. Will country people still be looking to be admitted to urban hospitals when you lock us all down and relax your own conditions?

I think I can guess.

Not sure what you mean by country people - I hope you are not one of those idiots that are from Dublin that think everyone outside of Dublin is a ‘country person’....

Anyway would apply same lockdown to likes of Cork and any other major areas so to speak...

Obviously if someone needs to go hospital they would be admitted. Sheesh.

osarusan

Ballso wrote: »

Will country people still be looking to be admitted to urban hospitals when you lock us all down and relax your own conditions?

Yeah, imagine the cheek of those 'country people' wanting to get into a hospital when they are sick...how bloody selfish of them.

'Urban hospitals'.

Idiotic post.

DeVore

LAST WARNING FOR THE DUBLIN VS COUNTRY STUFF.

Leave it out, it was an idiotic idea when it was asked on 6-One. Its an idiotic and caustic idea here.

Further comments on it will earn bans.

Stay home. Wash your hands.

irishguy1983

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

The one reason I'd be against quarantining off Dublin like the Finn's have Helsinki is once it would be announced no matter the rules in place you'd see a run on people trying to head down the country just like what happened in Italy when they brought it lockdown for Northern Italy only and all our plans and efforts so far would be bolloxed and thrown into disarray

To be fair people are not meant to be moving about....Do we really need West Cork/ Kerry on the exact same type of lockdown like Dublin? Huge difference in terms of space, population density, etc....Only an idea....I am only picking West Cork/Kerry as an example before anyone jumps at me...

LoughNeagh2017

I don't pay attention to the country v's urban thing. I used to think country people were better but as I grew older I realised that I dislike rural people as much as urban people. Young people in rural northern ireland are either a boy racer, a pretentious student type or else a GAA loud mouth, or a combination of the three.

Ballso

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah, imagine the cheek of those 'country people' wanting to get into a hospital when they are sick...how bloody selfish of them.

'Urban hospitals'.

Idiotic post.

Selfish is right. It's just take take take with some people.

biko

It's an interesting topic.

There could be another aspect to this - how likely is it that the person you meet is infected?

For instance, if you meet someone from rural Cork and someone from city Cork, then the city person might have been close to 100s of people during the last week and the rural person might have met only a handful.

The city person may have been in 5 different shops in the last week and the rural person 1 or 2. And how often are those shops frequented?

A person with a higher % of interacting with other people is more likely to be carrying the virus.

WashYourHands

Xertz wrote: »

We are all supposedly observing a 2km area restriction to prevent spread by creating relatively contained (except for essential food shopping as near as we can) bubbles. So if you get a hot spot, it will be contained in that 2km radius.

Lol this is a 2km bubble per household so it all intersects

timsey tiger

I live near a park, within 2km. The council has for some reason not closed the carpark. The carpark is jointed at the weekends, I doubt anyone would bother to not walk if they are within 2km. IMO the council are remiss in not locking the carpark and are putting lives at risk. I mean if a government facility is open it is legal to use it right?

Beasty

As I've said repeatedly in the main thread. The stats for people "infected" are pretty meaningless because they are not doing enough tests. The county by county comparison is probably as much indicative of the numbers of testing centres in the respective counties.

In terms of the underlying suggestion that Dublin is no more infected, I would challenge that. More densely populated areas have, the world over, been getting infected earlier and proportionately more than less densely populated ares. And the reason is very simple in my mind.

More densely populated=closer together=more likely to be in close contact with someone already infected

If you go back to the onset of this virus in Ireland, the "ports of entry" would mainly be Dublin Airport and Dublin Port (plus Rosslare Port, but that is really a transition area and few coming into the port will spend much time in the immediate vicinity). Visitors by plane would have been more likely to remain in the Dublin area (before flights were severely curtailed)

Lies, damn lies and statistics - we really have way too little data to analyse it in this sort of way, and that's because we've done too little testing to properly understand how many are infected and where they may be

DeVore

Beasty wrote: »

As I've said repeatedly in the main thread. The stats for people "infected" are pretty meaningless because they are not doing enough tests. The county by county comparison is probably as much indicative of the numbers of testing centres in the respective counties.

In terms of the underlying suggestion that Dublin is no more infected, I would challenge that. More densely populated areas have, the world over, been getting infected earlier and proportionately more than less densely populated ares. And the reason is very simple in my mind.

I think we are both simultaneously not testing enough while also testing more than most countries.

I agree that this isnt a lot of data to analyse. Im used to working with several hundred million rows of data. Not several hundred.
And yet our national broadcaster thought it was enough to set hares racing on the prime time news by opening the can of worms about treating Dublin differently, which Ill admit made me angry and broke my brain.

There is not stron data to say that Dublin is a hive of infection that needs to be curfewed away from the otherwise idyllic country. Thats a false narative which is NOT supported by what meagre data we DO have.

Yes there is higher density here, Yes that means more opportunities to infect. But what I see in the capital is a major compliance by and large with the measures.

We get through this by sticking together as a nation. Not by throwing one part, incorrectly, under a bus.

nocoverart

I'm glad to be living in the sh1tty backwater of Carlow for the first time in my life

Naggdefy

Ballso wrote: »

Selfish is right. It's just take take take with some people.

Jesus you've a lot of pent up anger.

This thread should be shutdown. Lockdown! It's turning into a ridiculous urban v rural thread. Most of us have so many connections and inter relationships with both Dublin and the countryside. They are interdependent and we're all equal citizens in the one country.

GreeBo

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

He is saying that hospitals for something this infectious are socially created hotspots. And that healthcare workers, both here and elsewhere have the highest odds of being infected. And a lot of those healthcare workers and hospital space are located in Dublin. We are also the main international hub for the country(first case came via Dublin to the north for example), so you expect it to have had a higher transmission rate here originally.

But if you try to normalise the data we have, seems like its spreading evenly everywhere. Almost like population density isn't really a big factor in its spread. Not sure that's such a comforting message though.

Also numbers globally are flawed. New york has straight up said the numbers found dead are increasing rapidly but they are straight up not bothering to test as they need them elsewhere. So they are just put down as deaths. Similar things are happening elsewhere globally, especially in places where the situation is blowing out of control.

PS: It always bothered me seeing articles in newspapers having a go at healthcare staff having the highest amount of sick leave of public workers. They work around sick people, is it not obvious why this would be the case?

Sure they are socially created, but the fact is that, albeit due to these socially created constructs, the numbers are higher in Dublin. The whole virus is due to a socially created hotspot, so if we are ignoring them, we actually dont have a problem at all!

If they regulated healthcare workers more than the rest of us, then I think you can exclude them from numbers and show that all counties are pretty much the same.

I cant imagine a "lockdown" thats restricted to healthcare workers only though...I dont even know where you would put them!

DeVore

From a data science pov, removing a group of unusually acquired data points, which act in a different manner to the others, for real world reasons, would not make any data scientists eyebrow raise.

If I pulled them out and deleted them, and said nothing, then yeah. That would be bad
But since they arrived in a different manner, and act in a different way to the rest of the dataset, its perfectly reasonable to say "here's the data with... and here's the data without". It illuminates an "underlying trend".

I'm really beginning to find out how few people understand what I do for a living

osarusan

DeVore wrote: »

From a data science pov, removing a group of unusually acquired data points, which act in a different manner to the others, for real world reasons, would not make any data scientists eyebrow raise.

If I pulled them out and deleted them, and said nothing, then yeah. That would be bad
But since they arrived in a different manner, and act in a different way to the rest of the dataset, its perfectly reasonable to say "here's the data with... and here's the data without". It illuminates an "underlying trend".

I'm really beginning to find out how few people understand what I do for a living

Firstly, removing a guesstimate of numbers from the Dublin set is just that, guesswork. Justifying the removal because you think they are likely to behave differently than the general population, and because it's 'a bit mean' to incldue them is still more guesswork.


Finally, if you used the data to argue that actually, people are no more likely to get infected in Dublin than anywhere else, you might have a point, but you didn't, you used it to say that Dublin is not significantly more infected than any other county, which is demonstrably incorrect.


What you may mean is that despite the fact that Dublin is significantly more infected than anywhere else, the data can be interpreted in a way that doesn't translate to a more significant likelihood of people getting infected there than anywhere else....but that's not what you said.

One eyed Jack

DeVore wrote: »

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).

...

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

Shots fired... back


I think Fr. Ted explains it very simply to Fr. Dougal -


People living in Dublin - Very near to each other (so that much more difficult to isolate themselves from each other)

People living outside Dublin - Far away from each other (so that much easier to isolate themselves from each other)

The rate at which the infection spreads is constant, it’s just that with less social contact between people who are already isolated, there are less opportunities for the virus to be spread between people than there are among groups of people in close proximity to each other.

To be honest I wouldn’t even have bothered entertaining such a nonsense notion floating about on social media. I don’t think people’s lack of understanding of statistics has anything to do with it, it’s simply a fact that some people are getting great entertainment out of winding people up for their own amusement.

gourcuff

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Shots fired... back


I think Fr. Ted explains it very simply to Fr. Dougal -


People living in Dublin - Very near to each other (so that much more difficult to isolate themselves from each other)

People living outside Dublin - Far away from each other (so that much easier to isolate themselves from each other)

population density in parts of limerick city and parts of cork city is higher than some parts of dublin city so boxing the 3.6 million people outside dublin into one category doesn't work that well in this instance... urban population density would be a better way to estimate likelihood of infection i imagine

IAMAMORON

The Cavan figures are slightly misleading insofar that Cavan General is a large hospital which serves several regional counties including Monaghan, Northern Longford and eastern areas in Leitrim.

Just saying.

Dublin is everyone's and it always was, is and will be. It is our biggest metropolitan area and it is now a conurbation, if you live in Meath, Louth, Kildare or Wicklow you basically also live in Dublin now also. I can fully understand people in the west having reservations about the virus, but the fact remains that the virus is only spreading in built up urban areas. Over time rural Ireland will get more cases but it won't be anyone's fault.

The figures in Cork and Limerick look worryingly low, I would urge both cities to be vigilant. It is only 5 weeks since there were no cases in Dublin. This phucker can creep up anywhere. That includes other bigger towns like Mullingar, Sligo,Wexford etc etc. Look what has happened in Wales.

People should not make the mistake of thinking that if the virus is not currently on your driveway it won't get there. This is a real life movie, it does not have a cosy ending and it threatens everyone.

One eyed Jack

gourcuff wrote: »

population density in parts of limerick city and parts of cork city is higher than some parts of dublin city so boxing the 3.6 million people outside dublin into one category doesn't work that well in this instance... urban population density would be a better way to estimate likelihood of infection i imagine

If it takes clustering into account then yep, I’d agree that looking at any kind of population density would be the best way to estimate likelihood of infection. Even then it stands to reason that we would see higher rates of infection in Dublin than in the rest of the country as there are more clusters in Dublin than in the rest of the country, be it either groups of people in hospitals, hospices, residential care facilities for people with disabilities, etc. There are a greater proportion of these services provided for in Dublin than there are in other counties in Ireland.

It’s a silly point to be making for anyone trying to point fingers at Dublin, as the reasons for the greater proportion of confirmed cases are a bit like stating the bloody obvious. No qualifications in data science and mathematics or back of a napkin calculations necessary.

Deebles McBeebles

DeVore wrote: »

There is not stron data to say that Dublin is a hive of infection that needs to be curfewed away from the otherwise idyllic country. Thats a false narative which is NOT supported by what meagre data we DO have.

There is strong data to say that urban areas the world over are hives of infection. Dublin is no different.

DeVore wrote: »

Yes there is higher density here, Yes that means more opportunities to infect. But what I see in the capital is a major compliance by and large with the measures.

What you see? That's hardly strong evidence. At least you agree there is more opportunity to infect.

Beasty wrote: »

In terms of the underlying suggestion that Dublin is no more infected, I would challenge that. More densely populated areas have, the world over, been getting infected earlier and proportionately more than less densely populated ares. And the reason is very simple in my mind.

More densely populated=closer together=more likely to be in close contact with someone already infected

Exactly. Higher population density, greater risk of spreading infection. All urban areas should be locked down. Its not a Dublin v the world thing lads, its all urban areas, all Irish cities included. As mentioned, cities all over the world are the most highly infected places.

Ballso

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

There is strong data to say that urban areas the world over are hives of infection. Dublin is no different.



What you see? That's hardly strong evidence. At least you agree there is more opportunity to infect.



Exactly. Higher population density, greater risk of spreading infection. All urban areas should be locked down. Its not a Dublin v the world thing lads, its all urban areas, all Irish cities included. As mentioned, cities all over the world are the most highly infected places.

Urban areas are locked down

Deebles McBeebles

Ballso wrote: »

Urban areas are locked down

The entire country is "locked down", so to speak. We're talking about trying to stop the spread from areas with higher infection rates to areas that are not as highly infected.

Charles Babbage

Removing healthcare workers would only be valid if these people were not going to petrol stations and supermarkets etc, or living iwht others who are going to supermarkets. Since they are doing this and since for most of us supermarkets are the only current source of infection, then it makes no sense to remove them from the analysis.
If all healthcare workers were quarantined in hotels and if the workers in these hotels also lived in those hotels, then you could remove them.

County data is fine, but presumably there are towns and villages in the country where nobody is infected. A big influx of randomers could easily change that.