The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

PommieBast

ShineOn7 wrote: »

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

Time (well ONS really) will tell. In the future looking back people will look at different data-sets than what is in front of us now.

ShineOn7

PommieBast wrote: »

Time (well ONS really) will tell.

"ONS"?

quokula

One of two things is true

Testing figures are broadly accurate, which means the curve in Ireland has been flattened. If the current rate is sustained it would take over 10 years for half the population to get infected, plenty of time for vaccines and treatments to be developed.

Or, the testing figures are a huge under-estimate, in which case the 50% of the population being infected that the OP mentioned may be possible, but the vast vast majority will have minimal symptoms and the fatality rate will be same as flu.

The reality is likely somewhere in the middle, but you can't predict a much larger infection rate than measured without also predicting a proportionally lower mortality rate than measured, that's how the maths work.

Additionally there will be no naturally occurring second wave. Some people assume that based on 1918 but this virus is not an influenza, it doesn't mutate at the same rate, and it doesn't look likely to be as seasonal. There will be peaks and troughs based on changing government policies and mitigation measures but there is absolutely no reason to expect a sudden explosion way beyond what we've seen so far.

Hmmzis

quokula wrote: »

One of two things is true

Testing figures are broadly accurate, which means the curve in Ireland has been flattened. If the current rate is sustained it would take over 10 years for half the population to get infected, plenty of time for vaccines and treatments to be developed.

Or, the testing figures are a huge under-estimate, in which case the 50% of the population being infected that the OP mentioned may be possible, but the vast vast majority will have minimal symptoms and the fatality rate will be same as flu.

The reality is likely somewhere in the middle, but you can't predict a much larger infection rate than measured without also predicting a proportionally lower mortality rate than measured, that's how the maths work.

Additionally there will be no naturally occurring second wave. Some people assume that based on 1918 but this virus is not an influenza, it doesn't mutate at the same rate, and it doesn't look likely to be as seasonal. There will be peaks and troughs based on changing government policies and mitigation measures but there is absolutely no reason to expect a sudden explosion way beyond what we've seen so far.

Data from Iceland, South Korea and the couple preliminary results from antibody case studies in Italy and Germany would point towards the second point.

It still is more dangerous than the flu, about 3-5x more.

The infection rate/speed would be quite something though.

4068ac1elhodqr

ShineOn7 wrote: »

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

Still early days, the end of April is perhaps the peak zone for many countries, the uk have now just overtaken China's figure, and now climbed to 6th in the world for confirmed cases.

Some of the press were saying they're expected to overtake Italy and Spain by the time the 1st wave is over. Ldn has stabalised (for the time being), but the NW is climbing fast, think there was something like 100 houseparties in Madnchester the other week, mad for it.

Another 4wk lockdown is on the cards for them, to be announced at the weekend, with further economic damage (<-30% GDP, Q2), and the brexitious just 8mths away.

A curious figure is their case-fatality ratio: 12.47% (same as Italy), whereas Ire has 3.47% currently.

IAMAMORON

Clementine Refined Matte wrote: »

Still early days, the end of April is perhaps the peak zone for many countries, the uk have now just overtaken China's figure, and now climbed to 6th in the world for confirmed cases.

Some of the press were saying they're expected to overtake Italy and Spain by the time the 1st wave is over. Ldn has stabalised (for the time being), but the NW is climbing fast, think there was something like 100 houseparties in Madnchester the other week, mad for it.

Another 4wk lockdown is on the cards for them, to be announced at the weekend, with further economic damage (<-30% GDP, Q2), and the brexitious just 8mths away.

A curious figure is their case-fatality ratio: 12.47% (same as Italy), whereas Ire has 3.47% currently.

The figures from China are garbage, it is pointless using them as comparison. Even if you are against CCP bashing you need to be cynical about their results considering what we are seeing globally now. It is going to be a long summer for the developing world, I really hope the speculation about it not able to survive on surfaces above 26 degrees are true, it might save a lot of lives. Otherwise it will get very nasty in the developing world.

I am also incredibly sceptical of the Brit bashing that gets posted on this site. It could yet turn out that the Cobra group's approach to the crisis was shrewd in the long term, we cannot tell yet. Personally I suspect that countries who lockdown later generate large asymptomatic victims, this batters initial figures in the short term but does allow vast members of society ( possibly up to 30 million UK citizens at the 50% asymptomatic assumptions being bandied about) to generate antibodies which will help them to get back to normal with a greater expediency.

In contrast Ireland got locked up quicker. This is great for now and has saved lives initially, but will not have a created as many asymptomatic sufferers so we are more reliant on vaccines, treatments and other cures in the long term.

Only time will tell which approach was the better one ( if we ever really find out ).

PommieBast

ShineOn7 wrote: »

"ONS"?

Office of National Statistics. They will do things like compare the overall death rate with the same period in previous years, but that stuff takes time.

ShineOn7

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The figures from China are garbage

A million percent this. They should never, ever be used when applying Maths to any of this

ShineOn7

quokula wrote: »

Additionally there will be no naturally occurring second wave.

Source?

The HSE worker doing the AMA has said that 80% (about 8,000 people) of Ireland's fatalities will be from a second wave this Winter

trapp

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Source?

The HSE worker doing the AMA has said that 80% (about 8,000 people) of Ireland's fatalities will be from a second wave this Winter

Think it's safe to not to take his opinions as fact.

He seems helpful but extremely over dramatic.

He has no experience in virus or epidemics in any case.

IAMAMORON

trapp wrote: »

Think it's safe to not to take his opinions as fact.

He seems helpful but extremely over dramatic.

He has no experience in virus or epidemics in any case.

How "safe" exactly?

trapp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

How "safe" exactly?

Just because he's a consultant working for the hse doesn't make him Lord Almighty on this topic.

From reading his posts he's far too dramatic.

There is a medical professional in England trending on twitter suggesting they'll be back to normal in the summer.

Nonsense but some are believing him.

Memnoch

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The figures from China are garbage, it is pointless using them as comparison. Even if you are against CCP bashing you need to be cynical about their results considering what we are seeing globally now. It is going to be a long summer for the developing world, I really hope the speculation about it not able to survive on surfaces above 26 degrees are true, it might save a lot of lives. Otherwise it will get very nasty in the developing world.

I am also incredibly sceptical of the Brit bashing that gets posted on this site. It could yet turn out that the Cobra group's approach to the crisis was shrewd in the long term, we cannot tell yet. Personally I suspect that countries who lockdown later generate large asymptomatic victims, this batters initial figures in the short term but does allow vast members of society ( possibly up to 30 million UK citizens at the 50% asymptomatic assumptions being bandied about) to generate antibodies which will help them to get back to normal with a greater expediency.

In contrast Ireland got locked up quicker. This is great for now and has saved lives initially, but will not have a created as many asymptomatic sufferers so we are more reliant on vaccines, treatments and other cures in the long term.

Only time will tell which approach was the better one ( if we ever really find out ).

Unfortunately, there are very few countries where you can actually trust the figures.

The figures from the United Kingdom will forever be tainted. They have severely under tested at the height of the epidemic which is when mortality is highest. It's quite possible that twice the number recorded or more are and will actually pass away without ever been included in the statistics.

Increased testing after the wave has passed will yield a lot of negative results and dramatically push down the mortality rate. Which I believe is the entire point of them not testing.

The British government have botched their response in every way conceivable resulting in a lot of unnecessary loss of life. The only thing they have shown themselves to be competent at is lying, falsifying the numbers and evading responsibility for what can be described at the mildest as gross criminal negligence.

Also, criticism of the behaviour of individuals in the British government is not Britt bashing any more than criticism of the Saudi government is Muslim bashing.

IAMAMORON

Memnoch wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are very few countries where you can actually trust the figures.

The figures from the United Kingdom will forever be tainted. They have severely under tested at the height of the epidemic which is when mortality is highest. It's quite possible that twice the number recorded or more are and will actually pass away without ever been included in the statistics.

Increased testing after the wave has passed will yield a lot of negative results and dramatically push down the mortality rate. Which I believe is the entire point of them not testing.

The British government have botched their response in every way conceivable resulting in a lot of unnecessary loss of life. The only thing they have shown themselves to be competent at is lying, falsifying the numbers and evading responsibility for what can be described at the mildest as gross criminal negligence.

Also, criticism of the behaviour of individuals in the British government is not Britt bashing any more than criticism of the Saudi government is Muslim bashing.

As I said in my original post I am not into Brit bashing. I am interested in the numbers though. From reading your post and assessing its' tone I suspect you are fond of Bir bashing, congratulations.

Given you are an expert in all thing UK, what evidence do have of them lying?

" Gross Criminal Negligence" , nice.

Memnoch

IAMAMORON wrote: »

As I said in my original post I am not into Brit bashing. I am interested in the numbers though. From reading your post and assessing its' tone I suspect you are fond of Bir bashing, congratulations.

Given you are an expert in all thing UK, what evidence do have of them lying?

" Gross Criminal Negligence" , nice.

Pretty much every single thing that they have come out with on this has shown to have been false. Whether it was cooperating with the EU on ventilators and "missing the email on cooperation", the availability of PPE (or maybe all the doctors, nurses, their associations and care home staff are lying about it), the amount of testing that they have been doing, or indeed the mortality figures.

At some point you have to reach the obvious conclusion that these are not repeated innocent mistakes when the total effect of these seems to be to absolve them of responsibility for what is going on.

Tens of thousands of people are dying due to their deliberate inaction at the outset. Gross criminal negligence is the least that can be said about it. Especially considering this administration was quoted as arguing to “let old people die”.

Notably Cummings has faded into the background since this revelation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/22/no-10-denies-claim-dominic-cummings-argued-to-let-old-people-die

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/22/no-10-forced-deny-claims-dominic-cummings-said-pensioners-die/

If the “Britt bashing” defense/deflection is the best you can come up with then it is pretty pathetic.

IAMAMORON

What evidence do you have of them lying?

I respect that you might hate Britain and this is a fantastic opportunity for you to have a bash at them.

But please respect that I am Irish and that I am entitled to my own opinions and value systems. One of the thing I value most is the search for truth, that does not make me " pathetic".

Blut2

The most recent/comprehensive research suggests a fatality rate of 0.37%:

One often-heard statistic is the "case fatality rate"—that is, the percentage of people diagnosed with a disease who will die of it. This afternoon that figure stands at 3.5 percent for COVID-19 in the U.S., but this rate is significantly inflated because it does not count asymptomatic cases or undiagnosed people who recover at home. What we really need to know is the infection fatality rate: the percentage of all the people infected who eventually die of the disease. That's what the German study attempts to do.

Over the last two weeks, German virologists tested nearly 80 percent of the population of Gangelt for antibodies that indicate whether they'd been infected by the coronavirus. Around 15 percent had been infected, allowing them to calculate a COVID-19 infection fatality rate of about 0.37 percent. The researchers also concluded that people who recover from the infection are immune to reinfection, at least for a while.

For comparison, the U.S. infection fatality rates for the 1957–58 flu epidemic was around 0.27 percent; for the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, it was about 2.6 percent. For seasonal flu, the rate typically averages around 0.1 percent. Basically, the German researchers found that the coronavirus kills about four times as many infected people than seasonal flu viruses do.

The German researchers caution that it would be wrong to extrapolate these regional results to the whole country. But they also believe these findings show that lockdowns can begin to be lifted, as long as people maintain high levels of hygiene to keep COVID-19 under control.

https://reason.com/2020/04/09/preliminary-german-study-shows-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-of-about-0-4-percent/

So, not hugely off a very bad 'normal' flu year. Especially given our median age of death is still around 80 - this just isn't killing young people who don't have serious underlying health conditions.

BloodBath

I've said from the outset that the mortality rate was less than 1% when the lunatics were saying 10-20% and I'll stick by that.

It's in the region of 0.4 to 0.7% depending on region. Still far deadlier than the flu.

ShineOn7

trapp wrote: »

Think it's safe to not to take his opinions as fact.

He seems helpful but extremely over dramatic.

He has no experience in virus or epidemics in any case.

Compared to some randomer on Boards I'll take the opinion of a HSE worker who: A) has been ahead of this since day one and was verified of his job by Boards

Jurgen Klopp

Blut2 wrote: »

The most recent/comprehensive research suggests a fatality rate of 0.37%:



https://reason.com/2020/04/09/preliminary-german-study-shows-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-of-about-0-4-percent/

So, not hugely off a very bad 'normal' flu year. Especially given our median age of death is still around 80 - this just isn't killing young people who don't have serious underlying health conditions.

It also syncs up with Iceland's study.

3.7x deadlier than the flu. Worse than the 1959 Asian Flu pandemic of 0.27% but not as bad as the 1970 Hong Kong Flu pandemic of 0.5% which killed 100k Americans and 80k UK citizens

Interestingly the HK flu was considered the second wave of Asian flu after 10 years

I believe like swine flu we'll see a vaccine waves through this time too and I have a feeling a lot will chance it. Was talking to some friends and family that said based off the 1 in 55,000 developing narcolepsy from the swine one it "was good odds"

So I'd def be open to this UKs September vaccine being made available for those who want to try it

Ficheall

threeball wrote: »

Why on earth would we have 100 days of 30 deaths when we only had one or two days with that so far and we're nearing the peak.

What makes you think we're near the peak? Unless you're using "nearing" in the "getting nearer to", as opposed to having passed it..

PommieBast

Memnoch wrote: »

It's quite possible that twice the number recorded or more are and will actually pass away without ever been included in the statistics.

In the longer-term the ONS will trawl all the records, including non-hospital ones, but how they classify deaths after-the-fact will be contentious. One category will be people who died from things other than C19 because they could not get treatment.

VinLieger

IAMAMORON wrote: »

What evidence do you have of them lying?

I respect that you might hate Britain and this is a fantastic opportunity for you to have a bash at them.

But please respect that I am Irish and that I am entitled to my own opinions and value systems. One of the thing I value most is the search for truth, that does not make me " pathetic".

They aren't reporting any nursing home deaths related to it or any deaths that were not tested positive for covid prior to dying.

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1249726979529748480?s=19

IAMAMORON

VinLieger wrote: »

They aren't reporting any nursing home deaths related to it or any deaths that were not tested positive for covid prior to dying.

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1249726979529748480?s=19

What evidence do you have of them telling lies?

VinLieger

IAMAMORON wrote: »

What evidence do you have of them telling lies?

Its called a lie of omission, by excluding potentially thousands of deaths related to it they are lying about the true death count

IAMAMORON

VinLieger wrote: »

Its called a lie of omission, by excluding potentially thousands of deaths related to it they are lying about the true death count

Ok, it is fair enough accusation, I get where you are coming from.

What do you think about the German mortality rates? I understand that they are massaging their own figures. If you die of a heart attack after surviving the virus through ventilation treatment they are listing the cause of death as a heart attack. Similarly they are listing pneumonia as the cause of death as opposed to Covid 19.

I cannot explain the enthusiasm of governments to play down the figures, it lacks respect towards victims.

The UK nursing home issue is main piece tonight on Channel 4, I doubt it is going to be a cover up for long. One final thing on this " expose" that C4 are going with, the ONS in the UK are publishing the correct figure, so while the government press machine are massaging figures the actual ONS figure are being released, so there is no official cover up, but there is a PR exercise. That is worth substantiating.

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

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

I posted this late last night. Now that there's more people online, any feedback would be great

Ta

Diarmuid

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I cannot explain the enthusiasm of governments to play down the figures, it lacks respect towards victims..

Because it's not that easy to attribute cause of death.

If someone is 85 in a nursing home and suffering from a terminal illness. They contract covid19 and dies 3 weeks later, Did they die because
1. They died of old age (10% risk of death in that year)
2. They had cancer
3. They contracted covid19

4068ac1elhodqr

Ireland's case fatality rate from Covid-19 is now almost 4%, the latest data shows.
Some data suggest the uk could be triple this, around 12% which is nothing to be sneezed at.

The data published in the Health Protection Surveillance Centre's epidemiology report is based on figures up to midnight on Friday 10 April.
It shows that of the 8,496 confirmed cases of the virus, 329 people had died, giving a case fatality rate of 3.9%.

Any idea that this WuFlu is <1% (as suggested above) is bonkers.
When you consider the nature of the epicurve, demand surges, spread within nursing homes, lack of PPE, lack of medical staff (again their own high infection rates, even with some PPE).
Fact is demand vs supply means that many old folks, comprimised folks will all be labelled as 'DNR' if there is a queue of younger folks waiting for the 10-14 day stint on machines.

Wave2, circa November, is an great unknown.

Blut2

Clementine Refined Matte wrote: »

Ireland's case fatality rate from Covid-19 is now almost 4%, the latest data shows.
Some data suggest the uk could be triple this, around 12% which is nothing to be sneezed at.

The data published in the Health Protection Surveillance Centre's epidemiology report is based on figures up to midnight on Friday 10 April.
It shows that of the 8,496 confirmed cases of the virus, 329 people had died, giving a case fatality rate of 3.9%.

Any idea that this WuFlu is <1% (as suggested above) is bonkers.
When you consider the nature of the epicurve, demand surges, spread within nursing homes, lack of PPE, lack of medical staff (again their own high infection rates, even with some PPE).
Fact is demand vs supply means that many old folks, comprimised folks will all be labelled as 'DNR' if there is a queue of younger folks waiting for the 10-14 day stint on machines.

Wave2, circa November, is an great unknown.

The reason Ireland's fatality rate is so high is because our testing rate is so low. We're not testing huge numbers of people who have the virus, which makes our infection rate look significantly lower than it is, which means the fatality rate looks far higher than it is in reality.

In any closed environment, ie the German study above, or in Iceland, or in the Italian town of Vo, where extensive population testing was actually carried out the fatality rate was under 0.5%.

Its not even remotely debatable which figure is more accurate if you have any understanding of basic statistical analysis.