The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

ArthurDayne

ShineOn7 wrote: »

John Campbell says in a video this week that the IFR worldwide is now at 0.3%

It was at 0.5% just 6-8 weeks ago and I'll take any bit of good news going this week

So IFR @ 0.3% = 3 times more now more lethal than the Flu (IFR @ 0.1%), when back in May is was thought to be upto 14 times more lethal (source: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-covid-19-isnt-the-flu)

It's still important to remember that, last I checked, Covid is vastly more contagious than the Flu. There's also Long Covid, which seems to be reported more and more lately

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDlNdit0hKA

One does wonder why, if the public health officials are so deathly afraid of the effects of so-called ‘Long Covid’ and tell young people to be scared of it, why do they still advocate keeping schools open?

ShineOn7

Deleted User wrote: »

On page 8 the7.99% is the percentage of total hospitalisations that were in 35-44 year olds, on the next page it’s % of 35 to 44 year olds who have been hospitalised

I'm still confused

So the first one = those who didn't test positive for Covid

And the second one = those who did?

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I'm still confused :pac:


So the first one = those who didn't test positive for Covid



And the second one = those who did?

If 100 people went to hospital with covid and 8 of them were in the 35-44 age bracket, 8% of those admitted were 35-44. That’s the first figure

If 200 people age 35-44 tested positive and 8 of them went to hospital, 4%. That’s the second figure.

Same 8 people, 2 different percentages, both right, just measuring different things

ShineOn7

Deleted User wrote: »

If 100 people went to hospital with covid and 8 of them were in the 35-44 age bracket, 8% of those admitted were 35-44. That’s the first figure

If 200 people age 35-44 tested positive and 8 of them went to hospital, 4%. That’s the second figure.

Same 8 people, 2 different percentages, both right, just measuring different things

Ah I think get you now, thanks

In terms of needing hospitalization if you test positive in Ireland and are aged 35-44 (and using my previous numbers), the % chance of it is 3.69% right?

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Ah I think get you now, thanks

In terms of needing hospitalization if you test positive in Ireland and are aged 35-44 (and using my previous numbers), the % chance of it is 3.69% right?

Summarised on this Twitter thread. Is 1.4% since august

https://mobile.twitter.com/Care2much18/status/1321479437691609088

ShineOn7

Deleted User wrote: »

Summarised on this Twitter thread. Is 1.4% since august

https://mobile.twitter.com/Care2much18/status/1321479437691609088

Amazing input RainD, thanks

IAMAMORON

This concept of " long Covid " is garbage at the highest level. It should not be getting spoofed around.

By all means, if you end up on a respirator for a week, you are going to feel pretty sick for a good time afterwards. But the media are latching on to this and getting fantastical about it. Given all the shight that gets talked, I think people really need to adopt the concept with skepticism. I personally don't believe it is a real thing.

I am not saying different people are not affected by the virus in different ways, but I would not be surprised if it is a non diagnosable fallacy dreamt up. It is borderline scaremongering.

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Amazing input RainD, thanks

Thanks, however I can’t take credit for the twitter thread, that was linked on the main thread by I can’t remember who

ShineOn7

IAMAMORON wrote: »

This concept of " long Covid " is garbage at the highest level. It should not be getting spoofed around.

By all means, if you end up on a respirator for a week, you are going to feel pretty sick for a good time afterwards. But the media are latching on to this and getting fantastical about it. Given all the shight that gets talked, I think people really need to adopt the concept with skepticism. I personally don't believe it is a real thing.

I am not saying different people are not affected by the virus in different ways, but I would not be surprised if it is a non diagnosable fallacy dreamt up. It is borderline scaremongering.

Long Covid is discussed in more detail here

Latest findings by Mr Analysis - the great John Campbell - says 2% of those not hospitalised with it have Long Covid

I forget the % with it in those who were hospitalised, but it's definitely not the "between 10 and 30%" screamed out by Anthoney Staines a few weeks back

It's not "garbage" by any means, but the media need to get their stats on it much better

McGiver

IAMAMORON wrote:

This concept of " long Covid " is garbage at the highest level. It should not be getting spoofed around.

Wrong.

Long term sequelae is being studied. It's a real thing. Quantification pending but it doesn't seem uncommon.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30701-5/fulltext

Also, evidence appearing of autoimmune involvement in Long Covid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/health/covid-antibodies-autoimmunity.html

Not to be taken lightly. Especially by laity who present no evidence to the contrary. Or if your username is IamAmoron!

ShineOn7

I just put some stats into a % calculator there

66,247 cases so far as % of the 4.9 million population of the Republic comes to 1.35%

The official amount of cases doesn't cover the amount of Asymptomatic cases. John Campbell now has this at 20% of all cases and we are missing many cases now and many, many cases in April

So where does this leave us in terms of risk analysis in terms of the average person picking it up?

Let's say the amount of Asymptomatic cases conservatively brings it upto 2% risk, this still seems quite high doesn't it?

So we've a 1 in 50 chance of catching it even if we take precautions?

Or am I reading the data way wrong?

Would love the thoughts of the more analytical minds here

blanch152

IAMAMORON wrote: »

This concept of " long Covid " is garbage at the highest level. It should not be getting spoofed around.

By all means, if you end up on a respirator for a week, you are going to feel pretty sick for a good time afterwards. But the media are latching on to this and getting fantastical about it. Given all the shight that gets talked, I think people really need to adopt the concept with skepticism. I personally don't believe it is a real thing.

I am not saying different people are not affected by the virus in different ways, but I would not be surprised if it is a non diagnosable fallacy dreamt up. It is borderline scaremongering.

I know someone with Long Covid who is now in the care of a cardiologist. She was young and healthy and only had mild symptoms, never hospitalised with the illness.

ShineOn7

blanch152 wrote: »

I know someone with Long Covid who is now in the care of a cardiologist. She was young and healthy and only had mild symptoms, never hospitalised with the illness.

Fúcking hell. Sorry to hear

The unpredictability of this thing is still crazy. I started this thread so we can better work out some of the statistics of it and what they mean if you're Irish

There seems to be a level of "flip of a coin" luck with this if you contract it that I don't think we've seen with a virus before

IAMAMORON

blanch152 wrote: »

I know someone with Long Covid who is now in the care of a cardiologist. She was young and healthy and only had mild symptoms, never hospitalised with the illness.

When was she tested for Covid 19?

Pete_Cavan

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I just put some stats into a % calculator there

66,247 cases so far as % of the 4.9 million population of the Republic comes to 1.35%

The official amount of cases doesn't cover the amount of Asymptomatic cases. John Campbell now has this at 20% of all cases and we are missing many cases now and many, many cases in April

So where does this leave us in terms of risk analysis in terms of the average person picking it up?

Let's say the amount of Asymptomatic cases conservatively brings it upto 2% risk, this still seems quite high doesn't it?

So we've a 1 in 50 chance of catching it even if we take precautions?

Or am I reading the data way wrong?

Would love the thoughts of the more analytical minds here

Are you saying that if 2% of the population have had Covid, your chance of getting it is 1 in 50? If so, that does not make sense. You can only get it from someone who currently has it, not someone who had it a couple of months ago but have fully recovered. If there are 10,000 active cases then your chance of getting it could be said to be around 1 in 500. Of course, the prevalence of it isn't even across the populations - you could come into contact with 500 people, none of whom have it and therefore your chance of getting it is practically zero (leaving aside it being live on a surface which you then touch and then bring to your mouth/nose).

Those who have had it and have antibodies are less likely to be active spreaders at this moment so that should be factored into any such calculation of the chance of getting Covid. Obviously there are lots of differences of opinions on antibodies, how long they last, etc. which means there is no definitive way of factoring in recovered cases, I dont know enough about it and am not interested in going down that rabbit hole. Then there is the question of natural immunity but if such a thing exists, does it prevent those people from spreading it? Thats another one not worth getting into.

igCorcaigh

blanch152 wrote: »

I know someone with Long Covid who is now in the care of a cardiologist. She was young and healthy and only had mild symptoms, never hospitalised with the illness.

There is long covid twitter account, they estimate the rate of 10%, but I don't know how.

https://twitter.com/LongCovidSOS/status/1326553802254639105?s=19

igCorcaigh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Summarised on this Twitter thread. Is 1.4% since august

https://mobile.twitter.com/Care2much18/status/1321479437691609088

Whatever that tweet was, it has been deleted.

ShineOn7

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Are you saying that if 2% of the population have had Covid, your chance of getting it is 1 in 50? If so, that does not make sense. You can only get it from someone who currently has it, not someone who had it a couple of months ago but have fully recovered. If there are 10,000 active cases then your chance of getting it could be said to be around 1 in 500. Of course, the prevalence of it isn't even across the populations - you could come into contact with 500 people, none of whom have it and therefore your chance of getting it is practically zero (leaving aside it being live on a surface which you then touch and then bring to your mouth/nose).

Thanks for the input. Few Qs:

• How many active cases have we at the moment?
  
  
• Isn't it extremely hard to work that out given there's Asymptomatic cases out there, said to be 20% of all cases? (Source: John Campbell)
  
  
• And finally: if you were to look at all the data, what do you think the odds are of the average person who is taking all the advised precautions of contracting it?

ShineOn7

How good is the Lancet's track record?


0.0092 IFR, 20 - 49 age group


IFR of 0.14% in the 50-65 group


https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3.pdf

Blut2

Its one of the world's oldest, and most well respected, academic/scientific journals. Its pretty hard to find any source more reputable/trusted.

That data just confirms what more and more people are gradually accepting - for under 65s this just isn't any more dangerous than normal 'flu'.

Blut2

Blut2 wrote: »

Its one of the world's oldest, and most well respected, academic/scientific journals. Its pretty hard to find any source more reputable/trusted.

That data just confirms what more and more people are gradually accepting - for under 65s this just isn't any more dangerous than normal 'flu'.

The ifr for flu in 50-65 year olds is 0.01%. 0.14% is a bit larger than that.

ShineOn7

Blut2 wrote: »

Its one of the world's oldest, and most well respected, academic/scientific journals. Its pretty hard to find any source more reputable/trusted.

Just 286 cases used for the study though?

Those numbers are absolutely minuscule for a study of this importance

Try 10,000 cases at minimum, not 286

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Just 286 cases used for the study though?

Those numbers are absolutely minuscule for a study of this importance

Try 10,000 cases at minimum, not 286

Reflected in the confidence interval. Could be as high as 0.19%. It’s also a study specific to Geneva. I am sure we would have known if there were 10000 Covid deaths in Geneva

ShineOn7

Deleted User wrote: »

Reflected in the confidence interval. Could be as high as 0.19%. It’s also a study specific to Geneva. I am sure we would have known if there were 10000 Covid deaths in Geneva

Not gonna lie. I didn't understand most of that

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Not gonna lie. I didn't understand most of that

Most studies acknowledge that they are limited by the sample size and will produce a confidence interval. The higher the number of samples the tighter the confidence interval. In the lancet study they found .14% ifr in the age group. Based on the sample size they could state statistically that if they kept repeating the study, 95% of the time the rate as found would be between 0.09% and 0.19%. 95% confidence is the standard for statistical analysis. Can be risky however, once in 20 it could be way off. That’s why replication of results is important in science and a single study is not proof until it has been confirmed

Blut2

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Just 286 cases used for the study though?

Those numbers are absolutely minuscule for a study of this importance

Try 10,000 cases at minimum, not 286

The study is based on the data from 5,039 confirmed cases. Its 286 deaths, not cases.

If the scientific experts who wrote the report, and the respected editors of the Lancet who decided to publish it, considered this a valid sample size then it is. If you're unable to understand what a confidence interval is then you're not really in a position to demand "minimum" numbers for a study to be valid.

Deleted User wrote: »

The ifr for flu in 50-65 year olds is 0.01%. 0.14% is a bit larger than that.

? The IFR for flu in 50-65 year olds is 0.06% according to the CDC.



Which would place covid .08% worse IFR than a disease that nobody takes any notice of on a yearly basis, that gets ignored as it infects hundreds of millions of people. Is that enough to warrant global shutdowns, causing millions to fall into poverty, excess cancer deaths, increased suicides etc?

Edit it would place the IFR from covid for everyone under 50 actually significantly lower than normal flu too, for reference.

(.02% for 18-49 year olds from normal flu, 0.009% from covid19)

Blut2

Blut2 wrote: »

The study is based on the data from 5,039 confirmed cases. Its 286 deaths, not cases.

If the scientific experts who wrote the report, and the respected editors of the Lancet who decided to publish it, considered this a valid sample size then it is. If you're unable to understand what a confidence interval is then you're not really in a position to demand "minimum" numbers for a study to be valid.




? The IFR for flu in 50-65 year olds is 0.06% according to the CDC.



Which would place covid .08% worse IFR than a disease that nobody takes any notice of on a yearly basis, that gets ignored as it infects hundreds of millions of people. Is that enough to warrant global shutdowns, causing millions to fall into poverty, excess cancer deaths, increased suicides etc?

Edit it would place the IFR from covid for everyone under 50 actually significantly lower than normal flu too, for reference.

(.02% for 18-49 year olds from normal flu, 0.009% from covid19)

233% not 0.08%. You can’t compare different proportions through subtraction.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127799/influenza-us-mortality-rate-by-age-group/

Your chart also appears to the the cfr not the ifr

Blut2

Deleted User wrote: »

233% not 0.08%. You can’t compare different proportions through subtraction.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127799/influenza-us-mortality-rate-by-age-group/

Your chart also appears to the the cfr not the ifr

You can absolutely compare raw numbers throw subtraction. Someone aged 50-65 catching covid has a .08% higher chance of death than their peer catching flu. The numbers don't lie.


The chart is IFR, not CFR.

Thats me

Blut2 wrote: »

Someone aged 50-65 catching covid has a .08% higher chance of death than their peer catching flu.

Isolation would help them avoid flu as well.

Also, do not forget younger people. According to this report, people 0-54 yo making 74% of cases in IE, 32.15% of hospitalisations and 31.29% of ICU admissions.

ShineOn7

Thats me wrote: »

Isolation would help them avoid flu as well.

Also, do not forget younger people. According to this report, people 0-54 yo making 74% of cases in IE, 32.15% of hospitalisations and 31.29% of ICU admissions.

Almost a third of cases in Ireland aged 0-54 end up in ICU?


Doesn't sound right