The maths of it all and what it means to Ireland

IAMAMORON

McGiver wrote: »

This is the theory. It is not always the case, for all viruses. Covid doesn't kill large percentage of the infected and it spreads easily and rapidly, any mutations may actually not affect mortality at all, because it's already relatively low, so the virus doesn't gain any evolutionary benefit from spreading more rapidly AND killing less infected. The UK mutation simply enhances binding to the ACE2 receptors and enhances cell entry along with immune evasion. That's what we know so far.

I would actually speculate that the 2nd wave (October onwards) in Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia which has seen quite a large number of deaths, was in fact caused by the UK mutation.

And this evolutionary theory of reduced mortality due to competitive mutation has not been demonstrated with Sars-cov-2 yet. I welcome link to any research demonstrating it.

Is it not a bit patronising to all these countries to make such a sweeping statement? I would have imagined that at least 1 of them would have brought forward the possibility of a mutated strain? Especially one you hypothesize as being 4 months old?

I would welcome any link you can provide to circumvent your theory?

Tell me , it bounced out of the channel tunnel and leapfrogged the Republic of France, Northern Italy and landed in downtown Slovenia? This isn't the Duke of Wellington we are pontificating over?

Glenbhoy

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Superb post, thanks

What the hell was going on in March with those hospitalization rates. Crazy high versus any other month

Treatments are much better since, but that doesn't explain such high a % ending up in hospital. They wouldn't be getting the treatments before the ended up there

Latecomer to this thread, but if this is using confirmed numbers from early days of the pandemic, bear in mind that even hse think they only caught 1 in 3:cases at that stage, I personally think that's optimistic and it was more like 1 in 5 at best. If you recall we had very little testing capacity, only those with several symptoms were tested and close contacts were not considered.

McGiver

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Is it not a bit patronising to all these countries to make such a sweeping statement? I would have imagined that at least 1 of them would have brought forward the possibility of a mutated strain? Especially one you hypothesize as being 4 months old?

I would welcome any link you can provide to circumvent your theory?

Tell me , it bounced out of the channel tunnel and leapfrogged the Republic of France, Northern Italy and landed in downtown Slovenia? This isn't the Duke of Wellington we are pontificating over?

I said it was a speculation, but given that first wave in Central and Eastern Europe was very tiny, btu the second from October onwards was massive, and that the UK strain appeared in UK in September, could be possible?

PommieBast

McGiver wrote: »

I said it was a speculation, but given that first wave in Central and Eastern Europe was very tiny, btu the second from October onwards was massive, and that the UK strain appeared in UK in September, could be possible?

Plausible, although it could equally be a seperate mutation with similar effects.

IAMAMORON

McGiver wrote: »

I said it was a speculation, but given that first wave in Central and Eastern Europe was very tiny, btu the second from October onwards was massive, and that the UK strain appeared in UK in September, could be possible?

Possible yes.

I just doubt that the UK strain is all that unique in the grand scheme of things.

ShineOn7

George Hook: not great with Maths (or understanding delayed numbers)



https://twitter.com/ghook/status/1346496656032886786

Thats me

ShineOn7 wrote: »

George Hook: not great with Maths (or understanding delayed numbers)

https://twitter.com/ghook/status/1346496656032886786

He just has no clue where ICU patients are coming from. It is quite long way from contracting virus to be put into ICU, i have no clue why George Hook would expect immediate growth of ICU admissions.


But ICU admissions are already growing, below are last 31 records from the ICUBISHistoricTimelinePublicView dataset:

+------------+------------+------------+
|    Date    | Admissions | Discharges |
+------------+------------+------------+
| 2020/12/07 |          2 |          1 |
| 2020/12/08 |          4 |          1 |
| 2020/12/09 |          8 |          1 |
| 2020/12/10 |          1 |          3 |
| 2020/12/11 |          1 |          1 |
| 2020/12/12 |          2 |          3 |
| 2020/12/13 |          1 |          1 |
| 2020/12/14 |          4 |          1 |
| 2020/12/15 |          0 |          2 |
| 2020/12/16 |          0 |          2 |
| 2020/12/17 |          3 |          2 |
| 2020/12/18 |          3 |          5 |
| 2020/12/19 |          0 |          5 |
| 2020/12/20 |          1 |          1 |
| 2020/12/21 |          1 |          1 |
| 2020/12/22 |          2 |          2 |
| 2020/12/23 |          4 |          7 |
| 2020/12/24 |          4 |          3 |
| 2020/12/25 |          2 |          0 |
| 2020/12/26 |          0 |          3 |
| 2020/12/27 |          5 |          0 |
| 2020/12/28 |          5 |          1 |
| 2020/12/29 |          8 |          3 |
| 2020/12/30 |          9 |          4 |
| 2020/12/31 |         10 |          2 |
| 2021/01/01 |         11 |          1 |
| 2021/01/02 |         10 |          1 |
| 2021/01/03 |         12 |          3 |
| 2021/01/04 |         10 |          3 |
| 2021/01/05 |          9 |          4 |
| 2021/01/06 |         18 |          5 |
+------------+------------+------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Sum all admissions - all discharges for whole table |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                                               127.0 |
+-----------------------------------------------------+

ShineOn7

From the daily thread

57,000 cases in 11 days. 5% about 2,800 will need hospital treatment.

I thought it was 12-15% that were hospitalised?

ShineOn7

Hopefully this formats right

Via Seamus, easily in the top 3 posters on this subforum

Age -- Hospitalisation Rate -- ICU Rate

0-4 2.1% 0.18%
5-12 0.6% 0.00%
13-18 1.0% 0.00%
19-24 1.2% 0.00%
25-34 1.5% 0.06%
35-44 2.1% 0.08%
45-54 2.8% 0.34%
55-64 4.9% 0.61%
65-74 13.4% 1.14%
75-84 25.7% 0.94%
85+ 25.1% 0.40%

Responder XY

I see that apparently our R number is 0.5-0.8 now.

This seems very similar to what the R number was in the initial lockdown (April/May time). Which seems reasonable given we have similar restrictions.

However, apparently we have the UK strain which is much more contagious to the point of having an impact of making R number 0.4 higher at any level of restrictions.

Something doesn't add up for me here. Not being contrarian, but something genuinely doesn't seem right? Either we are very bad at estimating our R number now, we were very bad in April (although retrospectively it seems to have been right) or the new variant isn't actually more contagious?

What am I missing?

Pablo Escobar

Responder XY wrote: »

I see that apparently our R number is 0.5-0.8 now.

This seems very similar to what the R number was in the initial lockdown (April/May time). Which seems reasonable given we have similar restrictions.

However, apparently we have the UK strain which is much more contagious to the point of having an impact of making R number 0.4 higher at any level of restrictions.

Something doesn't add up for me here. Not being contrarian, but something genuinely doesn't seem right? Either we are very bad at estimating our R number now, we were very bad in April (although retrospectively it seems to have been right) or the new variant isn't actually more contagious?

What am I missing?

The method of calculating the increase in R0 due to the new variant would be as a percentage of the original R0. There's also varying research around the increased infectiousness. I've seen 50% - 70%. Say, for example, 0.5 was the R0 at a point in May. The same conditions now, if the variant was 50% of cases at a point-in-time, and we assume 70% higher transmission, would mean an R0 of 0.675. Then you also have to allow for what seems like a lag in the R0. Cases were quite clearly diving off a cliff last week and we were announcing an R0 of above 1. So, I would say give it a little more time before drawing any conclusions.

Responder XY

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

The method of calculating the increase in R0 due to the new variant would be as a percentage of the original R0. There's also varying research around the increased infectiousness. I've seen 50% - 70%. Say, for example, 0.5 was the R0 at a point in May. The same conditions now, if the variant was 50% of cases at a point-in-time, and we assume 70% higher transmission, would mean an R0 of 0.675. Then you also have to allow for what seems like a lag in the R0. Cases were quite clearly diving off a cliff last week and we were announcing an R0 of above 1. So, I would say give it a little more time before drawing any conclusions.

Fair enough. In that conext a range of 0.5-0.8 is prety massive.

ShineOn7

Someone in another thread mentioned that out of the 117,000 under aged 45 cases in Ireland, 26 people passed away

So 0.02 % ?

But then there's always Long Covid I suppose, which is about 1 in 20 across all age groups

Geuze

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Someone in another thread mentioned that out of the 117,000 under aged 45 cases in Ireland, 26 people passed away

So 0.02 % ?

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcasesseries23/

We will check that.

Approx 121,000 cases

Between 36-41 deaths.

We'll say 40.

40/121,000 = 0.033%

Very, very low death rate for these age groups, as is well known for the last twelve months.

IAMAMORON

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Someone in another thread mentioned that out of the 117,000 under aged 45 cases in Ireland, 26 people passed away

So 0.02 % ?

But then there's always Long Covid I suppose, which is about 1 in 20 across all age groups

I am convinced that if you end up on a respirator for a week or so fighting for your life you are much more susceptible to contracting " LONG COVID ".

But all in all it has been used more and more as a scaremongering tool by many to beef up fear and the repercussions of contracting Covid. Not unlike the intense media emphasis on highlighting younger people who become infected. I respect that with these mutations more younger people are developing more severe symptoms - but I have been screaming for the figures of these persons actually ending ending up in ICU, who is still there and how many cases are fatal? Not seeing those figures anywhere.

If you develop severe pneumonia there is no doubt that you will not be running laps of the park anytime soon. I just get frustrated with the way the Health service and the media have used this fact to patronise people through fear.

The difference between 40 persons and 35 persons being 0.02 % vs 0.033% is exactly the same proportional difference as using 117,000 and 120,000 as a base denominator. I am astonished you are arguing over that.

Geuze

IAMAMORON wrote: »

- but I have been screaming for the figures of these persons actually ending ending up in ICU, who is still there and how many cases are fatal? Not seeing those figures anywhere.

Have you looked here?


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcasesseries23/

IAMAMORON

Geuze wrote: »

Have you looked here?


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcasesseries23/

Thanks for this.

The average weekly percentage of deaths in the ( extremely broad ) age demographic of 45 - 64 years is 6-7 %. This has remained constant since last March. I would heavily speculate that within that demographic that there are a lot more deaths closer to persons of 64 years of age.

Why are we not being told this? Why is there no breakdown of this age demographic anywhere?

I am not trying to be ageist here, I do have compassion for older victims. But I am frustrated with this particular line of communication, justifiably so it seems.

ShineOn7

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The difference between 40 persons and 35 persons being 0.02 % vs 0.033% is exactly the same proportional difference as using 117,000 and 120,000 as a base denominator. I am astonished you are arguing over that.

I'm arguing over nothing. Read my posts again

IAMAMORON

ShineOn7 wrote: »

I'm arguing over nothing. Read my posts again

I was not getting personal with my post. I re-read it there at it may have come across like that, no dive bombing was intended.

But when I see 2 posters arguing over pedantic figures, on a Maths thread, it kind dropped my jaw a little. It is obvious why there is a difference in arriving at .02% and .033% , glaringly obvious.

Nothing personal and apols if my post came across that way.

ShineOn7

A regular, reliable poster on Reddit Ireland has worked out this very positive stat

Vaccines administered daily are currently 18 times higher than each day's infections and that gap is widening each day as positivity rates drop and vaccine supply increases.

Bit cynical

ShineOn7 wrote: »

A regular, reliable poster on Reddit Ireland has worked out this very positive stat

Although in fairness we don't know the actual number of infections, just the number of notified positive test results.