Covid 19 Part XXVII- 62,002 ROI (1,915 deaths) 39,609 NI (724 deaths) (02/11) Read OP

TonyMaloney

Positive Swabs
394

Positivity Rate
3.56%

Swabs Completed
11,067

Non solum non ambulabit

Swab Data

2/11/20 - 394 - Tests 11,067 - 3.56%

1/11/20 - 539 - Tests 11,065 - 4.8%

IrishStuff09

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Positive Swabs
394

Positivity Rate
3.56%

Swabs Completed
11,067

We love to see it. 7 day positivity @ 4.8% now as well

holdyerhorses

speckle wrote: »

Yes it is interesting, a fear of failure, red tape, embrassement, social media, inertia, afraid of being in the vandguard, tall poppy syndrome, creativity sidelined,fear of success, distorted sense of mortality amongst others and the inability to differientate no risk,low risk, high risk and calculated risk?
Yes the present crisis has exposed it raw at both an indidivual and societal and governmental and leadership level. But there are always some guiding light indidivuals.
As long as we all dont lose hope all at the same time,we will find a way through.

Surely, w/o vaccine, there is a point that society accepts morbidity and mortality, in Ireland that point has hovered at 0 deaths since this began, and our Taoiseach said that this is our plan... That can't continue. You might get called names on here for this, but why can't the 'new normal' be some level of acceptance that slightly more people will die than previously?

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s been accelerated by social media. My dad tells me about the 1967-68 Hong Kong Flu pandemic, that’s estimated to have killed 200,000 in the UK and the 57-58 Asian flu that killed 30,000 (half of which were young). Everyone knew people were dying, but they just got on with life because it wasn’t pushed in your face every minute of every day, with commentators falling over themselves to be more hysterical and attention grabbing than the commentator that went before. Not saying we should be as stoic as our parents and grandparents in the face of a pandemic, but there is definitely a lesson there on our resilience today compared to then

(Looked at the numbers in the Lancet)

I suspect you are onto something, the media, be it 24 hours news TV or social, definitely plays a part. Completely polarising and extreme views are sought to drive viewers, clicks and likes, to the point that a virus as weak in comparison to recent (100 years or so) pandemics has terrified the global population.

seamus

Good numbers over the weekend. Low tests though

Yesterday: 11,065 swabs, 539 positive, 4.87% positivity
Today: 11,067 swabs, 394 (!) positive, 3.56% positivity

Weekend total; 22,132 swab, 933 positive, 4.22% positivity.

7-day positivity rate now at 4.85%

ACitizenErased

Doesn't matter if the tests are low when the positivity rate keeps decreasing - can only test those who want to be tested

stephenjmcd

seamus wrote: »

Good numbers over the weekend. Low tests though

Yesterday: 11,065 swabs, 539 positive, 4.87% positivity
Today: 11,067 swabs, 394 (!) positive, 3.56% positivity

Weekend total; 22,132 swab, 933 positive, 4.22% positivity.

7-day positivity rate now at 4.85%

Testing numbers look lower due to a decent enough drop off in community referrals in the last week compared to the week before. Available here
https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/newsfeatures/covid19-updates/integrated-information-service-testing-and-contact-tracing-dashboard-2-november-2020.pdf

Non solum non ambulabit

Swabs and Cases lined up yesterday.

Hopefully that trend continues today

ACitizenErased

GP referrals plummeted last week too.
Can see county by county data here:
https://tomorrowscare.ie/covid/2020-10-30_COVID_GP_Survey_Results.pdf

Non solum non ambulabit

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the tests are low when the positivity rate keeps decreasing - can only test those who want to be tested

Exactly, low test numbers and high positivity would represent a different problem. Ultimately we will get to the point where very few people are tested because there is very little virus out there.

ACitizenErased

The 394 in the last 24 hours almost resembles level 5 starting to kick in. Almost exactly 10 days.

seamus

In terms of the graphs, today's swab number is a pretty significant departure downwards. Could be the start of the level 5 effect. We'll know in a few days.

Edit: Snap!

KrustyUCC

stephenjmcd wrote: »

394 positive swabs in last 24hrs from 11,067 tests.
3.56% positivity rate for 24hrs.

7 day rate at 4.8%

That's super stuff

TonyMaloney

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the tests are low when the positivity rate keeps decreasing - can only test those who want to be tested

We were often doing more tests in September with lower positivity rate and fewer cases.

This looks like a balls up to me. Something in the testing system is not working well.

Non solum non ambulabit

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The 394 in the last 24 hours almost resembles level 5 starting to kick in. Almost exactly 10 days.

But but but the schools opened today so i would have expected a big increase :D:D

kippy

seamus wrote: »

In terms of the graphs, today's swab number is a pretty significant departure downwards. Could be the start of the level 5 effect. We'll know in a few days.

Edit: Snap!

People need to be careful when the talk about "the start of level 5 effect".
It kind of puts out the message that it's the level of restrictions that makes a difference and that the only one worth anything is level 5 as that drives the numbers down.
The reality is peoples actions are what helps keep the virus under control and/or effects the number of cases/spread - NOT the restrictions.
The message needs to be that while we live within the framework of restrictions, it is possible to live in some way with the virus should most people, keep social distance, wash hands, wear masks and avoid crowded areas.
Don't get me wrong - of course taking the options out of peoples hands is going to have an effect however we cannot continue to "blame" restrictions or lack thereoff for movement in one direction or another.
There is a level of individual responsibility required.

igCorcaigh

speckle wrote: »

fear of failure, red tape, embrassement, social media, inertia, afraid of being in the vandguard, tall poppy syndrome, creativity sidelined,fear of success, distorted sense of mortality.

Radiohead fan?

You are right though about people's false perception of risk.

You know the type of person who takes every nutritional supplement on the market but doesn't bother to wear a seat belt.

ACitizenErased

TonyMaloney wrote: »

We were often doing more tests in September with lower positivity rate and fewer cases.

This looks like a balls up to me. Something in the testing system is not working well.

? You can scale testing down if the positivity rate is decreasing congruently to it. If the positivity rate stagnated or increased then you should increase testing.


Also, it's the weekend

Always_Running

stephenjmcd wrote: »

394 positive swabs in last 24hrs from 11,067 tests.
3.56% positivity rate for 24hrs.

7 day rate at 4.8%

First time the 7 day rate has gone under 5% since October 10th.

is_that_so

kippy wrote: »

People need to be careful when the talk about "the start of level 5 effect".
It kind of puts out the message that it's the level of restrictions that makes a difference and that the only one worth anything is level 5 as that drives the numbers down.

Well, NPHET recommended it so they clearly think it does.

Don't get me wrong - of course taking the options out of peoples hands is going to have an effect however we cannot continue to "blame" restrictions or lack thereoff for movement in one direction or another.
There is a level of individual responsibility required.

Sure let's not bother with them so and leave it up to people's actions. That'll work out well!

kippy

is_that_so wrote: »

Well, NPHET recommended it so they clearly think it does.


Sure let's not bother with them so and leave it up to people's actions. That'll work out well!

I ain't disagreeing with you, but it's in peoples hand's.
People relying on "the government" to either blame or tell them what to do with the implication that we need to be under level 5 restrictions to be in with any chance of keeping this under control is the wrong message.

TonyMaloney

TonyMaloney wrote: »

We were often doing more tests in September with lower positivity rate and fewer cases.

This looks like a balls up to me. Something in the testing system is not working well.

In the last two weeks of September, during "the surge", we averaged 12,800 test a day, and under 11k at the weekends

During the past week we averaged 12,600, and 11k at the weekend. If there are less community referrals, and less contacts per case, there will be less tests

is_that_so

kippy wrote: »

I ain't disagreeing with you, but it's in peoples hand's.
People relying on "the government" to either blame or tell them what to do with the implication that we need to be under level 5 restrictions to be in with any chance of keeping this under control is the wrong message.

It's a public message aimed at keeping people onside. If this one is extended or we end up on the cusp of another one that kind of stuff will be very important.

kippy

is_that_so wrote: »

It's a public message aimed at keeping people onside. If this one is extended or we end up on the cusp of another one that kind of stuff will be very important.

Fair enough.

Sweet.Science

It's hard to be overjoyed with numbers coming down . It just means we are closer to the next lockdown . Rinse repeat

MD1990

Sweet.Science wrote: »

It's hard to be overjoyed with numbers coming down . It just means we are closer to the next lockdown . Rinse repeat

so your not happy that much less people will get seriously sick or die because there may be another lockdown.
Bizarre but sums up this thread at times

GeorgeBailey

Sweet.Science wrote: »

It's hard to be overjoyed with numbers coming down . It just means we are closer to the next lockdown . Rinse repeat

What if this is as good as it gets

hmmm

Sweet.Science wrote: »

It's hard to be overjoyed with numbers coming down . It just means we are closer to the next lockdown . Rinse repeat

I think it is quite incredible that we (humanity) are in the middle of a pandemic, we seem to be able to control the monster if we take certain actions, and we should be able to drag ourselves across the scientific finishing line without huge numbers of victims. It's never been done before.

We know a lot more about how the virus spreads fast (indoors, poor ventilation, lots of people, talking/shouting), and the lockdown this time has been a bit more nuanced and people are less afraid of certain activities. Once we get the numbers down we are close to knowing what we have to do to keep it suppressed.

Governments worldwide have not repeated earlier mistakes and cut back spending to try and balance the books, but are pumping in large amounts of money to make up for the output loss. We're better positioned to recover than we would if we let large numbers of companies fail.

No-one wants what is going on, but so far we are doing a good job.

Thierry12

ACitizenErased wrote: »

The 394 in the last 24 hours almost resembles level 5 starting to kick in. Almost exactly 10 days.

Is it not the change in sensitivity of pcr test's?

They were 37, now 30?

Alot less cases with that change?

Sweet.Science

MD1990 wrote: »

so your not happy that much less people will get seriously sick or die because there may be another lockdown.
Bizarre but sums up this thread at times

Wasn't talking about that . Unfortunately the virus has already got to our most vulnerable . And will again . No stopping it . Just delaying it over a longer period time . That's the reality

ACitizenErased

Thierry12 wrote: »

Is it not the change in sensitivity of pcr test's?

They were 37, now 30?

Alot less cases with that change?

There's no evidence that the proposal was adopted

speckle

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Radiohead fan?

You are right though about people's false perception of risk.

You know the type of person who takes every nutritional supplement on the market but doesn't bother to wear a seat belt.

Yes and yes. You got me thinking left field there. I might never be able to read this thread again without thinking of all Radioheads different fan camps over which era's of their creative output people prefer and the insueing discussions,debates,arguements and even rants. What a wonderfully weird but apt comparsion this thread makes.
Even weirder re risk assement... I know the stats but hate flying in regular planes, but would have no problem in a micro lite or a jetfighter... and that comes from a person who asked everyone once at a festival to step away from large panes of glass as everyone was watching what they thought was a sky lantern and I realised it was a small meteroite. And I kid you not a band was playing Darkside of the moon as it happened. Luckliy all ended well it... it landed in the ocean.

BrianD3

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s been accelerated by social media. My dad tells me about the 1967-68 Hong Kong Flu pandemic, that’s estimated to have killed 200,000 in the UK and the 57-58 Asian flu that killed 30,000 (half of which were young). Everyone knew people were dying, but they just got on with life because it wasn’t pushed in your face every minute of every day, with commentators falling over themselves to be more hysterical and attention grabbing than the commentator that went before. Not saying we should be as stoic as our parents and grandparents in the face of a pandemic, but there is definitely a lesson there on our resilience today compared to then

(Looked at the numbers in the Lancet)

All cause mortality in England Wales 1901 to 2000

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150908090558/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-215593

Pick out any year and add up the number of deaths from all causes and compare with 2001 to date which would be at the below link

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/the21stcenturymortalityfilesdeathsdataset

From a quick look, all cause mortality is pretty bad this year compared to recent years but not if you go back further than that. Likely due to bad flu epidemics and a terrible toll from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. It's also not that long ago since there were regular peasouper smogs and large numbers of people working in unhealthy environments such as coal mines which undoubtedly shortened their lives. The media is not interested in good news about reduction in cardiovascular disease deaths - but when the people who "should have" died from cardiovascular disease at age 50 die from/with Covid at age 80, we're in a apocalypse.

The Covid apocalypse is something that is easy to sell, the media also love easy to understand specific scandals like Cervical Check. As bad as that scandal is, far more people will have died needlessly in our shambolic health service over the years from other causes, not because medicine was not advanced enough but because of general mismanagement.

speckle

ACitizenErased wrote: »

There's no evidence that the proposal was adopted

I was wondering that... read down to the bottom of the documented and it said something like accepted by the covid protection commitee?* does that mean it is accepted as a proposal or tge proposal has been accepted? And is now suggested as best practise but it is up to the labs etc to implement if they agree with it and ut works for their manufacturers/callibrated equipment? Read Martinas response yesterday and then read the last line afterwards maybe she might be able to clarify that line?
Great all of my posts today are questions,a bit out of the loop... relative in for surgery at moment.

Edit.. Pandemic incident control team *

stephenjmcd

Thierry12 wrote: »

Is it not the change in sensitivity of pcr test's?

They were 37, now 30?

Alot less cases with that change?

That was only a suggestion as far as I'm aware, the document listed it as a possibility but it never went through from what I can see.

Tweet suggesting it appears to be quite misleading

Wolf359f

Thierry12 wrote: »

Is it not the change in sensitivity of pcr test's?

They were 37, now 30?

Alot less cases with that change?

Read the document rather than the tweet.
It was a proposal and if adopted, it only really effects people who recieve a second positive result.
There's no mention about the CT value being reduced from 37 to 30. And they couldn't give figures as different assays have different CT cycles as per the supplier/manufacturer.

OwenM

Wolf359f wrote: »

Read the document rather than the tweet.
It was a proposal and if adopted, it only really effects people who recieve a second positive result.
There's no mention about the CT value being reduced from 37 to 30. And they couldn't give figures as different assays have different CT cycles as per the supplier/manufacturer.

This sounds correct, I haven't seen anything about reducing cycle count, please do post anything along these lines.

bazermc

Have the case numbers been published earlier then usually the last few days?

bodhrandude

bazermc wrote: »

Have the case numbers been published earlier then usually the last few days?

Yeah I noticed that a few times, case numbers came out at about 5 PM or thereabouts.

Sconsey

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Wasn't talking about that . Unfortunately the virus has already got to our most vulnerable . And will again . No stopping it . Just delaying it over a longer period time . That's the reality

No thats not the reality at all.

speckle

Wolf359f wrote: »

Read the document rather than the tweet.
It was a proposal and if adopted, it only really effects people who recieve a second positive result.
There's no mention about the CT value being reduced from 37 to 30. And they couldn't give figures as different assays have different CT cycles as per the supplier/manufacturer.

Agreed butI think 34 was mentioned... slightly lower than the orange ones get out of covid hospital card which is why I remember ...in the context as having a very low possiblility of culturing active virus from.

AAAAAAAAA

Hey guys, whats the story with getting tested if you don't have access to a car and therefore can't use a drive-thru?

is_that_so

AAAAAAAAA wrote: »

Hey guys, whats the story with getting tested if you don't have access to a car and therefore can't use a drive-thru?

Thread on testing where you can ask.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058062347

tigger123

AAAAAAAAA wrote: »

Hey guys, whats the story with getting tested if you don't have access to a car and therefore can't use a drive-thru?

Rollerblades.

mcburns07

AAAAAAAAA wrote: »

Hey guys, whats the story with getting tested if you don't have access to a car and therefore can't use a drive-thru?

holdyerhorses

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

What if this is as good as it gets

The new normal becomes another endemic respiratory disease in circulation and we go about our lives mostly as before.

Sephiroth_dude

New thread here folks


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058127988