When will it all end?

ELM327

RGS wrote: »

We are in a different space now than 12 months ago.
The right decision was taken in march 2020 to lockdown.

Now lockdown level 5 is the wrong decision. We need to move far more quickly to re opening society and the economy.

This is not a call to return to life as in 2019.

On 5 April MM should move the 5km limit to county boundaries--easier to patrol than the 5km limit.
Outdoor non contact sports should re commence immediately.
Children's sports should re commence training in pods as before.
Non essential retail should be opened.
Outdoor dining should be allowed.

By May we should be able to allow hotels open to guests and start to encourage staycations.
All sports should be able to re start including contact sports.

But we all know this is not going to happen. Government and NPHET will maintain the overly cautious approach, concern will be expressed over the various variants, known and unknown.
The phrase "we are not where we want to be" will be trotted out.

The fear is already been circulated by the government as per press briefing this morning as reported in the Journal.

https://www.thejournal.ie/st-patricks-day-9-5377259-Mar2021/

Its always the stick from our government.

We should open up and remove all restrictions from April.

Hellrazer

spaceHopper wrote: »

The only death rate that counts is % of cases and if it was your loved one who died would you be OK with them being a statistic.

As it stands now it's a little under 2% but if we all got it over a very short time like 3 months there isn't a hope in hell our hospitals would be able to treat everybody who needed it so, deaths would sky rocket. So what would the cut off age where if you're over say 67, 70... it's to bad sorry we can't treat you.

Im only giving you figures that can be proven. CFR cant be proven as accurate unless you test the entire country as some people have covid dont even know they have it , havent been tested or have false positives.

How about hospitalisations versus deaths?

Surely thats a better indicator of death rate??

Thats a 30.34% death rate - 15000 hosptalised and 4552 deaths.

Again cant be used as a proper indicator as

1.Not everyone that caught the virus was hospitalised and
2. A lot of these deaths were in the community or nursing homes.

Figures can be manipulated to get your point across but Ive done the maths on 13 european countries and the death rate as a % of population is always fairly constant @ 0.08 - 0.09 % of the entire population will die with covid and if you are over 65 then its 0.5 - 0.6%

The czech republic stands out as a fair bit higher but someone in another thread pointed out they have a higher population with underlying health issues.

dublin49

Hellrazer wrote: »

Exactly that.What Ive highlighted above is the Case Fatality rate which is not a good indicator as not everyone is tested and some are asymptomatic so its always going to be higher.


Percentage as an over all % of the population is a better indicator and at 4.7 million population and 4452 deaths its only 0.093%

In over 65s its 0.6 % 700k (over65s) @ 0.6% is 4200 deaths.

But those are the death rates for a period when mostly we are/were in lockdown,the number of deaths could be a large multiple of 4452 if we open up ,no?

JDD

Hellrazer wrote: »

Exactly that.What Ive highlighted above is the Case Fatality rate which is not a good indicator as not everyone is tested and some are asymptomatic so its always going to be higher.


Percentage as an over all % of the population is a better indicator and at 4.7 million population and 4452 deaths its only 0.093%

In over 65s its 0.6 % 700k (over65s) @ 0.6% is 4200 deaths.

Eh? Are you saying that if the country was completely open for the past year, we'd still only have 4452 deaths? Because our population number is fixed, but the death number is variable depending on the level of infections.

Surely we just double the number of confirmed infections to get a ballpark of the actual number of cases over the past year, and then work out what the death rate is from there. Which would be 1%, not 0.1%.

And then we'd work out what the actual number of death would be if 80% of the country caught covid over the course of a year, which is not unreasonable in a fairly infectious illness. Which would be 40,000 deaths.

However, what we're not factoring in is hospital capacity. Say we have a rate of hospitalisation of 5%. And say, if covid was let rip through the community, the peak of infections is 10% of the population infected during a particular month.

That's 470,000 infected, with 25,000 needing hospitalisation. We've only got 14,000 beds, for absolutely everyone. You put in field tents, but you'd have no one to staff them. Loads more people would die. 90,000 seems rather conservative in those circumstances.

spaceHopper

ELM327 wrote: »

Or just keep your distance, wear a mask, practice good hand hygiene and you wont get it.

New (UK) variants are more transmissible and we all let our guard down from time to time. If you live on your own fine but there are 4 in our household so if one gets a new variant all of us would probably get it.

Hellrazer

HBC08 wrote: »

Aren't you the guy who was trying to say 2.2m single dose j&j jabs were going to be here in the next 20 days?
Forgive me if youre not the man i go to for numbers or facts.

I linked to an article from our National broadcaster which has now been removed for obviously being incorrect.
And if you followed the thread I accepted it was incorrect.

ELM327

dublin49 wrote: »

But those are the death rates for a period when mostly we are/were in lockdown,the number of deaths could be a large multiple of 4452 if we open up ,no?

Vaccines are here, the majority of the elderly are now vaccinated.
Next cohort is obese people and or people with certain conditions.


Open up!!

ELM327

spaceHopper wrote: »

New (UK) variants are more transmissible and we all let our guard down from time to time. If you live on your own fine but there are 4 in our household so if one gets a new variant all of us would probably get it.

There are 4 in our household too.
Mask wearing, hand sanitizing etc has meant we havent gotten it so far.

Hellrazer

dublin49 wrote: »

But those are the death rates for a period when mostly we are/were in lockdown,the number of deaths could be a large multiple of 4452 if we open up ,no?

Thats total deaths as a % of the population up till last night.
Who knows if it will increase if we open up.
the vaccines will play a role in hopefully keeping the deaths low.

monkeybutter

ELM327 wrote: »

I avoided it because I left my house once per week, kept my distance, and wore a mask.


If everyone did this we wouldnt have theneed for a lockdown at all.

that is lockdown, i know yo are saying only you need do it



there are many vectors for infection, childcare sounds like one of them s you mentioned it, does your whole family need to stay locked in



but you also have to see you had less chance of getting it because the number of people you encountered with it was low


that is the whole point

spaceHopper

ELM327 wrote: »

There are 4 in our household too.
Mask wearing, hand sanitizing etc has meant we havent gotten it so far.

No living like hermits and not letting our kids out to play with others has done it but that's not sustainable it's bad for their development and forming friendships

At the end of the day we are stuck until most people have the vaccine

mcsean2163

mcsean2163 wrote: »

None/ loads, we'll never know. Finland did ok without lockdown but Sweden did not etc.
.
Pro lockdown people will claim 90,000 lifes saved, anti lockdown people will say potential deaths exaggerated.

Sweden did about the EU average.

dublin49

dublin49 wrote: »

But those are the death rates for a period when mostly we are/were in lockdown,the number of deaths could be a large multiple of 4452 if we open up ,no?

Sweden disproves this as does Florida, one of the Dakotas etc. As does the Diamond Princess right back at the start of all this.

jackryan34

ELM327 wrote: »

There are 4 in our household too.
Mask wearing, hand sanitizing etc has meant we havent gotten it so far.

Haha not it hasn't

You were never infront of the virus, never in contact with it, if you had been your getting it

Go into a nursing home that's had an outbreak and your getting this virus

Where a mask, sanitize, whatever you want, your getting it.

TonyMaloney

Deleted User wrote: »

Sweden did about the EU average.

Sweden raises the EU average, is weeks behind in reporting deaths, and is beginning a third wave.

dublin49

listening to Leo at 1PM would not suggest there will be much change in April,construction back and 5 kms rule amended is all he mentioned and suggested level 5 will be maintained.

El_Duderino 09

Micky 32 wrote: »

We know how effective the vaccines are. By next winter the old/vulnerable and most adults will definately be completed. I can’t see much serious illness going around by then.

Ok. You think that with c.65% of the population vaccinated , rates of hospitalisation and death will be low enough to avoid needing restrictions. And considering that You won't be making the decisions and Micheal Martin will, then it's not really about whether you think the rates will be low enough to stay restriction free. It will be up to them and they have been pretty risk averse up to now.

So the question is: With about 65% of the population vaccinated and without population level herd immunity and without restrictions in winter, will hospitalisations and deaths remain low enough so the MM won't consider restrictions necessary? The answer to that question is, very simply: We don't know yet, only time will tell.

Monster249

jackryan34 wrote: »

Haha not it hasn't

You were never infront of the virus, never in contact with it, if you had been your getting it

Go into a nursing home that's had an outbreak and your getting this virus

Where a mask, sanitize, whatever you want, your getting it.

It's not as simple as that. I know personally 3 family members who's partners got it but they didn't? Sleeping in the same bed, etc.

The media have been scaremongering for a year, anecdotal experiences from many would suggest it's not as transmissible as made out.

HansKroenke

ELM327 wrote: »

I avoided it because I left my house once per week, kept my distance, and wore a mask.


If everyone did this we wouldnt have theneed for a lockdown at all.

That is what lockdown is though :rolleyes:

Doctor Jimbob

dublin49 wrote: »

listening to Leo at 1PM would not suggest there will be much change in April,construction back and 5 kms rule amended is all he mentioned and suggested level 5 will be maintained.

Good luck to him.

El_Duderino 09

Hellrazer wrote: »

We dont need herd immunity once our over 65s and vulnerable are vaccinated.

We`ve had 4452 deaths so far WITH covid. 92% of them were in over 65s and 93% of all deaths had an underlying condition.

4096 over 65s died WITH covid. That leaves 356 under 65s that died with covid.

Now 93% of all covid deaths have underlying conditions so out of that 356 only 25 healthy people have died from covid 19.

**No reason to stay locked down once our vulnerable (those with underlying conditions) and over 65s are vaccinated.**

All that is WITH restrictions in place all year. We're talking about a situation where people aren't distancing or wearing masks anymore. Signs are good from the preliminary research results. But to pretend we know what will happen next winter without restrictions, is just silly. We don't know yet. We can hope it goes great, but that won't have nay impact on whether it will go great or not.

TonyMaloney

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. You think that with c.65% of the population vaccinated , rates of hospitalisation and death will be low enough to avoid needing restrictions. And considering that You won't be making the decisions and Micheal Martin will, then it's not really about whether you think the rates will be low enough to stay restriction free. It will be up to them and they have been pretty risk averse up to now.

So the question is: With about 65% of the population vaccinated and without population level herd immunity and without restrictions in winter, will hospitalisations and deaths remain low enough so the MM won't consider restrictions necessary? The answer to that question is, very simply: We don't know yet, only time will tell.

Listen to Chris Whitty (UK CMO) on this. They're very concerned about another deadly wave, and are far, far ahead of us on the vaccine front.

https://youtu.be/NbON1RrE3ZI?t=64

HansKroenke

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Listen to Chris Whitty (UK CMO) on this. They're very concerned about another deadly wave, and are far, far ahead of us on the vaccine front.

https://youtu.be/NbON1RrE3ZI?t=64

He says this potential surge will only hit some of those who have not been vaccinated or who are not protected by the vaccine. There is no indication this is going to be a group of people large enough to require lockdown let alone social and economic restrictions.

Hellrazer

JDD wrote: »

Eh? Are you saying that if the country was completely open for the past year, we'd still only have 4452 deaths? Because our population number is fixed, but the death number is variable depending on the level of infections.

No Im saying that if you take the population as a whole we have had 0.09% of deaths - the death rate as a percentage is the same.

If the death rate increased say with a new variant that was a bigger killer then the the number of deaths would increase. So far no variant has shown that its deadlier.

Surely we just double the number of confirmed infections to get a ballpark of the actual number of cases over the past year, and then work out what the death rate is from there. Which would be 1%, not 0.1%.

But the case numbers arent correct as not everyone has been tested,some are asymptomatic etc.

And then we'd work out what the actual number of death would be if 80% of the country caught covid over the course of a year, which is not unreasonable in a fairly infectious illness. Which would be 40,000 deaths.

But you have to know the death rate of the population which is 0.08 - 0.09 % so regardless. 80% of the population is 3.7 million so even at the death rate of 0.09% its still only 3330 deaths not 40,000.

However, what we're not factoring in is hospital capacity. Say we have a rate of hospitalisation of 5%. And say, if covid was let rip through the community, the peak of infections is 10% of the population infected during a particular month.

That's 470,000 infected, with 25,000 needing hospitalisation. We've only got 14,000 beds, for absolutely everyone. You put in field tents, but you'd have no one to staff them. Loads more people would die. 90,000 seems rather conservative in those circumstances.

The hosptital situation is different - thats purely down to teh state of teh health system in a given country but the death rate is still 0.09% of teh population or 0.6% if you are over 65.

Actually the estimated figure for infections in the population is around 25 - 30% so if you take that figure we`ve had 1.4 million people infected but not all of them have died or even been to hospital or even been a reported case which is why you cant use case numbers to work out fatality rate unless you tested your entire population.

But as a percentage of deaths its still 0.09% which is still only an additional 423 deaths based on your 470k if they were all over 65 it would be an additional 2820 deaths.

It doesnt scale the way you think unless there is a variant with a higher death rate.

Doubling the case numbers doesnt double the death rate as case numbers arent reliable.

the kelt

jackryan34 wrote: »

Haha not it hasn't

You were never infront of the virus, never in contact with it, if you had been your getting it

Go into a nursing home that's had an outbreak and your getting this virus

Where a mask, sanitize, whatever you want, your getting it.

Thats really not the case!

TonyMaloney

HansKroenke wrote: »

He says this potential surge will only hit some of those who have not been vaccinated or who are not protected by the vaccine. There is no indication this is going to be a group of people large enough to require lockdown let alone social and economic restrictions.

There is clearly modelling available to them that suggests that another wave might require restrictions being reapplied, hence their caution.

He says as much himself in the video I linked. You might have to watch until the end.

Batattackrat

I think a lot of people agree some restrictions are still needed a level 2/3 type at the moment but with the mandatory quarantining now on arrival and the over 70's been vaccinated its getting a bit much at this stage.

Minimum Level 3 should be introduced in April or even before it.

El_Duderino 09

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Listen to Chris Whitty (UK CMO) on this. They're very concerned about another deadly wave, and are far, far ahead of us on the vaccine front.

https://youtu.be/NbON1RrE3ZI?t=64

I'm not sure where Chris Whitty is getting his information doesn't he read Boards.ie?


Fact is that it's just not as simple as vaccinate c.65% of the population and reopen and forget about it. The reopening has to be managed and the winter will be a question mark that will only be resolved with time. Pretending we know the answer won't have any effect on the reality of what happens. Some people seem to really need to pretend they know the answer to a question which they couldn't possibly know.

ELM327

HansKroenke wrote: »

That is what lockdown is though :rolleyes:

Big big difference between me making that choice for our family, rather than government enforcement on everyone.
If I were 21 and in good health I'd be very annoyed.

jackryan34 wrote: »

Haha not it hasn't

You were never infront of the virus, never in contact with it, if you had been your getting it

Go into a nursing home that's had an outbreak and your getting this virus

Where a mask, sanitize, whatever you want, your getting it.

If you keep your distance and wear a mask you will not get it.
One of my friends (couple + 1 special needs child), the mrs got it but the husband and child did not. And they are sharing a 3 bed semi and the man and woman sharing a bed.

spaceHopper wrote: »

No living like hermits and not letting our kids out to play with others has done it but that's not sustainable it's bad for their development and forming friendships

At the end of the day we are stuck until most people have the vaccine

Keeping isolated by enforcement has done it, but it's like using a hammer to crack a nut. Unwieldy and excessive.

ELM327

the kelt wrote: »

Thats really not the case!

+1


Then everyone would have had it, every doctor, every nurse, every tester, all their families etc