Covid 19 Part XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

I just saw this and in spite of you getting a reply here that it says ''It is rare'', I am still a bit WTAF at that...I mean ''rare'' is not up to a 100 children a week hospitalised with an inflammatory disease that can put them in ICU.

The reality doesn't match the headline.

https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1357733395510554625?s=20
https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1357733400434659331?s=20

marno21

We're simultaneously breaking the 1000 swabs a day on a non Monday/Tuesday and the 5% +ve rate threshold. We're about to get this properly under control now.

We have another 4 weeks of Level 5+ programmed at the minute. We should be at 200-300 cases per day by the end now that close contacts are being tested and caught. Hospital numbers are falling rapidly and we've peaked with ICU numbers. Hospital numbers have dropped nearly 40% in the last 12 days and ICU numbers are down 20% or so this week

It's time now that NPHET + The Government make the first cautious steps towards a slow, sustainable reopening. It's time to start discussion about how the process of reopening schools and construction will commence.

Level 4 (possibly without bars/pubs/restaurants) seems ideal for March. Some low risk activities (outdoor sports training, travel within your own county) are permitted, but anything of relevant risk is closed. If Level 4 wasn't made for this March I don't know what it was made for.

KrustyUCC

marno21 wrote: »

We're simultaneously breaking the 1000 swabs a day on a non Monday/Tuesday and the 5% +ve rate threshold. We're about to get this properly under control now.

We have another 4 weeks of Level 5+ programmed at the minute. We should be at 200-300 cases per day by the end now that close contacts are being tested and caught. Hospital numbers are falling rapidly and we've peaked with ICU numbers. Hospital numbers have dropped nearly 40% in the last 12 days and ICU numbers are down 20% or so this week

It's time now that NPHET + The Government make the first cautious steps towards a slow, sustainable reopening. It's time to start discussion about how the process of reopening schools and construction will commence.

Level 4 (possibly without bars/pubs/restaurants) seems ideal for March. Some low risk activities (outdoor sports training, travel within your own county) are permitted, but anything of relevant risk is closed. If Level 4 wasn't made for this March I don't know what it was made for.

Will be level 4+ so unfortunately they won't allow travel within your county imo

They might expand to 20km instead

Happydays2020

Normal One wrote: »

35 deaths, 1047 cases

https://covid19.shanehastings.eu/api/swabs/

5% positivity rate - that is positive.

Stateofyou

marno21 wrote: »

We're simultaneously breaking the 1000 swabs a day on a non Monday/Tuesday and the 5% +ve rate threshold. We're about to get this properly under control now.

We have another 4 weeks of Level 5+ programmed at the minute. We should be at 200-300 cases per day by the end now that close contacts are being tested and caught. Hospital numbers are falling rapidly and we've peaked with ICU numbers. Hospital numbers have dropped nearly 40% in the last 12 days and ICU numbers are down 20% or so this week

It's time now that NPHET + The Government make the first cautious steps towards a slow, sustainable reopening. It's time to start discussion about how the process of reopening schools and construction will commence.

Level 4 (possibly without bars/pubs/restaurants) seems ideal for March. Some low risk activities (outdoor sports training, travel within your own county) are permitted, but anything of relevant risk is closed. If Level 4 wasn't made for this March I don't know what it was made for.

Interesting post, but wondering how we are now assessing relative risk in light of a new more contagious strain being the dominant one.

MerlinSouthDub

Stateofyou wrote: »

Interesting post, but wondering how we are now assessing relative risk in light of a new more contagious strain being the dominant one.

The more contagious strain doesn't look like it is nearly as contagious as originally feared. Initial estimates said it was 70% more infectious. The more recent UK data suggested 30% more infectious. This may drop further as we get more data. One theory in the UK is that the strain appeared more infectious because it hit communities which had lower infection rates previously, so less immunity. We are still learning but it is clear that the worst case predictions for the new variant are not accurate.

Our case numbers are falling at nearly as fast a rate as they did in April, with somewhat fewer restrictions, which again supports the idea than the new variant is not dramatically more infectious that the previous variants (but likely somewhat more infectious)

Stateofyou

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

The more contagious strain doesn't look like it is nearly as contagious as originally feared. Initial estimates said it was 70% more infectious. The more recent UK data suggested 30% more infectious. This may drop further as we get more data. One theory in the UK is that the strain appeared more infectious because it hit communities which had lower infection rates previously, so less immunity. We are still learning but it is clear that the worst case predictions for the new variant are not accurate.

Our case numbers are falling at nearly as fast a rate as they did in April, with somewhat fewer restrictions, which again supports the idea than the new variant is not dramatically more infectious that the previous variants (but likely somewhat more infectious)

If it's not as feared then why are our government mentioning the impact of it at every turn? Isn't the 30% in reference to virulence, or worse outcomes/death? How is it clear, do you have a link? Not being awkward, haven't seen that or heard that sentiment from our own leaders. I may have been buried in work this week though!

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

If it's not as feared then why are our government mentioning the impact of it at every turn? Isn't the 30% in reference to virulence, or worse outcomes/death? How is it clear, do you have a link? Not being awkward, haven't seen that or heard that sentiment from our own leaders. I may have been buried in work this week though!

Its just to scare us. Boris Johnson has been called out a few times by the scientists about the 70% claim, yet he continues to repeat it. The causality of the increase in mortality of those with this strain is only now being determined. The 70% was claimed over Christmas, almost immediately that it was discovered, with no scientific evidence whatsoever

Turtwig

We need to be careful here.

Our current restrictions may negate any transmission advantage the new variant may have. You should not leap from there to the assumption that the variant is not as impactful as feared. We will only find that out when we begin relaxing the restrictions. That's when we'll get a better idea.

Original (preprint) paper on the variant here
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.30.20249034v2

This was available to the everyone on 30 Dec btw.

MerlinSouthDub

Stateofyou wrote: »

If it's not as feared then why are our government mentioning the impact of it at every turn? Isn't the 30% in reference to virulence, or worse outcomes/death? How is it clear, do you have a link? Not being awkward, haven't seen that or heard that sentiment from our own leaders. I may have been buried in work this week though!

Link to paper here:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.13.21249721v1

And thread explaining it here:

https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1350698338782478336

In the UK, Boris made a big thing of it being 70% more infectious but this was very early data. It was used both to scare people and to excuse how badly things had gone in the UK.

There is also recent data from Wales where the new variant is stable or falling as a % of cases (which does not make sense if it is lots more infectious)

It is quite clear that it is not 70% more infectious. Our reproductive rate is now about 0.6 (with the new variant dominating). That is impossible with a strain 70% more infectious - it would mean we'd have an R of 0.35 on the old variant. (0.35 * 1.7 = 0.6). We never ever got below 0.5 even in April 2020.

spookwoman

fm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its just to scare us. Boris Johnson has been called out a few times by the scientists about the 70% claim, yet he continues to repeat it. The causality of the increase in mortality of those with this strain is only now being determined. The 70% was claimed over Christmas, almost immediately that it was discovered, with no scientific evidence whatsoever

And Micheal Martin still mentioning it on radio this week, needs to blame something else instead of their own failings

Happydays2020

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

Link to paper here:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.13.21249721v1

And thread explaining it here:

https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1350698338782478336

In the UK, Boris made a big thing of it being 70% more infectious but this was very early data. It was used both to scare people and to excuse how badly things had gone in the UK.

There is also recent data from Wales where the new variant is stable or falling as a % of cases (which does not make sense if it is lots more infectious)

It is quite clear that it is not 70% more infectious. Our reproductive rate is now about 0.6 (with the new variant dominating). That is impossible with a strain 70% more infectious - it would mean we'd have an R of 0.35 on the old variant. (0.35 * 1.7 = 0.6). We never ever got below 0.5 even in April 2020.

It was a political excuse.

MerlinSouthDub

Deaths are now moving back down towards normal levels. From a peak of 75 extra per day, it's now down at about 40. RIP.ie stats from Seamus Coffey are, by far, the most accurate picture.

https://twitter.com/seamuscoffey/status/1357669799862689795/photo/1

I find it so sad that many people died in January as a result of a "meaningful" Christmas. Another month or two and many of those who died would have been vaccinated and survived.

frozen3

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

In the UK, Boris made a big thing of it being 70% more infectious but this was very early data. It was used both to scare people and to excuse how badly things had gone in the UK.

There is also recent data from Wales where the new variant is stable or falling as a % of cases (which does not make sense if it is lots more infectious)

It is quite clear that it is not 70% more infectious. Our reproductive rate is now about 0.6 (with the new variant dominating). That is impossible with a strain 70% more infectious - it would mean we'd have an R of 0.35 on the old variant. (0.35 * 1.7 = 0.6). We never ever got below 0.5 even in April 2020.

It's kind of ironic your calling out Boris's and his 70% based on his mathematical data and your correcting him based on your RO mathematical data

When both of your methods are incorrect and flawed :pac:

MerlinSouthDub

frozen3 wrote: »

It's kind of ironic your calling out Boris's and his 70% based on his mathematical data and your correcting him based on your RO mathematical data

When both of your methods are incorrect and flawed :pac:

Thanks. Please explain. By the way, it's not R0. R0 refers to the basic reproduction number before any mitigations, and with zero population immunity. I'm referring to the current reproduction number (R)

frozen3

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

Thanks. Please explain. By the way, it's not R0. R0 refers to the basic reproduction number before any mitigations, and with zero population immunity. I'm referring to the current reproduction number (R)

RO is just a reproduction number. It doesn't factor in dispersion and many other variables to conclude how contagious something or someone is, it's highly skewed and an imbalanced distribution means that a run of bad luck with a few super spreader events/ clusters, can produce dramatically different outcomes for that RO

What events took place that Boris based his 70% data on?

What events took place that you based your RO on?

Two completely different events took place

MerlinSouthDub

frozen3 wrote: »

RO is just a reproduction number. It doesn't factor in dispersion and many other variables to conclude how contagious something or someone is, it's highly skewed and an imbalanced distribution means that a run of bad luck with a few super spreader events/ clusters, can produce dramatically different outcomes for that RO

What events took place that Boris based his 70% data on?

What events took place that you based your RO on?

Two completely different events took place

Again, R0 means the basic reproduction number. Yes, exactly, that's why the 70% is wrong as a population estimate of likely extra infectiousness. Based on data in Ireland so far, it only appears to be be marginally more infectious. We won't know for sure for a while yet.

frozen3

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

We won't know for sure for a while yet.

How can they ever be sure?

How would you even test it?

You'd need a controlled enviroment, where the variables are constant.

Even a challenge trial would be flawed as not all humans are the same, all our immune systems are different.

They could possibly do it with humanised mice

MerlinSouthDub

frozen3 wrote: »

How can they ever be sure?

How would you even test it?

You'd need a controlled enviroment, where the variables are constant.

Even a challenge trial would be flawed as not all humans are the same, all our immune systems are different.

They could possibly do it with humanised mice

Well, yes, you are right that you would never be 100% sure of the exact reproduction number or the relative infectiousness of different strains. But the more data you have, the more the effects you mention (superspreading etc) will average out and you get closer to the actual number. So, the original 70% estimate in the UK dropped to 30% as more people got infected and the extra infectiousness could be better measured. The original UK estimate was based on just a few weeks data in Kent.

mcburns07

Extremely quiet thread again today, I think most of us are bored at this stage of going around in circles with the same old arguments. Summer is coming, vaccinations are well under way, numbers are trending down here and in lots of countries, the end is in sight.

wadacrack

mcburns07 wrote: »

Extremely quiet thread again today, I think most of us are bored at this stage of going around in circles with the same old arguments. Summer is coming, vaccinations are well under way, numbers are trending down here and in lots of countries, the end is in sight.

Still think their is a large degree of uncertainty going forward, but definite positive signs that vaccination of the elderly could see the beginning of the end of this awful time.

Normal One

mcburns07 wrote: »

Extremely quiet thread again today

Just as Bill Gates likes it...

j/k

I think a move to level 4 or 3++ will be announced at short notice; if they came out now and said that we're going there from the 5th March, a lot of people will take that to mean it's ok to start visiting family again now. Hopefully schools will be fully back by the end of March or earlier.

mcburns07

wadacrack wrote: »

Still think their is a large degree of uncertainty going forward, but definite positive signs that vaccination of the elderly could see the beginning of the end of this awful time.

Definitely uncertainty in terms of the vaccine rollout but I think we all remember how under control things were last summer, hoping that buys us the time we need to get a large amount of the population vaccinated before autumn.

The global 7 day avg yesterday was 485k, it peaked at 745k on the 11th Jan. From what I can make out this is the first time we've seen it decrease consistently for weeks. That's extremely promising, at least it seems it to me anyway!

niallo27

Why are we the only country with this ridiculous 5km rule, whose idea was it anyway. I presume it was Nphet.

DraftDodger

marno21 wrote: »

We're simultaneously breaking the 1000 swabs a day on a non Monday/Tuesday and the 5% +ve rate threshold. We're about to get this properly under control now.

We have another 4 weeks of Level 5+ programmed at the minute. We should be at 200-300 cases per day by the end now that close contacts are being tested and caught. Hospital numbers are falling rapidly and we've peaked with ICU numbers. Hospital numbers have dropped nearly 40% in the last 12 days and ICU numbers are down 20% or so this week

It's time now that NPHET + The Government make the first cautious steps towards a slow, sustainable reopening. It's time to start discussion about how the process of reopening schools and construction will commence.

Level 4 (possibly without bars/pubs/restaurants) seems ideal for March. Some low risk activities (outdoor sports training, travel within your own county) are permitted, but anything of relevant risk is closed. If Level 4 wasn't made for this March I don't know what it was made for.

Far to early for that discussion. We are still in a very dangerous place with high numbers of people still getting infected.

wadacrack

mcburns07 wrote: »

Definitely uncertainty in terms of the vaccine rollout but I think we all remember how under control things were last summer, hoping that buys us the time we need to get a large amount of the population vaccinated before autumn.

The global 7 day avg yesterday was 485k, it peaked at 745k on the 11th Jan. From what I can make out this is the first time we've seen it decrease consistently for weeks. That's extremely promising, at least it seems it to me anyway!

I was thinking more about new variants and how effective this vaccine will be long term. Its quite hard to tell what will happen . That is quite a promising sign about the world wide cases. Immunity must be slowly beginning to play a role.

Sconsey

niallo27 wrote: »

Why are we the only country with this ridiculous 5km rule, whose idea was it anyway. I presume it was Nphet.

For feck sake you only have to look at our closest neighbor to see they have movement restrictions...would you prefer their rules that don't allow you outside the house without a good reason? So many countries have similar rules to ours, find something better to pi55 and moan about.

Sconsey

Sconsey wrote: »

For feck sake you only have to look at our closest neighbor to see they have movement restrictions...would you prefer their rules that don't allow you outside the house without a good reason? So many countries have similar rules to ours, find something better to pi55 and moan about.

Are you talking about the UK? There’s no such rules in the UK.....well, not enforced ones anyway. You can travel anywhere around the county and everyone is out and about. Ireland is much more restrictive

Happydays2020

Sconsey wrote: »

For feck sake you only have to look at our closest neighbor to see they have movement restrictions...would you prefer their rules that don't allow you outside the house without a good reason? So many countries have similar rules to ours, find something better to pi55 and moan about.

UK?