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

snotboogie

mcburns07 wrote: »

OH's sister lives in Canada, they eased some restrictions this week, next review is in 3 weeks, if hospitalisations (Not cases!) are below a defined target then they can move to the next level down.

We could all do with some clarity right about now on what the targets are and what happens when we meet them....

In fairness Canada has 8 times our population and are only averaging 3k cases per day.

niallo27

Good results from Israel. Nphets response will likely be 4 people severely sick, we must keep restrictions until next year.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hmo-sees-only-544-covid-infections-among-523000-fully-vaccinated-israelis/

TonyMaloney

snotboogie wrote: »

In fairness Canada has 8 times our population and are only averaging 3k cases per day.

I'm too tipsy to work out the equivalent case number

mcburns07

Russman wrote: »

I don’t disagree with that at all, it makes perfect sense. The only issue I’d have is what happens if we’re nearly at a target but not quite there ? Last week it was still nearly a month away and the journos were asking would XYZ open on 5th March ! How can anyone know what will happen in 4 weeks. They got badly burned at Christmas when people went bananas so they’re bound to be ultra cautious. I dunno, I mean, we’ve people booking fake dentist appointments in Tenerife to justify a holiday in the middle of a pandemic, I think it’s reasonable for government to be wary of what might happen if they open too soon, sh1t as it is all round.

There's an awful lot of middle ground between opening most things in some form (Christmas) and nothing (current plan).

It also has to be acknowledged to that Christmas involves huge movement of people in a short space of time from both inside and outside of Ireland, I don't think we would see anything like that explosion in cases if we went to a similar level of restrictions tomorrow.

I agree with a controlled reopening to hopefully ensure we never have to apply restrictions like this ever again, but people need encouragement and very soon some form of respite.

The people of Melbourne did 3 and a half months of similar restrictions and got relative normality to show for it. We're going to endure something similar... for Level 4 and months of easing of restrictions after that?

niallo27

R number in UK is now less than 1, how is this possible with the more transmissible UK variant.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r-number-falls-below-1-for-first-time-since-july-as-infection-rates-fall-faster-than-expected-cvzcrkb9g

Plumbthedepths

niallo27 wrote: »

R number in UK is now less than 1, how is this possible with the more transmissible UK variant.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r-number-falls-below-1-for-first-time-since-july-as-infection-rates-fall-faster-than-expected-cvzcrkb9g

Prehaps the claim that the Kent variant was 70% more transmissible, was bs?

TonyMaloney

niallo27 wrote: »

R number in UK is now less than 1, how is this possible with the more transmissible UK variant.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r-number-falls-below-1-for-first-time-since-july-as-infection-rates-fall-faster-than-expected-cvzcrkb9g

Same way it happened here, Niall. Lockdown.

I don't think we're far below 1 ourselves though, and likely slowly rising

Russman

mcburns07 wrote: »

There's an awful lot of middle ground between opening most things in some form (Christmas) and nothing (current plan).

It also has to be acknowledged to that Christmas involves huge movement of people in a short space of time from both inside and outside of Ireland, I don't think we would see anything like that explosion in cases if we went to a similar level of restrictions tomorrow.

I agree with a controlled reopening to hopefully ensure we never have to apply restrictions like this ever again, but people need encouragement and very soon some form of respite.

The people of Melbourne did 3 and a half months of similar restrictions and got relative normality to show for it. We're going to endure something similar... for Level 4 and months of easing of restrictions after that?

I largely agree with most of that. Not 100% convinced we wouldn’t see an explosion if we opened now though, but it’s neither here nor there. The real trick will/would be the govt being strong enough to allow the phases to play out and resist the inevitable clamour for it to be sped up and for groups to jump forward.

Jim_Hodge

mcburns07 wrote: »

The people of Melbourne did 3 and a half months of similar restrictions and got relative normality to show for it. We're going to endure something similar... for Level 4 and months of easing of restrictions after that?

Melbourne ordered a snap five day lockdown today.

TonyMaloney

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Prehaps the claim that the Kent variant was 70% more transmissible, was bs?

It doesn't travel through walls. If we're all at home most of the time then it didn't matter if it's more transmittable.

mcburns07

snotboogie wrote: »

In fairness Canada has 8 times our population and are only averaging 3k cases per day.

Approx. 400

The point was they have targets that are communicated to the population so that they are aware what is required to move to the next level of restrictions.

stephenjmcd

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Same way it happened here, Niall. Lockdown.

I don't think we're far below 1 ourselves though, and likely slowly rising

To quote Prof Nolan, "it is very good news that our estimates of the R number are well below one"

MerlinSouthDub

Hospital report is out

894 in hospital (down from 943 last night)
Nice to see it below 900, though will go up a bit over the weekend
169 in ICU

mcburns07

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

Melbourne ordered a snap five day lockdown today.

What's your point caller?

stephenjmcd

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

Hospital report is out

894 in hospital (down from 943 last night)
Nice to see it below 900, though will go up a bit over the weekend
169 in ICU

Steady decline. It'll probably slow down soon enough but decent decline this week

TonyMaloney

stephenjmcd wrote: »

To quote Prof Nolan, "it is very good news that our estimates of the R number are well below one"

Well that is reassuring, but a lot of metrics like positivity rate suggests we're not that far below 1.0

iguana

niallo27 wrote: »

R number in UK is now less than 1, how is this possible with the more transmissible UK variant.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r-number-falls-below-1-for-first-time-since-july-as-infection-rates-fall-faster-than-expected-cvzcrkb9g

We have the same dominant variant and our R0 number has been below one for the last few weeks. In fact it rose slightly again last week. The UK is on lockdown just like us. They also have over 10% of their population vaccinated with at least their first dose. The effect of their vaccination programme should be starting to be noticed now.

Turtwig

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Prehaps the claim that the Kent variant was 70% more transmissible, was bs?

Yep that's a bs claim.
Just. That's not the original claim. It was an estimate and of course Boris went with the upper bound. Just like he made a statement about its mortality when they'd only examined 7 or 8% of the cases.

stephenjmcd

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Well that is reassuring, but a lot of metrics like positivity rate suggests we're not that far below 1.0

Estimated yesterday 0.6 - 0.8 , week before was 0.5 - 0.8

It's not moving much at all, it was described yesterday as extremely stable. Rate of decline continues as expected by modeling.

So according to Prof Nolan its well below one, kind of have to take his word for it.

TonyMaloney

iguana wrote: »

We have the same dominant variant and our R0 number has been below one for the last few weeks. In fact it rose slightly again last week. The UK is on lockdown just like us. They also have over 10% of their population vaccinated with at least their first dose. The effect of their vaccination programme should be starting to be noticed now.

It is fascinating to watch.

Hopefully some of the vaccine nationalism we've seen can be replaced with something more positive as we see countries that have had a really, really **** time start to recover.

mcburns07

TonyMaloney wrote: »

It is fascinating to watch.

Hopefully some of the vaccine nationalism we've seen can be replaced with something more positive as we see countries that have had a really, really **** time start to recover.

I think we could all do with some really positive news in relation to this virus even if it is in another country.

TonyMaloney

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Estimated yesterday 0.6 - 0.8 , week before was 0.5 - 0.8

It's not moving much at all, it was described yesterday as extremely stable. Rate of decline continues as expected by modeling.

So according to Prof Nolan its well below one, kind of have to take his word for it.

Sure. But if it's at the upper end of the estimate then it's bad news, right?

Like if I told you the estimated R number after weeks and weeks of strict restrictions was 0.8, you wouldn't exactly celebrate would you

Plumbthedepths

Turtwig wrote: »

Yep that's a bs claim.
Just. That's not the original claim. It was an estimate and of course Boris went with the upper bound. Just like he made a statement about its mortality when they'd only examined 7 or 8% of the cases.

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-variants-are-they-really-more-deadly-heres-what-scientists-know-so-far-153921
Lots of estimates this is just one article in many about it.

stephenjmcd

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Sure. But if it's at the upper end of the estimate then it's bad news, right?

Like if I told you the estimated R number after weeks and weeks of strict restrictions was 0.8, you wouldn't exactly celebrate would you

Well seeing as it was around 3 or higher about 6 weeks ago then yeah I'd be happy with 0.8 6 weeks later.

Anyway your dealing in whataboutery now & hypothetical situations, I'd prefer to go by Prof Nolan and if he describes it as well below one and stable then that's the opinion that matters.

TonyMaloney

mcburns07 wrote: »

I think we could all do with some really positive news in relation to this virus even if it is in another country.

Big time.

It'll be, for me, like a bit of an armistice day the day that italy has zero deaths.
And I wouldn't say it to them, but I'd really like to see the UK get their **** together. If even just for themselves.

TonyMaloney

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Well seeing as it was around 3 or higher about 6 weeks ago then yeah I'd be happy with 0.8 6 weeks later.

Anyway your dealing in whataboutery now & hypothetical situations, I'd prefer to go by Prof Nolan and if he describes it as well below one and stable then that's the opinion that matters.

Absolutely.

We can still discuss it though, Stephen, if you're ever so inclined

stephenjmcd

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Absolutely.

We can still discuss it though, Stephen, if you're ever so inclined

Not sure what your trying to get at Tony with that last line, care to explain?

You asked a question I answered with quotes from Prof Nolan and yesterday's press conference. Not sure what else there is to discuss to be honest. We can only deal with what Prof Nolan says & not hypothetical situations

Wolf359f

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Well that is reassuring, but a lot of metrics like positivity rate suggests we're not that far below 1.0

An R below 1.0 is good. What other metrics apart from positivity rate suggests we're not far below 1.0 and define far below? What do the metrics suggest is R rate is?

TonyMaloney

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Not sure what your trying to get at Tony with that last line.

You asked a question I answered with quotes from Prof Nolan and yesterday's press conference. Not sure what else there is to discuss to be honest.

I mean how things like the test positivity rate are clear indicators of the R number.
And if the rate of decline in the positivity rate is low, then from what I've learned over the last year, that means the R number is not much below zero.

0.8 sounds a little low to me, but I'll defer to professor Nolan

TonyMaloney

Wolf359f wrote: »

An R below 1.0 is good. What other metrics apart from positivity rate suggests we're not far below 1.0 and define far below? What do the metrics suggest is R rate is?

Well, no, it's all relative.

An R rate of 0.8 is ok if you're dealing with a virus doing it's thing in an open society.

If the R number is 0.8 in a heavily restricted society, then you might have a big problem as you ease those restrictions