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

Jim_Hodge

Stateofyou wrote: »

Point that finger right back at ourselves. We have shocking obesity rates and unhealthy behaviour in our own country. Have you a link saying the US has more vulnerable people, when adjusted for population size?

Ireland 25.3% ranked 51st
USA 36.2% ranked 12th (almost all small Polynesian states ahead of them)

is_that_so

seamus wrote: »

Right.
I'm not sure what your point is though.

The figure of 66, is the number of vaccinations reported as having been inserted into someone's arm.

This doesn't mean that the HSE have only delivered 66 doses to GPs. And it's quite likely the number is larger than 66, but the GPs have simply not reported in yet.

Pretty much the same as you, if from the perspective of the 12,000 shots planned for the week! Not that interested in the vaccination data personally. Apart from seeing it as good in that we're using up what we get, I am more interested in the plans for the week and how much we are ramping up.

gozunda

Coybig_ wrote: »

Due to having more vulnerable people than any other country in the world through percentage of population classified as obese.

Source?

SusieBlue

Stateofyou wrote: »

The comparison isn't like for like, though. They probably have state of the art hospitals with a higher ICU capability. There are almost 20 million people in NY alone. Not comparable to here on so many levels.

Again, you’re arguing against points I never even made. Another user was repeatedly called a liar for stating New York was open for business, but they aren’t lying because most industries and services are in fact open over there.
I have zero interest in getting into a back and forth about the US response to the virus.

TonyMaloney

seamus wrote: »

It's clever Tony, I'll give you that.

But it's doesn't say, "we are only beating the old strain". The new variant's percentage share is increasing because it's a dominant strain, not because the old strain is being beaten by restrictions.

I'm not sure I follow. To me it would obviously be a bit of both. Lockdown reduces the opportunity for the old variant to spread, as does the new variant infecting people before covid classic gets a chance.
As to which is the bigger factor, I've no idea.

seamus wrote: »

Chart the % share of the new variant over time. Even just eyeballing your graph, you can see the % share of the new variant is increasing well before any restrictions kick in.

This tells us that the increase in share is because the strain is dominant.

I should probably add that I've only used 4 key dates to populate this, and used excel to fill in the blanks. So the rate of growth seen here is linear and just a broad approximation. Though probably not far from reality.

seamus wrote: »

You might be right that it'll be harder to reduce. I'm skeptical of Dr. Glynn's claim we can make 200 cases/day by mid-March. But the claim that we are not beating it back isn't substantiated by your graph.

I should probably recreate it with swabs as they're less distorted by the IT fiasco.
But you're right, it is slowly being beaten down, just not at the rate we perceive when looking at daily case numbers.

Happydays2020

Stateofyou wrote: »

The comparison isn't like for like, though. They probably have state of the art hospitals with a higher ICU capability. There are almost 20 million people in NY alone. Not comparable to here on so many levels.

Normal ICU beds capacity is 300 and they managed to get surge capacity to 1000 beds. I don’t know what NY you have been to, but the one I have lived in and visited has a very different side of things when it comes to healthcare and importantly access to health care for less well off people.

This article is quite interesting. NY Times has also many articles on their health care capacity.

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/clinical-care/coronavirus-how-new-york-citys-public-healthcare-system-managed-epic-patient-surge

is_that_so

Speaking of hospitals, now 771 and 151 in ICU.

Tea drinker

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

Would you be chastising people in countries with no welfare exists if they went out to work to make sure their family didn't starve?

Eventually what will happen and is starting to happen is people will ignore the rules when the financial pain becomes worse than the perceived threat from the television which is bombarding us daily.

The financial pain is to come, and there will be no getting away from it.
We are shuddering from one financial crisis to the next with each progressively indebting us.

Stateofyou

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

Ireland 25.3% ranked 51st
USA 36.2% ranked 12th (almost all small Polynesian states ahead of them)

From Irishheart.ie

"Overall, 68% of adult men and 53% of adult women were overweight or obese. Measurements were repeated in 201713 and 39% were overweight and 23% were obese. Overall, 70% of adult men and 53% of adult women were overweight or obese."

Stateofyou

SusieBlue wrote: »

Again, you’re arguing against points I never even made. Another user was repeatedly called a liar for stating New York was open for business, but they aren’t lying because most industries and services are in fact open over there.
I have zero interest in getting into a back and forth about the US response to the virus.

But you said this, which is what I responded to:

They do have a lot more normality and our approach is a lot more heavy handed than theirs is. These are all facts.

robbiezero

robbiezero wrote: »

Go to the park now and take a run down the main avenue and tell me thats your normal Thursday afternoon crowd and yes I know schools are off etc, but its the same at weekends. From morning to night, far bigger crowds that normal for February even without markets or parkrun

If we get decent weather at the weekend, the park will be mobbed as it was most of last summer during travel restrictions, far more than I have ever seen it. Normally the area around the red stables is full of picnickers, last summer there were people scattered all over the park picnicking in the middle of pitches etc. In 20 years of being beside it, I have never seen the likes.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make about a Kodaline concert in the park, but I think that might be a bit of an outlier in terms of trying to compare crowds.

You could probably safely open the markets again if the 5km restriction wasn't in place, but because of it they were absolutely flooded with people.

I've already acknowledged that there is an increase in footfall, partly due to kids being off and partly due to more people being at home during the week. But mostly because there's not much else to do.

This week is an outlier, as last week was so bad, weather-wise, that people are dying to get out for a bit of fresh air.

You were trying to make the point that opening the 5km restrictions would bring it back to pre-pandemic levels. You are mistaken......if everybody from Ballymun, Glasnevin, Drumcondra, Santry and further afield were allowed to visit the park and the beach all of a sudden, the numbers would increase. Not decrease.

Why do you imagine there would be a lot less visiting?

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

From Irishheart.ie

"Overall, 68% of adult men and 53% of adult women were overweight or obese. Measurements were repeated in 201713 and 39% were overweight and 23% were obese. Overall, 70% of adult men and 53% of adult women were overweight or obese."

Ireland having a problem does not mean the problem in the US is not significantly worse. 50% worse according to the data

Stateofyou

Deleted User wrote: »

Ireland having a problem does not mean the problem in the US is not significantly worse. 50% worse according to the data

Maybe that's true, I'm just saying we're in a very similar boat. So what does it really matter where we rate in the world when our own stats reflect we're not doing great health wise and the implications that has.

TonyMaloney

seamus wrote: »

It's clever Tony, I'll give you that.

But it's doesn't say, "we are only beating the old strain". The new variant's percentage share is increasing because it's a dominant strain, not because the old strain is being beaten by restrictions.

Chart the % share of the new variant over time. Even just eyeballing your graph, you can see the % share of the new variant is increasing well before any restrictions kick in.

This tells us that the increase in share is because the strain is dominant.

You might be right that it'll be harder to reduce. I'm skeptical of Dr. Glynn's claim we can make 200 cases/day by mid-March. But the claim that we are not beating it back isn't substantiated by your graph.

If you want to feck around with this stuff, here are the dates and percentages I'm using (via news sources, via NPHET).

Dec 20th 8.6%
Jan 3rd 24.9%
Feb 4th 75%
Feb 17th 90%

Here's the same thing, but using swabs instead




And a close-up of the last 30 days.

PmMeUrDogs

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Weren't they right to be? Remember this all started from single digit cases

"Hugely concerned" becomes far less believable when it's trotted out at every single stage of the pandemic, similar to the "next two weeks are crucial" bull

TonyMaloney

TonyMaloney wrote: »

If you want to feck around with this stuff, here are the dates and percentages I'm using (via news sources, via NPHET).

Dec 20th 8.6%
Jan 3rd 24.9%
Feb 4th 75%
Feb 17th 90%

Here's the same thing, but using swabs instead




And a close-up of the last 30 days.

So the data is interpolated rather than real?

TonyMaloney

Deleted User wrote: »

So the data is interpolated rather than real?

Four of the days on that chart are "real". You can see the dates listed above.
The last day on the chart is using "real" data, so I'm not extrapolating into the future.

I'm filling in the gaps in the past, assuming gradual growth rather than massive jumps.
It would not of course be 100% accurate but broadly paints a good picture of what's been going on in the background.

I assume this passes the Raind test?

gozunda

Stateofyou wrote: »

Maybe that's true, I'm just saying we're in a very similar boat. So what does it really matter where we rate in the world when our own stats reflect we're not doing great health wise and the implications that has.

I think the point relevant to the original conservation on holding up places like New York having less restrictions than us - as a model to follow - makes no sense whatsoever..

Mark1916

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1362408577584005131?s=21

OwenM

Stateofyou wrote: »

Point that finger right back at ourselves. We have shocking obesity rates and unhealthy behaviour in our own country. Have you a link saying the US has more vulnerable people, when adjusted for population size?

Obesity as an underlying condition is defined as a BMI > 40.

2% of Covid deaths fall into this bracket, we do not need to vaccinate everybody classed as obese to cover those classed as vulnerable.

https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/underlyingconditionsreports/Underlying%20conditions%20summary_1.0v%2014122020.pdf

cameramonkey

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Four of the days on that chart are "real". You can see the dates listed above.
The last day on the chart is using "real" data, so I'm not extrapolating into the future.

I'm filling in the gaps in the past, assuming gradual growth rather than massive jumps.
It would not of course be 100% accurate but broadly paints a good picture of what's been going on in the background.

I assume this passes the Raind test?

Do they test every swab to see which variant it is?

TonyMaloney

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Four of the days on that chart are "real". You can see the dates listed above.
The last day on the chart is using "real" data, so I'm not extrapolating into the future.

I'm filling in the gaps in the past, assuming gradual growth rather than massive jumps.
It would not of course be 100% accurate but broadly paints a good picture of what's been going on in the background.

I assume this passes the Raind test?

None of the days are real Tony, the reported figure of 90% is not related to tests reported the same day. Its likely up to a week earlier.

stephenjmcd

cameramonkey wrote: »

Do they test every swab to see which variant it is?

Nope

fits

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Four of the days on that chart are "real". You can see the dates listed above.
The last day on the chart is using "real" data, so I'm not extrapolating into the future.

I'm filling in the gaps in the past, assuming gradual growth rather than massive jumps.
It would not of course be 100% accurate but broadly paints a good picture of what's been going on in the background.

I assume this passes the Raind test?

The ISAG have been using similar graphs as what Tony is presenting there. The b117 variant is not dropping in numbers to the same extent as the original.

OwenM

fits wrote: »

The ISAG have been using similar graphs as what Tony is presenting there. The b117 variant is not dropping in numbers to the same extent as the original.

ISAG are the Zero-Covid nutters, just so you know what you are dealing with.

seamus

TonyMaloney wrote: »

If you want to feck around with this stuff, here are the dates and percentages I'm using (via news sources, via NPHET).

Dec 20th 8.6%
Jan 3rd 24.9%
Feb 4th 75%
Feb 17th 90%

Here's the same thing, but using swabs instead

While I do see what you're doing and applaud the effort, I think you might be trying too hard to build a good dataset out of very limited data.

What jumps out at me most from this limited data is the rate of increase in the variant's share. From the 20/12 to 03/01 (when we had the fewest restrictions), B117's share of the infection effectively tripled in two weeks.

From 03/01 to 04/02 the share tripled again. But this took 32 days to achieve. This is the period of the tightest and best-observed restrictions.

And then to 17/02 (13 days), the share increased by just 20%.

Now, obviously one would expect that there is a limit to how quickly the share can grow, and that it tapers off at some point.

But if it held true that tighter restrictions were more effective against older variants, one would expect B117's share to significantly accelerate during restrictions.

There's a big gap in the data; so maybe it did. Maybe there's data we haven't see that shows B117 jumped from 24.9% to 50% in 7 days. But that's data we don't have.

However, if you plot these four data points on a timeline, you get a near-perfect linear progession. Which tells us that the impact of restrictions on the growth of this variant is minimal. All IMO, of course.

fits

OwenM wrote: »

ISAG are the Zero-Covid nutters, just so you know what you are dealing with.

Just because they have a different view to you it doesn’t make them nutters

Loafing Oaf

fits wrote: »

Just because they have a different view to you it doesn’t make them nutters

And more importantly doesn't make their data erroneous...

OwenM

fits wrote: »

Just because they have a different view to you it doesn’t make them nutters

Educated experienced professionals that hold irrational positions within (arguably) their domain or field are nutters.

OwenM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And more importantly doesn't make their data erroneous...

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess"