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

hmmm

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

—Very high Brazil infection rate was not protective

I see Brazil/Manaus mentioned frequently. There was one study done in Manaus where they calculated a mathematical model that assumed there had been widespread infection & probable herd immunity in their earlier waves of the virus.

To their surprise, shortly afterwards that there was another wave which again had widespread infection & deaths.

The assumption (if you assume the original model was correct) is that reinfections in Manaus with new variants caused the latest outbreak.

I don't know anything about the quality of the original study or who was involved, but a lot of conclusions are hanging on that being accurate - which seems increasingly unlikely. We haven't seen similar evidence of widespread re-infections anywhere else that I am aware of.

Mitch Connor

celt262 wrote: »

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Leo saying 250k in April isn't helpful to my state of mind.
/QUOTE]

250K a week is it not?

Yes, sorry, 250k a week.

caveat emptor

Wombatman wrote: »

I think having a positive outlook, in general, during this pandemic, and all that is brings, really boosts ones resilience day to day. So easy to get ground down by lockdown life.

For sure that is true. I'm very positive that the vaccines once rolled out will allow life to return to normal.

I think being realistic is even more effective that boosting your resilience though. When people were talking about various things including

• "vaccines in September 2020",
• "it's not a 2nd or 3rd wave"
• "a meaningful Christmas"
• "Schools won't close"
• "boris johnson invented the variant"

I resisted the temptation to believe the overly optimistic projection and instead planned for the possibility of this going on for some time. As a result mentally I'm in a far better place than a lot of people who are realising the meaningful Christmas bull**** was just that.

We are getting there though so a lot to be optimistic about.

seamus

hmmm wrote: »

I don't know anything about the quality of the original study or who was involved, but a lot of conclusions are hanging on that being accurate - which seems increasingly unlikely. We haven't seen similar evidence of widespread re-infections anywhere else that I am aware of.

That original study was half propaganda and half science. The local government wanted something to prove that Manaus was through the worst of it and they hadn't totally fvcked it.

Some mathematical models suggested that 50-70% of the population in that region *may* have been infected, and a number of Brazilian government outlets jumped on this as positive news that herd immunity had been achieved in Manaus.

Even if infection rates had been a the upper end of that scale, 70% still isn't sufficient for herd immunity with Covid.

As later scenes proved, Manaus was nowhere near herd immunity, and the subsequent wave was no doubt exacerbated by the public and healthcare workers operating under the presumption that they were "safe" in Manaus.

hmmm

seamus wrote: »

That original study was half propaganda and half science. The local government wanted something to prove that Manaus was through the worst of it and they hadn't totally fvcked it.

Some mathematical models suggested that 50-70% of the population in that region *may* have been infected, and a number of Brazilian government outlets jumped on this as positive news that herd immunity had been achieved in Manaus.

I haven't looked into it in any detail, but assuming that's correct it sounds like we (the rest of the world) are perhaps worrying unnecessarily about "Brazilian variants".

I haven't read any similar reports from the rest of Brazil.

Glad I don't work in public health and have to make these decisions with limited data

caveat emptor

caveat emptor wrote: »

For sure that is true. I'm very positive that the vaccines once rolled out will allow life to return to normal.

I think being realistic is even more effective that boosting your resilience though. When people were talking about various things including

• "vaccines in September 2020",
• "it's not a 2nd or 3rd wave"
• "a meaningful Christmas"
• "Schools won't close"
• "boris johnson invented the variant"

I resisted the temptation to believe the overly optimistic projection and instead planned for the possibility of this going on for some time. As a result mentally I'm in a far better place than a lot of people who are realising the meaningful Christmas bull**** was just that.

We are getting there though so a lot to be optimistic about.

It should be interesting to see how isreal and the uk pan out,with their reopenings


Ive kind of given up hope of attending hurling matches this year....but am hopeful of a spring 2022 league games going ahead unhindered

runawaybishop

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Right. And how in the name of **** is that not a valid topic for discussion here?
Why the **** is the like of yourself trying to shut it down?

Like is there a good chance the Danish projection is correct and ours is perhaps too conservative?
I've no idea. I'd like to find out. But apparently this topic is just too ****ing negative for some of you to handle.

I have no interest in shutting down a discussion on projections and have already responded explaining the disparity. You seem to be losing the run of yourself.

I have a problem with McWilliams' tweet pretending to 'ask questions' when the answer is in the tweeted article.

Turtwig

hmmm wrote: »

I see Brazil/Manaus mentioned frequently. There was one study done in Manaus where they calculated a mathematical model that assumed there had been widespread infection & probable herd immunity in their earlier waves of the virus.

To their surprise, shortly afterwards that there was another wave which again had widespread infection & deaths.

The assumption (if you assume the original model was correct) is that reinfections in Manaus with new variants caused the latest outbreak.

I don't know anything about the quality of the original study or who was involved, but a lot of conclusions are hanging on that being accurate - which seems increasingly unlikely. We haven't seen similar evidence of widespread re-infections anywhere else that I am aware of.

Reinfection is actually a very hard thing to demonstrate.

You have to consider the scope, goal, resources and time frame available to a study. These days studys are shared on social media often times unscrupulously. They purport a narrative where any and all studies are pigeon holed to support that narrative or tear it down. As such the utilisation of various studies from their original scope gets completely overblown. The label of shoddy research gets cast around all too easily.
Don't get me wrong they are crap studies that get far too much PR. Nutrition is really guilty of this. The problem isn't the study per se. The problem is how people report it and use it afterwards.
With stuff like covid, stuff I've seen others label as crap or lies often isn't. The research conducted is just being applied in a context which it really shouldn't.

The Manaus study over estimated the original incidence of infection. That would suggest the initial fears of variants causing reinfections were overblown. Alas, it is not that easy. Avenues of research still at least suggest that variants have pathways to reinfection. Demonstrating that on the other hand isn't easy.

This while dated is a decent read imo.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00121-z

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

I see Brazil/Manaus mentioned frequently. There was one study done in Manaus where they calculated a mathematical model that assumed there had been widespread infection & probable herd immunity in their earlier waves of the virus.

To their surprise, shortly afterwards that there was another wave which again had widespread infection & deaths.

The assumption (if you assume the original model was correct) is that reinfections in Manaus with new variants caused the latest outbreak.

I don't know anything about the quality of the original study or who was involved, but a lot of conclusions are hanging on that being accurate - which seems increasingly unlikely. We haven't seen similar evidence of widespread re-infections anywhere else that I am aware of.

It was a study based on data collected from blood donations. A free COVID test and a free taxi ride were offered to encourage donations . That raises all kinds of issues with sampling bias. There's a good thread on it here.

https://twitter.com/WesPegden/status/1349924698885410818?s=20

Turtwig

Don't know how true this is. Or how you could prove it. It is a nice illustration of the importance of the public message:

It's possible the heavy over estimates of infection by that study led people to think they were safe and that sparked the extreme wave of resurgence.

seamus

Early numbers today.

Sunday: 764 swabs out of 14,901, 5.13%
Today: 609 swasb out of 11828, 5.15%

7-day is now 5.29%, lowest since 24th December.

While the trend has definitely slowed, it's still there and still downward. Settled on roughly 10% drop week-on-week.

We've now had
- 5 days of less than 900 positive swabs.
- 6 days with positivity rates under 5.5%

Contextually, less than 800 positive swabs and 5.5% tomorrow would be good.

ninebeanrows

Very interesting, Mike Ryan on Radio 1 asked about variants and basically dismissed them and said measures work on them and vaccines work on them.

I hope McConckey listened to it, what he said yesterday is appalling.

landofthetree

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1363839794615357441

Plumbthedepths

ninebeanrows wrote: »

Very interesting, Mike Ryan on Radio 1 asked about variants and basically dismissed them and said measures work on them and vaccines work on them.

I hope McConckey listened to it, what he said yesterday is appalling.

M Martin should also take note of what Ryan said.

Cluedo Monopoly

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

M Martin should also take note of what Ryan said.

All the cabinet are using 'variants' for excuses around communications and delays. They sound so coached.

Plumbthedepths

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

All the cabinet are using 'variants' for excuses around communications and delays. They sound so coached.

Like toddlers that learned a new word.

ninebeanrows

ninebeanrows wrote: »

Very interesting, Mike Ryan on Radio 1 asked about variants and basically dismissed them and said measures work on them and vaccines work on them.

I hope McConckey listened to it, what he said yesterday is appalling.

I see McConkey on twitter has started laying out a 20 point plan on what more the government could do.

18hours later he has made it to point 3

Best reply was:
https://twitter.com/noelio85/status/1363829608349589508

Widdensushi

timmyntc wrote: »

You can't dismiss valid criticisms of the govt as someone just posting negative news for the sake of it.

Are we supposed to ignore any hard questions because they are negative and might hurt your feelings?:pac:

? I praised him for being consistent, my feelings are good, thanks for your concern

hotmail.com

The public are not angry about the communication. They're angry about the message.

9 weeks is too long. Things need to reopen.

hynesie08

hotmail.com wrote: »

The public are not angry about the communication. They're angry about the message.

9 weeks is too long. Things need to reopen.

Really? Because the overwhelming message I'm seeing is "we thought it would be may, but we didn't expect to read it in the mirror"

Kha1993

According to the IT, one third of people ventured outside of 10km from home last week. And that’s just those being honest.

Yesterday’s nice weather will surely push that figure higher.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Is this plan due tomorrow?

hotmail.com

hynesie08 wrote: »

Really? Because the overwhelming message I'm seeing is "we thought it would be may, but we didn't expect to read it in the mirror"

Stuff gets leaked all the time.

The people expressing annoyance about the communication are just the moaners that favoured Level 5 but now are secretly against it but can't complain about it..So they moan about the "messaging".

titan18

landofthetree wrote: »

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1363839794615357441

That's feck all of a decrease from last week. Not good

Kha1993

Kha1993 wrote: »

According to the IT, one third of people ventured outside of 10km from home last week. And that’s just those being honest.

Yesterday’s nice weather will surely push that figure higher.

Surprised its that low. Large parts of the country need to travel further than that for the supermarket, work, doctor and a whole lot of other valid reasons

hotmail.com

titan18 wrote: »

That's feck all of a decrease from last week. Not good

Compliance is the issue now. A lot of people have given up.

titan18

hotmail.com wrote: »

Compliance is the issue now. A lot of people have given up.

Ya, I get that, as I am one of those people, but still with nowhere to actually go, I'd still expect it to decrease. Not like we've any spread in shops, gyms, restaurants etc.

KrustyUCC

titan18 wrote: »

That's feck all of a decrease from last week. Not good

Whilst we all would like to see numbers decrease quicker it's still a 5% decrease on the same day last week

Plumbthedepths

hotmail.com wrote: »

Compliance is the issue now. A lot of people have given up.

Roscommon where I live according to the CSO figures, 51% stayed within 10km of their home. As the weather picks up I expect that figure to decline further.

hotmail.com

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Roscommon where I live according to the CSO figures, 51% stayed within 10km of their home. As the weather picks up I expect that figure to decline further.

The km thing is irrelevant. People can visit someone within 5k and spread the virus.

I don't agree with km limits.