Covid 19 Part XXXIV-249,437 ROI(4,906 deaths) 120,195 NI (2,145 deaths)(01/05)Read OP

Turtwig

covidrelease wrote: »

If 21 cases a day is the definition of "very precarious" how would you describe the current 500 a day situation?

Very finely balanced. One little nudge the wrong way and we're in trouble.

Roger_007

Multipass wrote: »

Irish Times headline today that ‘Ireland is on a knife edge as case numbers could go either way’
The old worry meter needed a kickstart :pac:

Another headline claiming that having covid increases mental health problems....

I would think that most of the mental health problems are being created by the lockdown(s) and by the fear and anxiety that the public messaging deliberately generates.

seamus

covidrelease wrote: »

If 21 cases a day is the definition of "very precarious" how would you describe the current 500 a day situation?

The number of cases is irrelevant, it's the direction in which they're going.

21 cases and growing exponentially is alarming.

500 cases and dropping slowly is stabilising.

500 cases and unchanging is precarious.

covidrelease

covidrelease wrote: »

Interestingly when there was no mention of new variants the situation last July was "very precarious"

Lately its just "precarious"

These people are spoofers plain and simple.

Of the 4 times they called it "precarious" twice so far there as no spike, the third time was Christmas and we know why that happened, their 4th precarious call was 31st March and its not looking great for their prediction this time either.

Why?

Multipass

Roger_007 wrote: »

I would think that most of the mental health problems are being created by the lockdown(s) and by the fear and anxiety that the public messaging deliberately generates.

Yes but they don’t matter, they should suck it up.
Once covid gets involved it’s a worry, call it part of long covid and it’s headline news.

purplefields

seamus wrote: »

The number 21 is small, but when you get into exponential growth, 21 cases becomes 300 cases in just 8 weeks.

Just a small nit-pick but the growth, by definition, is always exponential. Exponential just means that there is an exponent involved (like 4 squared has an exponent of 2). In this case there there is an exponent because there is an R value. If the curve is flat, doesn't mean it's not exponential.

As a side note, I do enjoy your posts and find them informative.

marno21

NPHET seem to describe the situation as precarious when the R number is above 1. They are entirely correct in this view. If the R number is above 1, it’s only a matter of time before this spins out of control

Rather than case numbers, NPHET seem most content when the R number is below 1. Even at 10 cases a day, R > 1 is cause for concern

OwenM

marno21 wrote: »

NPHET seem to describe the situation as precarious when the R number is above 1. They are entirely correct in this view. If the R number is above 1, it’s only a matter of time before this spins out of control

Rather than case numbers, NPHET seem most content when the R number is below 1. Even at 10 cases a day, R > 1 is cause for concern

The R numbers published by NPHET are a total nonsense, the last one I read was 'between 1 and 1.3' which is ridiculous - they are stating cases are not growing or they are growing rapidly - which is it? Another one a while back was 'between 0.6 and 0.9' again totally useless range, a bit like backing all the horses in a race.

Turtwig

purplefields wrote: »

Just a small nit-pick but the growth, by definition, is always exponential. Exponential just means that there is an exponent involved (like 4 squared has an exponent of 2). In this case there there is an exponent because there is an R value. If the curve is flat, doesn't mean it's not exponential.

As a side note, I do enjoy your posts and find them informative.

No it isn't. Raising something to a power (exponent) doesn't mean you're on exponential growth. The test for exponential growth is that the rate of change, (acceleration, jerk, etc where applicable) are proportional to the original function.

Quadratic growth like your example above is not exponential. In fact it can grow faster than an exponential growth at the start but in time the exponential function will outpace it.

is_that_so

OwenM wrote: »

The R numbers published by NPHET are a total nonsense, the last one I read was 'between 1 and 1.3' which is ridiculous - they are stating cases are not growing or they are growing rapidly - which is it? Another one a while back was 'between 0.6 and 0.9' again totally useless range, a bit like backing all the horses in a race.

They use four models and have always recognised that it's an approximation. It's still a useful tool in terms of predicting future development of the disease.

purplefields

Turtwig wrote: »

No it isn't. Raising something to a power (exponent) doesn't mean you're on exponential growth. The test for exponential growth is that the rate of change, (acceleration, jerk, etc where applicable) are proportional to the original function.

Quadratic growth like your example above is not exponential. In fact it can grow faster than an exponential growth at the start but in time the exponential function will outpace it.

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that the growth for coronavirus was a constant power, just giving an example of what an exponent is (ie, 2^6 : 6 is the exponent. or 4^t : t is the exponent)

I guess using a constant in my exponent example was confusing.

plodder

is_that_so wrote: »

They use four models and have always recognised that it's an approximation. It's still a useful tool in terms of predicting future development of the disease.

Does it not depend on accurate contact tracing though?

And are case number trends not a better measure? A single R number for the whole country always seemed less useful to me. Like, if they said there is an outbreak in some place with an R value of 1.9, based on a close examination of contacts there, then it would seem more credible to me.

is_that_so

plodder wrote: »

Does it not depend on accurate contact tracing though?

And are case number trends not a better measure? A single R number for the whole country always seemed less useful to me. Like, if they said there is an outbreak in some place with an R value of 1.9, based on a close examination of contacts there, then it would seem more credible to me.

Some level of contact tracing yes but even numbers of close contacts generate data. It can never be fully accurate but the trends are key anyway to understanding what's happening. Localised may influence testing, like the walk-ins but outlier data are always a nuisance to map.

bucketybuck

seamus wrote: »

The number of cases is irrelevant, it's the direction in which they're going.

21 cases and growing exponentially is alarming.

500 cases and dropping slowly is stabilising.

500 cases and unchanging is precarious.

21 cases in an unvaccinated society is alarming.

500 cases in a society where the known vulnerable are vaccinated, thats not alarming.

Banana Republic 1

bucketybuck wrote: »

21 cases in an unvaccinated society is alarming.

500 cases in a society where the known vulnerable are vaccinated, thats not alarming.

No logic to that.

is_that_so

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

No logic to that.

The 21 cases is likely to have a receptive population to grow rapidly, the 500 will have to find enough unvaccinated to have an effect.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

21 cases in an unvaccinated society is alarming.

500 cases in a society where the known vulnerable are vaccinated, thats not alarming.

Exactly. I look forward to the day when we lose this fixation on case numbers. Chris Whitty in the UK was very open this week when he said that case numbers WILL increase substantially, but that that does not pose a threat to the reopening roadmap.

MerlinSouthDub

GP referral data for yesterday is out. Good news - lower than last Monday. I thought we might see a big spike with the long weekend, but it looks fine.

https://tomorrowscare.ie/covid/2021-04-07_COVID_GP_Survey_Results.pdf

Banana Republic 1

is_that_so wrote: »

The 21 cases is likely to have a receptive population to grow rapidly, the 500 will have to find enough unvaccinated to have an effect.

I’d wager there’s more chance of 500 cases spreading then 21.

Eod100

https://twitter.com/RTENewsPaulC/status/1379765642455318528

zuutroy

Sounds like something Trump would come out with.

shtpEdthePlum

https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2021/0407/1208370-sna-vaccines/

A load of education staff in the government ministers constituencies were contacted by the HSE and received their jab last week.

This is getting beyond a joke. I don't begrudge those people a vaccine for one minute but maybe if the cunts in charge were more interested in actually getting it rolled out than hand picking which menial labourer they deem worthy of selection we would be getting somewhere.

Eod100

Eod100 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RTENewsPaulC/status/1379765642455318528

Jesus. Probably something ridiculous like the UK and the USA

Banana Republic 1

OwenM wrote: »

The R numbers published by NPHET are a total nonsense, the last one I read was 'between 1 and 1.3' which is ridiculous - they are stating cases are not growing or they are growing rapidly - which is it? Another one a while back was 'between 0.6 and 0.9' again totally useless range, a bit like backing all the horses in a race.

When you add numbers together they get bigger.

If you have .9 of an orange on a plate and then add .6 of an orange to the plate you have 1.5 pieces of orange.

OwenM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I’d wager there’s more chance of 500 cases spreading then 21.

No one will or should care about 500 or even 5000 cases if the vaccination rollout has covered 70-80% of the population.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly. I look forward to the day when we lose this fixation on case numbers. Chris Whitty in the UK was very open this week when he said that case numbers WILL increase substantially, but that that does not pose a threat to the reopening roadmap.

Aye they're pretty much irrelevant once the vulnerable are vaccinated. They'll have crowds in for the snooker in a few weeks. Can't wait for the snooker myself. Meanwhile we're still piss-arsing about and people still arguing that in some way we're doing a better job because according to some projections we may catch up to them in 3 months' time.

OwenM

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

When you add numbers together they get bigger.

Was that an attempt at humour or did you post accidentally?

Eod100

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus. Probably something ridiculous like the UK and the USA

Not sure are they included also, say there would be more resistance to them than France or Germany say with how many Irish live there and FDI from US companies etc

eeepaulo

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2021/0407/1208370-sna-vaccines/

A load of education staff in the government ministers constituencies were contacted by the HSE and received their jab last week.

This is getting beyond a joke. I don't begrudge those people a vaccine for one minute but maybe if the cunts in charge were more interested in actually getting it rolled out than hand picking which menial labourer they deem worthy of selection we would be getting somewhere.

My first thought was which minister's children are in those schools, just a coincidence like.

Banana Republic 1

OwenM wrote: »

No one will or should care about 500 or even 5000 cases if the vaccination rollout has covered 70-80% of the population.

If the vaccines work we won’t have any cases.