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

is_that_so

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Wow . Cases really not translating into hospitalisations like before

It's what we saw up until December last year. Once you keep the more at risk out of the firing line, it's far less of a public health issue.

Sobit1964

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Wow . Cases really not translating into hospitalisations like before

Fantastic point. Needs to be highlighted more.

is_that_so

Sobit1964 wrote: »

Fantastic point. Needs to be highlighted more.

No, there's a 4th surge coming, maybe, probably, I think!

GooglePlus

NIAC Fanboy wrote: »

How are we supposed to open pubs for vaccinated when a lot of the bar staff would be unvaccinated?

Who do you think is going to be inspecting vaccine accreditation outside a nightclub, the bouncer?

Don't insult the rest of us with your nonsense, the rest of us are miles above the quality of your posting and your "simplistic" notions.

Why do you immediately jump to the idea of pubs?

Sweet.Science

is_that_so wrote: »

It's what we saw up until December last year. Once you keep the more at risk out of the firing line, it's far less of a public health issue.

Agreed think we all knew this would probably happen with the vaccine rollout but still good to see it come to fruition .

Our modelling hasn't changed though?

Seems like it should pretty soon

GooglePlus

prunudo wrote: »

Really, so given that we have the majority of the vulnerable vaccinated, you will be happy to live in a two teir society, where vaccinated people can go for a pint but healthy people who generally aren't seriously affected if they contract covid must stay locked down.

Not only that, but your ability to enjoy other freedoms is dependent on pharmaceutical companies being true to their word and actually delivering what they promise. A case of you might get a vaccine in June, but sure we cant say so we'll get back to you. All the while hospital numbers are falling and completely manageable.

What do you suggest, we impose restrictions on everyone until we reach sufficient vaccination levels to allow a full opening? So tell those who are no longer at risk to remain under full restriction, even when it would be completely safe for them to go on holiday (many countries opening up to vaccinated tourism). You can't have your pie until I get mine?

is_that_so

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Agreed think we all knew this would probably happen with the vaccine rollout but still good to see it come to fruition .

Our modelling hasn't changed though?

Seems like it should pretty soon

I wouldn't fault the modelling, even if it didn't see Christmas coming and has been way off at other times. In its favour it is continually adjusted and still serves us as a decent rough estimate.

Sweet.Science

Also it's really showing the smaller the country the quicker the vaccine rollout helps . I think we have a big advantage being a population of 5m with only a few big cities

Sweet.Science

is_that_so wrote: »

I wouldn't fault the modelling, even if it didn't see Christmas coming and has been way off at other times. In its favour it is continually adjusted and still serve us as a decent rough estimate.

Oh don't get me wrong it would be prudent to keep it . However, its pointless when we are still going off pre vaccine data .

is_that_so

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong it would be prudent to keep it . However, its pointless when we are still going off pre vaccine data .

Until we get to a reasonable number vaccinated that's all we have as a reference.

LillyIsland

If the population of Ireland is 4.9 million and 4,800 people have died from covid, am I right in saying the death rate is 0.0009% ?

bucketybuck

GooglePlus wrote: »

So tell those who are no longer at risk to remain under full restriction, even when it would be completely safe for them to go on holiday

Isn't that what we have been doing for over a year now?

I completely agree then, all those people not at risk should be allowed to get out and live their lives.

GooglePlus

LillyIsland wrote: »

If the population of Ireland is 4.9 million and 4,800 people have died from covid, am I right in saying the death rate is 0.0009% ?

No, you're assuming that 4.9 million people have caught it.

LillyIsland

No but what I'm saying is 0.0009% of the population have passed away from covid... Is that correct?

GooglePlus

bucketybuck wrote: »

Isn't that what we have been doing for over a year now?

I completely agree then, all those people not at risk should be allowed to get out and live their lives.

As well as not a risk to others. There's a reason why countries don't want unvaccinated arriving in. Even Israel, who has most vaccinated as far as I know, won't allow you in without a vaccine. Even at such high levels of vaccination, they're still only allowing 20 to meet indoors, and still have limitations on stadiums etc.

GooglePlus

LillyIsland wrote: »

If the population of Ireland is 4.9 million and 4,800 people have died from covid, am I right in saying the death rate is 0.0009% ?

No, it's 0.1% and that was with restrictive measures.

eeepaulo

LillyIsland wrote: »

No but what I'm saying is 0.0009% of the population have passed away from covid... Is that correct?

No that's wrong as well covid deaths as a percentage of population is about 1/1000 or 0.1%

Faugheen

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Agreed think we all knew this would probably happen with the vaccine rollout but still good to see it come to fruition .

Our modelling hasn't changed though?

Seems like it should pretty soon

In fairness Philip Nolan has introduced modelling that would show the impact of higher vaccination numbers on the R-number.

He said that if there were a certain number of cases (can’t remember how many) with theoretical r-number of 1.4 without vaccines, then that same number drops substantially as more people are vaccinated even if the same number of cases are showing up. That’s why NPHET keeps saying that fully vaccinated numbers are too low right now.

Jim_Hodge

LillyIsland wrote: »

If the population of Ireland is 4.9 million and 4,800 people have died from covid, am I right in saying the death rate is 0.0009% ?

Even assuming everybody caught it you are several decimal places out in your percentage.

LillyIsland

eeepaulo wrote: »

No that's wrong as well covid deaths as a percentage of population is about 1/1000 or 0.1%

How did you calculate that?

Faugheen

LillyIsland wrote: »

How did you calculate that?

4,800 divided by 4,900,000 then multiply your answer my 100

It gives you 0.098%, which is just below 0.1%

GooglePlus

LillyIsland wrote: »

How did you calculate that?

I think you just divided 4.9m into 4800.

poppers

LillyIsland wrote: »

How did you calculate that?

(48000/4900000)*100=0.098%

divide 4800 into 4.9 Million.

The calculator will display 0.0009795.

.001 is 1/1000.

so .0009705 is close but still not 1/1000.

Klonker

Its been a little funny the last few weeks hearing NIAC, NPHET and the Government relaying how little risk covid is to under 30s in particular. First it was to justify the change in the vaccine rollout plan to go more so by age rather than occupation and now we are hearing it again in terms of the risk of covid versus the risk of a cloth from the vaccine. Where were these comments for the last 13 months? We were being led to believe that young people with no underlying conditions were filling up hospitals, ICUs and dying and then we here Karina Butler of NIAC stat on a number of radio stations yesterday that about 90% of under 30s get no symptoms, never mind severe covid.

Look, its good that they are telling us the truth at the moment about these things but it's funny the way we only hear about them when it suits the speakers narrative. It's a bit jarring hearing these stats while also hearing talks of vaccine passports to go to the pub for these people who have less than 1 in 100,000 chance of dying of covid if they did happen to catch it.

Will they be still stating how small a chance these cohorts have of dying or getting severe covid if by end of June everyone else has a dose (first dose does about 90% of the heavy lifting in the vaccines, second dose is more for longtivity we think at the moment) or will they go back to telling us how susceptable this group is to severe covid?

I guess what I'm trying to say is why can't they be completely honest with us at all times and not just when it suits the narrative they want at that particular time. Does anybody actually believe we'll have 3.5% of cases hospitalised even after elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated? (stated by NPHET) or that if we increase contacts slightly we'll have 200,000 cases by September even though almost everyone would be vaccinated by then? (again stated by NPHET)

funnydoggy

Klonker wrote: »

Its been a little funny the last few weeks hearing NIAC, NPHET and the Government relaying how little risk covid is to under 30s in particular. First it was to justify the change in the vaccine rollout plan to go more so by age rather than occupation and now we are hearing it again in terms of the risk of covid versus the risk of a cloth from the vaccine. Where were these comments for the last 13 months? We were being led to believe that young people with no underlying conditions were filling up hospitals, ICUs and dying and then we here Karina Butler of NIAC stat on a number of radio stations yesterday that about 90% of under 30s get no symptoms, never mind severe covid.

Look, its good that they are telling us the truth at the moment about these things but it's funny the way we only hear about them when it suits the speakers narrative.

Good points above.

rusty cole

rusty cole wrote: »

divide 4800 into 4.9 Million.

The calculator will display 0.0009795.

.001 is 1/1000.

so .0009705 is close but still not 1/1000.

Something seriously wrong will your calculator if you get 0.0009705 where you divide 4800 into 4.9 million.

And 0.0009795 = 0.001. Its =/= 0.0010

prunudo

GooglePlus wrote: »

What do you suggest, we impose restrictions on everyone until we reach sufficient vaccination levels to allow a full opening? So tell those who are no longer at risk to remain under full restriction, even when it would be completely safe for them to go on holiday (many countries opening up to vaccinated tourism). You can't have your pie until I get mine?

Firstly, nothing is completely safe. Secondly I propose that we don't use vaccinations as a metric for opening up. Certainly not to the same extent that the government have been relying on to date. We are putting everything on hold to wait until healthy people are vaccinated.
We are a minimum of 3 months from a 40 year being fully vaccinated, and with developments over the last few days that could be 6 months away or more.

GooglePlus

prunudo wrote: »

Firstly, nothing is completely safe. Secondly I propose that we don't use vaccinations as a metric for opening up. Certainly not to the same extent that the government have been relying on to date. We are putting everything on hold to wait until healthy people are vaccinated.
We are a minimum of 3 months from a 40 year being fully vaccinated, and with developments over the last few days that could be 6 months away or more.

So what has Israel still restricting society with way more vaccinated than we do? They don't have a NPHET to blame, perhaps it's just not as straightforward as some think. We're limited in what we can do with the easing of restrictions, the virus hasn't gone away you know and is only suppressed because of measures in place. We open up, the case numbers go up.

seamus

For reference, the typical yearly death count in Ireland is about 30,000.

Which means about 1 in 6 deaths over the last 12 months are Covid deaths.

We won't get a full picture for a while tbh. It's not 30,000 deaths, with 4800 Covid deaths on top of it. Many of those who died are in the cohorts most likely to have died anyway. And the nature of a lockdown means that the typical death profile for the year will have been altered anyway. So there's a good chance we'll see no excess deaths this year, but that doesn't mean we overcooked our response. 4,800 deaths is a big number and we know from other western countries that it could easily have been double that if our response had been less restrictive.

Klonker wrote: »

I guess what I'm trying to say is why can't they be completely honest with us at all times and not just when it suits the narrative they want at that particular time.

I agree completely with your post, and I have raged many times over the last 12 months with RTE and NPHET wheeling out severely injured younger people and publishing stats on infections in schools.
I do understand why, though I'm conflicted on it. The concern would be that if you say, "Look, if you're under 50 you statistically don't need to worry about this", there's a good chance younger people will throw caution to the wind. This will result in widespread infection, which will unavoidably impact the most vulnerable cohorts. And will, ultimately, result in excess deaths in younger age groups.

No, people as a group cannot be trusted to use their best judgement. Simply presenting the information honestly and asking people to do the right thing, will fall flat on its face. Everyone's "best judgement" has a curious bias towards those things which present the least inconvenience to the individual.

This is not an Irish thing, it's a human thing.

My gut feeling though is that there was always a need for more honesty with clearer and stronger enforcement. We already know that "shock" advertising doesn't work on younger people. Yet they persisted on giving it a go anyway.

I am glad to hear it going the other way though. We can't stay at this level of restriction if the majority of over 60s are vaccinated, so the plan to lift restrictions needs to only be balanced against the vaccination programme and not absolutely dependent on it.