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

funnydoggy

seamus wrote: »

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.

It's a precarious situation isn't it. Hard to know where to go from here, on the government's end. Their messaging wasn't good at all throughout this. Now it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

OwenM

is_that_so wrote: »

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

And a fifth!!! at least there is if you listen to that ridiculous idiot Tomas Ryan.

seamus

In other news, the official number of people in hospital this morning is 192.

This is a phenomenal number.

Why? Because hospital numbers have only been lower than 192, once in the last six months.

And this number will continue dropping this week.

OwenM

Faugheen wrote: »

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.

Philip Nolans models can't come up with a better range for R than 0.6 - 1.0 which is totally meaningless, he's either saying case numbers are falling quickly or they are static so you might as well read the tea leaves or get out the old Ouija board.

CoronaBlocker

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?

Most of us were never at risk at all.

The old and the vulnerable are, for the most part, protected and are no longer at risk. The people that have had covid have a natural immunity so are not at risk. The remaining cohorts face little risk from covid due to their age.

What is to stop all of the above groups mingling now? We don't need a two-tier, segregated society if the old and the vulnerable are protected - that was the only reason for lockdown in the first place - to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed. And that's been achieved now.

When everyone 60+ and the vulnerable are fully boxed off then there is little genuine threat remaining so opening up society again (safely but without an abundance of caution) is paramount. Those that have never really faced any risk have given plenty so deserve the chance to patch their lives back together.

Unless, of course, society wants a situation where vaccinated people are happy to have the unvaccinated carry their bags but not have to mix with them socially... what's that called again?

I understand preventing the unvaccinated coming in from abroad - but building those structures internally it would be unforgivable - and unforgettable.

Turtwig

Need to be careful here. The risk NIAC are talking about to under 30s is very different to the risk of covid for that cohort without any vaccination programme. They're not communicating it well. But I have some sympathy there it's a fcking hard thing to communicate.

NIAC are assuming that going forward only a small proportion of under 30s will get covid thanks to restrictions and everyone around them being vaccinated. Whereas we have to vaccinate all of them. Even if the risk of vaccination is lower than covid if enough people under 30 were never going to get covid and everyone under 30 is a given a vaccine you could end up with more people under 30 in ICU from the vaccine than the virus. The level of disease incidence in the population group determines the trade off.

If there were no vaccine the risk to folks under 30 is markedly different. Substantially so.

Also the crude analysis done by MHRA and NIAC does not take into account underlying health conditions, general hospitalisations, long covid etc. It doesn't need to but again I think they need to communicate that. I also disagree with their exclusion of risk medical conditions. The risk benefits massively favours the vaccines for those cohorts. Currently our disease incidence is low but that requires the level of social contacts to be broadly maintained. I cannot see that holding as we open up. If the disease incidence rises then the risk profile changes. Especially for the more vulnerable cohorts. They need vaccines sooner rather than later.

Faugheen

OwenM wrote: »

Philip Nolans models can't come up with a better range for R than 0.6 - 1.0 which is totally meaningless, he's either saying case numbers are falling quickly or they are static so you might as well read the tea leaves or get out the old Ouija board.

In fairness while disease is still spreading then the R-number is nearly always going to be in that range at minimum. 0.5 is fairly possible but anything lower than that you would basically have to shut everything down. Supermarkets, hospitals etc.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

In fairness while disease is still spreading then the R-number is nearly always going to be in that range at minimum. 0.5 is fairly possible but anything lower than that you would basically have to shut everything down. Supermarkets, hospitals etc.

Viruses spread, not diseases.

Not everyone who catches a virus experiences a "disease".

It may seem pedantic, but the inaccurate use of the word, disease, coupled with the definite article, "the", is needlessly OTT and scaremongering.

It's caught on as a fashionable thing to say, no thanks due to Philip Nolan and the other members of NPHET who positively enjoy that expression.

OwenM

Faugheen wrote: »

In fairness while disease is still spreading then the R-number is nearly always going to be in that range at minimum. 0.5 is fairly possible but anything lower than that you would basically have to shut everything down. Supermarkets, hospitals etc.

Thats total nonsense, 'While the disease is still spreading.....' so the R number would be what then when it's not spreading?

The R number is supposed to indicate the reproductive ability the disease, if Nolan comes out with a range that predicts quickly falling cases or no fall in cases then it is total rubbish so you'll excuse me if I don't have faith in any his other scribblings, they aren't worth a damn.

Klonker

Turtwig wrote: »

Need to be careful here. The risk NIAC are talking about to under 30s is very different to the risk of covid for that cohort without any vaccination programme. They're not communicating it well. But I have some sympathy there it's a fcking hard thing to communicate.

The stats they were using though weren't the probability of catching covid and then your chances of dying. It was just your chances of dying if you get covid. So let's not get that confused as that what it seems you think they are comparing when using those stats. I listened to Karina Butler on every radio interview she did yesterday.

They did make their decision though on based on chances of getting covid and chances of ending up in ICU and/or dying. In fairness its impossible for them to give stats to back up this moving target as case figures increase/decrease over time. Its really a judgement call and they went ultra conservative as they'd say themselves.

Ficheall

OwenM wrote: »

The R number is supposed to indicate the reproductive ability the disease, if Nolan comes out with a range that predicts quickly falling cases or no fall in cases then it is total rubbish so you'll excuse me if I don't have faith in any his other scribblings, they aren't worth a damn.

Why, what range do your calculations give?

caveat emptor

Turtwig wrote: »

Need to be careful here. The risk NIAC are talking about to under 30s is very different to the risk of covid for that cohort without any vaccination programme. They're not communicating it well. But I have some sympathy there it's a fcking hard thing to communicate.

NIAC are assuming that going forward only a small proportion of under 30s will get covid thanks to restrictions and everyone around them being vaccinated. Whereas we have to vaccinate all of them. Even if the risk of vaccination is lower than covid if enough people under 30 were never going to get covid and everyone under 30 is a given a vaccine you could end up with more people under 30 in ICU from the vaccine than the virus. The level of disease incidence in the population group determines the trade off.

If there were no vaccine the risk to folks under 30 is markedly different. Substantially so.

Also the crude analysis done by MHRA and NIAC does not take into account underlying health conditions, general hospitalisations, long covid etc. It doesn't need to but again I think they need to communicate that. I also disagree with their exclusion of risk medical conditions. The risk benefits massively favours the vaccines for those cohorts. Currently our disease incidence is low but that requires the level of social contacts to be broadly maintained. I cannot see that holding as we open up. If the disease incidence rises then the risk profile changes. Especially for the more vulnerable cohorts. They need vaccines sooner rather than later.

Yeah I hope they can figure out if there is a common denominator among those who get this clotting. It's quite rare at a population level but the risk could be high for people of a certain demographic which could be excluded from astrazenica vaccine. That would allow the rollout to continue once understood.

Really good article here on how it was discovered.

https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1382257198433247239?s=20

Faugheen

OwenM wrote: »

Thats total nonsense, 'While the disease is still spreading.....' so the R number would be what then when it's not spreading?

That’s a question in bad faith because you know that the virus is going to spread. If you have a virus which isn’t going to be contagious in anyway, shape or form and doesn’t spread from person to person then it’s going to be 0. Since that’s not the case with this virus, then it’s not going to be 0, because 0 indicates that it doesn’t spread.

Why is what I said nonsense?

OwenM wrote: »

The R number is supposed to indicate the reproductive ability the disease, if Nolan comes out with a range that predicts quickly falling cases or no fall in cases then it is total rubbish so you'll excuse me if I don't have faith in any his other scribblings, they aren't worth a damn.

The R number does that, but it’s taken at moments in time. If you have a situation where there are no restrictions whatsoever, then the R number in any given week will be quite high.

At the other end of the scale, if you have the most stringent restrictions to the point where people literally can’t leave their homes for anything whatsoever (hypothetical situation) then the R number will be very, very low and closer to 0.

If you have an R number of 0.1, then that means 10 people infected are infecting one other person. That would require people to mostly adhere to very, very strict restrictions which would be a mile worse than what we have now.

If you have a number that’s 0.5, then 2 people are infecting one other person.

Why is it that when I’m trying to relay the facts that I’m dismissed as nonsense? You have offered no factual basis for your opinions and anything that challenges it with it’s called nonsense.

It’s not the first time I’ve had to explain why the R-number is nearly always in that 0.6-1 area as a minimum and once again the poster doesn’t like it and just says I’m chatting sh*te.

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Viruses spread, not diseases.

Not everyone who catches a virus experiences a "disease".

It may seem pedantic, but the inaccurate use of the word, disease, coupled with the definite article, "the", is needlessly OTT and scaremongering.

It's caught on as a fashionable thing to say, no thanks due to Philip Nolan and the other members of NPHET who positively enjoy that expression.

Well sorry if you don’t like the word disease. I’ll use whichever I please thanks, because both are applicable even if one of them scares you.

kleiner feigling

Faugheen wrote: »

Well sorry if you don’t like the word disease. I’ll use whichever I please thanks, because both are applicable even if one of them scares you.

Both are not applicable in many cases.... ie. the asymptomatic cases in which there IS a virus, but there is NO disease.

Lumen

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Wow . Cases really not translating into hospitalisations like before

I wanted to dig into this a bit more using data sourced from OurWorldInData (I tried EU data sources but they're a mess).

Here's a chart showing cases, hospitalisations and ICU admissions over Ireland's pandemic.

I adjusted the stats to align for late November/early December 2020, which was the last time we had a steady state situation, before The Christmas Thing happened. I shall call this period "Autumn 2020".

Comparing the latest stats to that period, you can see that:

- The "ICU rate" (ICU admissions relative to cases) is now at about 2/3 of what it was in Autumn 2020.
- The "hospital admission rate" (hosp. admissions relative to cases) is now at about 1/4 of what it was in Autumn 2020.

This is obviously good news, but a little surprising to me. I had expected that ICU admissions would be depressed more than hospital admissions by vaccinations.

But then I remembered that hospital admissions is something like "the flow of people in hospital with COVID", which used to include a lot of people who picked up COVID whilst in hospital for other things, and so the reduction in that statistic is likely due to vaccination of healthcare workers making hospitals a less infectious place.

Aside from the interminable doom and gloom:

1.1 million doses of vaccine administered.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Aside from the interminable doom and gloom:

1.1 million doses of vaccine administered.

Does that figure include both doses?

ddarcy

DubInMeath wrote: »

Does that figure include both doses?

Yes. The Covid app says:
First dose: 758k
Second dose: 317k

Numbers through the 12th.

So 758k have received at least one dose (~15%) of the population

giveitholly

ddarcy wrote: »

Yes. The Covid app says:
First dose: 758k
Second dose: 317k

Numbers through the 12th.

So 758k have received at least one dose (~15%) of the population

Feels so slow,halfway through April and still no significant ramp up,not withstanding the issues with AZ and J&J yesterday

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Aside from the interminable doom and gloom:

1.1 million doses of vaccine administered.

Three posts later:

giveitholly wrote: »

Feels so slow,halfway through April and still no significant ramp up,not withstanding the issues with AZ and J&J yesterday

...and we're already back to the doom and gloom.

giveitholly

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...and we're already back to the doom and gloom.

Not trying to be gloomy but the figures the last two days don't inspire confidence,it always seems to be next week when we see the ramp up,Could you honestly see 860k vaccines being administered in April even if AZ hadn't been stopped for under 60s and there was no pause on J&J

stephenjmcd

giveitholly wrote: »

Not trying to be gloomy but the figures the last two days don't inspire confidence,it always seems to be next week when we see the ramp up,Could you honestly see 860k vaccines being administered in April even if AZ hadn't been stopped for under 60s and there was no pause on J&J

J&J is insignificant numbers this month.

AZ will get going again next week with the over 65s.

Will we hit 180k this week, nope because of the stop. Probably over 100k next week depending on the logicistical changes needed.

irishguy1983

ddarcy wrote: »

Yes. The Covid app says:
First dose: 758k
Second dose: 317k

Numbers through the 12th.

So 758k have received at least one dose (~15%) of the population

That's 758 with first dose and approx 250,000 already had it....Would it be fair to say 1 million already have some type of protection?? Or maybe not?

Lumen

irishguy1983 wrote: »

That's 758 with first dose and approx 250,000 already had it....Would it be fair to say 1 million already have some type of protection?? Or maybe not?

Not. 758k have at least one dose.

Cork2021

Walk in testing centre starting in Dunmanway



https://www.corkcoco.ie/en/news/covid-19-test-asymptomatic-people-now-available-dunmanway-centre?fbclid=IwAR3hVTdDdwS8K2_DzJj5lMeIby0UwQCEcaZHQv_8QeTzaybicPtpRvx94QI

caveat emptor

Despite the low levels of the South African variant in UK it's growing quite quickly. We might get a lot more data on how effective AZ vaccine is against it given the number of people innoculated there with that vaccine. South African cancelled their order of AZ and didn't use the doses they had based on clinical trial data that showed it didn't stop mild or moderate in a youngish trial participants. No evidence on hospitalisations or death as didn't occur in either arm of trial.

B.1.351 is a successful lineage in South Africa and is becoming successful internationally, including in Europe. It remains at a low prevalence in England.
Monitoring is required as lockdown eases and the vaccinated population increases.

There is increasingly robust laboratory data supporting antigenic distance between B.1.351 and older viruses,
and there is clinical trial evidence of a reduction in vaccine efficacy relating to infection,
but insufficient evidence to assess any impact on prevention of severe disease or death.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975742/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_8_England.pdf

irishguy1983

Lumen wrote: »

Not. 758k have at least one dose.

I mean like 250,000 have antibodies as they already have gotten it and have some type of protection.....Hence a million....No???

Lumen

irishguy1983 wrote: »

I mean like 250,000 have antibodies as they already have gotten it and have some type of protection.....Hence a million....No???

Ah, gotcha. More like 200k, since post-infection immunity only lasts about six months.

Although there are another cohort of people who've been infected but haven't been a confirmed case. Dunno what level of immunity they have though.

irishguy1983

Lumen wrote: »

Ah, gotcha. More like 200k, since post-infection immunity only lasts about six months.

Although there are another cohort of people who've been infected but haven't been a confirmed case. Dunno what level of immunity they have though.

Yeah defo not saying my figures are exact science - far from it....


Maybe trying to be too positive