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

lawred2

DebDynamite wrote: »

Ok well, you suggested he should’ve at least started trying to reform the HSE. Like that’s going to happen in the middle of a pandemic...

Actually, now is the ideal time. It's painfully clear to all that we are not well served by our health service and at great cost to us all.

You tell us all when you think is the ideal time?

firemansam4

Hector Savage wrote: »

Here

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ftfIVRYIIAfDBolkIKErMKEoZ-69EM04aXD4W2QJde8/edit?usp=sharing

Ok just took a quick look at that.
It states that there is a 75% reduction in Hospital admisions for the vaccinated group a little further up, and thats only for people's who have recieved the first vaccine dose.

Seems like the article is full of contradictions, I wouldn't pay to much attention to it to be hounest.

bucketybuck

lawred2 wrote: »

Actually, now is the ideal time. It's painfully clear to all that we are not well served by our health service and at great cost to us all.

You tell us all when you think is the ideal time?

It reminded me a little of the gun nut argument, when they say that just after a mass shooting is not the time to be talking about gun reform...

This period where there is massive public support for the health service, where people are making sacrifices to protect the health service, when it has been demonstrated how important the health service is and how much it hurts us all during a crisis to have a poor health service...

That is somehow not the time to be taking advantage and getting commitments and funding for improvements and reforms?

political analyst

The physician Dr Alan Farrell wrote this article for Gript - and please try to look past the identity of that outlet just for a moment!

https://gript.ie/opinion-as-a-doctor-rtes-one-sidedness-astounds-me/

.... what was notable, and indeed remarkable, was that Prof. McConkey (and Claire Byrne) both denied knowing who Prof. John Ioannidis was. Prof. John Ioannidis’s title at Stanford University is Professor of Medicine (Stanford Prevention Research), of Epidemiology and Population Health, and by courtesy, of statistics and of biomedical data science.

Even I, a humble doctor, know that Prof. Ioannidis is widely regarded as the greatest Epidemiologist in the World not to mention one of the most published Doctors in the history of Medicine. He has been very involved in the Covid-19 story around the World and his peer reviewed work has been published far and wide.

How does McConkey not know who Ioannidis is?!

Doesn't this raise an issue regarding the reliability of what Irish public-health experts say to mainstream media?

caveat emptor

The Donnelly is getting stuff done. After royally ffff ing up lots of things he is actually doing important things.
Bizarre that public health doctors weren't consultants. They'd be trained up and then just leave and get consultant status abroad.

The Government is to establish more than 80 new consultant posts in public health medicine over the next 2½ years as part of a proposed agreement on a new model of service which would aim to end a long-running dispute over contracts and pay issues.

https://twitter.com/HIVTox/status/1382948586011439105?s=20

political analyst

political analyst wrote: »

The physician Dr Alan Farrell wrote this article for Gript - and please try to look past the identity of that outlet just for a moment!

https://gript.ie/opinion-as-a-doctor-rtes-one-sidedness-astounds-me/



How does McConkey not know who Ioannidis is?!

Doesn't this raise an issue regarding the reliability of what Irish public-health experts say to mainstream media?

Prof Ionnaidis is the greatest epidemiologist in the world? He seems to be famed for constantly criticising published science and claims it is often sloppy.

He co-authored a paper that estimated IFR of covid at 0.1%. So far 0.17% of the US population have died with/from Covid. Most of the country must have had it twice so.

DebDynamite

bucketybuck wrote: »

It reminded me a little of the gun nut argument, when they say that just after a mass shooting is not the time to be talking about gun reform...

This period where there is massive public support for the health service, where people are making sacrifices to protect the health service, when it has been demonstrated how important the health service is and how much it hurts us all during a crisis to have a poor health service...

That is somehow not the time to be taking advantage and getting commitments and funding for improvements and reforms?

It’s a mess, I agree. The deadwood needs to be cleared from the HSE, which would inevitably lead to job losses, and I can’t see the unions going for that at a time where the health service have huge support.

saabsaab

Deleted User wrote: »

Prof Ionnaidis is the greatest epidemiologist in the world? He seems to be famed for constantly criticising published science and claims it is often sloppy.

He co-authored a paper that estimated IFR of covid at 0.1%. So far 0.17% of the US population have died with/from Covid. Most of the country must have had it twice so.

Yes. You can always get an expert in any field that has a different opinion. Look at many court cases and you can get one expert for one sidie and another saying something different.

seamus

What is it about the rugby crowd that makes them so right-wing? First you have Eddie O'Sullivan on whining about lockdowns, then this rugby physio writes for Gript whinging about it.

Amusing to see the "related posts" column though. All about why lockdown is bad. How a "Top Doctor" was fired for being anti-vax.

Gript is a gateway to conspiracy theorists and libertarians.

Don't waste your time.

Polar101

political analyst wrote: »

Gript - and please try to look past the identity of that outlet just for a moment!

But why? The world is full of sources that are best ignored.
Whenever someone posts a comment that has a link to a - say, Daily Mail article, I scroll past.

I'd say the credibility of McConkey is quite low here in many peoples' eyes anyway.

robbiezero

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Wonder will Mr Donnelly be as abrupt to the commission as he was on Prime Time last night

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1383007593883443203?s=20

it believes goal of protecting public health “could be achieved with less restrictive measures”

As a general point, It is quite right there.

PTH2009

This country

Last night very positive in reopening and only a few hours later brought back to earth by more negativity

Head wrecking

Lucas Hood

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1383058103348912129?s=19

seamus

378 positive swabs, 2.48% positivity.

Still a decent downward trend, though slowed a lot from last week.

saabsaab

PTH2009 wrote: »

This country

Last night very positive in reopening and only a few hours later brought back to earth by more negativity

Head wrecking

It is an exceptional situation so no wonder. Things are getting more positive we just have to wait. Don't ask when I have already said that we are talking about end June. Barring new variant(s).

KrustyUCC

Lucas Hood wrote: »

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1383058103348912129?s=19

Last week.for comparison

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1380515096624041985

stephenjmcd

PTH2009 wrote: »

This country

Last night very positive in reopening and only a few hours later brought back to earth by more negativity

Head wrecking

What negativity?

What's changed since last night apart from the EU commission writing to government. Nothing much else really

godzilla89

godzilla89 wrote: »

He was alot closer with his IFR than the 3% IFR many other experts put it at.

I didn't see any publications putting it that high.

SAGE worst case scenario planning had it at 1% in March 2020

The Irish worst case estimates were based on a 1.5% IFR around that time.

lawred2

seamus wrote: »

What is it about the rugby crowd that makes them so right-wing? First you have Eddie O'Sullivan on whining about lockdowns, then this rugby physio writes for Gript whinging about it.

Amusing to see the "related posts" column though. All about why lockdown is bad. How a "Top Doctor" was fired for being anti-vax.

Gript is a gateway to conspiracy theorists and libertarians.

Don't waste your time.

bit of a stretch based on a sample of two

saabsaab

lawred2 wrote: »

bit of a stretch based on a sample of two

Why do people pick on Rugby?

zebastein

Does somebody know what is the false positive rate of the PCR tests used in Ireland ?
If 1% of the tests are false positive, that is 150 false positive tests on a day with 15k tests like today.
150 false positive on 300/400 positive results would be a lot.

The only data I managed to get are from the UK:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf

Results of 43 EQAs were examined, giving a median false positive rate of 2.3% (interquartile range 0.8-4.0%)

A 2.3% false positive rate would give 345 false positive swabs out of 15k tests

ZX7R

saabsaab wrote: »

Yes. You can always get an expert in any field that has a different opinion. Look at many court cases and you can get one expert for one sidie and another saying something different.

So in that case you only listen to the experts that suit your own opinion on MHQ and the variants.

Amirani

zebastein wrote: »

Does somebody know what is the false positive rate of the PCR tests used in Ireland ?
If 1% of the tests are false positive, that is 150 false positive tests on a day with 15k tests like today.
150 false positive on 300/400 positive results would be a lot.

The only data I managed to get are from the UK:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf



A 2.3% false positive rate would give 345 false positive swabs out of 15k tests

False positives would be less than 1%.

It's hard to calculate what the rate is, but it depends on the population that you're testing and what the prevalence of the disease is - i.e. the false positive rate would be higher when disease prevalence is low. We're not just testing a random population either; we're testing people that either have symptoms, are close contacts, or work in risky areas (serial testing) - the population you test and their pre-test probabilities impacts the accuracy of the test.

ek motor

zebastein wrote: »

Does somebody know what is the false positive rate of the PCR tests used in Ireland ?
If 1% of the tests are false positive, that is 150 false positive tests on a day with 15k tests like today.
150 false positive on 300/400 positive results would be a lot.

The only data I managed to get are from the UK:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf



A 2.3% false positive rate would give 345 false positive swabs out of 15k tests

That's a very interesting point.

ek motor

Amirani wrote: »

False positives would be less than 1%.

It's hard to calculate what the rate is, but it depends on the population that you're testing and what the prevalence of the disease is - i.e. the false positive rate would be higher when disease prevalence is low. We're not just testing a random population either; we're testing people that either have symptoms, are close contacts, or work in risky areas (serial testing) - the population you test and their pre-test probabilities impacts the accuracy of the test.

How did you arrive at the figure of less than 1% ?

Derek Zoolander

ek motor wrote: »

That's a very interesting point.

its also nearly a year old - since then there has been alignment on the CT threshold to use and as noted false positives with PCR seem to be very low.. at least under 1%

Mitch Connor

Derek Zoolander wrote: »

its also nearly a year old - since then there has been alignment on the CT threshold to use and as noted false positives with PCR seem to be very low.. at least under 1%

Is it 1% of tests are false positive
or
Is it 1% of positive results are false positive?

Amirani

ek motor wrote: »

How did you arrive at the figure of less than 1% ?

The specificity of the test is over 99%. Most false positives that we end up with will be as a result of swab contamination or picking up traces from virus from people who are no longer infectious.

paddyisreal

RGS wrote: »

MHQ is a disaster.

If Donnelly was as sure about MHQ as he claims he would be instructing his legal team to defend all challenges but id say the AG is in his ear
"Just fold in this case".

A disaster is not the word. I presently know someone on the way back from the USA which was put on the list at 4am on Thursday morning via Paris. He was meant to get in Wednesday. His flight was delayed and he only got in this morning now he is stuck in Paris who won't let him on his flight to dublin because he has no hotel booked. Guess what the quarantine Hotels are booked out so he is on limbo. He has no problem quarantine either . Some joke

Salvation Tambourine

Nokotan wrote: »

Sorry if this is common knowledge but how often are patients in hospital with Covid tested? Are their positive tests included in the daily figures?

Sorry for asking again but I didn't see any answer to this. Can anyone help?