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

SCOOP 64

Looking through the last few posts a lot of positivity, so opinions on what can we expect announce on Monday?

gctest50

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Looking through the last few posts a lot of positivity, so opinions on what can we expect announce on Monday?

7pm curfews might be all they've left to try

Jim_Hodge

External Association wrote: »

I know it was higher, but I wouldn't have expected 20% for late April, if so we wouldn't have got out of lockdown in June to level 3?

The positivity rate was pointless back then. It was raw numbers as we were only checking those with symptoms

SCOOP 64

gctest50 wrote: »

7pm curfews might be all they've left to try

No cant do that, how will i get my takeaways in the evening.

Eod100

https://twitter.com/NickyRyan_/status/1375901963594924035?s=19

Akabusi

Something has to be done with Donegal. A few weeks where the restrictions are actually enforced might finally bring them down.

spookwoman

Normal One

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Looking through the last few posts a lot of positivity, so opinions on what can we expect announce on Monday?

An incoherent "is there anything to be said for another mass" from our great leaders.

Klonker

Szero wrote: »

600 cases now is obviously nowhere near as serious as 600 cases would have been a few months ago.

The average age is getting younger and with that the risk profile is declining.

Has anyone attempted to put any science behind this? i.e. a risk weighting i.e. take the number of cases, the age profiles and the percentages chance of hospitalisation and convert into a risk weighting. This would help us more accurately compare back to prior months.

Is 600 cases now the equivalent of 400 cases a few months ago in terms of risk weighting ??? etc.

Some science might help bring focus away from the headline number and show an improving picture.

I think it's very hard to give exact figures as the vaccination numbers are changing every day but NPHET should have a rough idea of our current expected deaths/hospitalisations per number of cases at the moment but they are very slow to mention anything like this.

They have however said that even after the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated we would have 3.5% of cases ending up in hospital. Leo also said that he was told this by NPHET. The funny thing is at moment less than 3% of under 65s end up in hospital. That's before the vulnerable under 65s are vaccinated so you'd expect that percentage to drop a lot further after that too. Either their modelling is way off or they are being dishonest with us on purpose. Either way it's not good enough.

Harpon

Why don’t we test everyone in Ireland. Quarantine those who have it. Quarantine everyone coming into the country. There, covid is sorted in 1 month. Done.

tommyamnesia

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/newschambers/status/1375867770257215491/photo/1

0 in Leitrim and Roscommon

And Sligo!

lawred2

Harpon wrote: »

Why don’t we test everyone in Ireland. Quarantine those who have it. Quarantine everyone coming into the country. There, covid is sorted in 1 month. Done.

Good man yourself

Dr Devious

A guy at work who I come in to contact with briefly every day spews out 5h1te to me and others about the latest COVID theory’s, I’m way to polite to tell him to F off and don’t be annoying me hole with dung. He’s a sound bloke in general but holy jaysus the stuff he reads and takes on board and then regurgitates it to me and others. The UCD professor and her 5h1te, he believes every word, “they” are trying to to get rid of money, driving up costs & inflation, banning diesel and petrol cars, forcing people to buy much more expensive electric cars so as to burn off peoples wealth etc so as to keep people at home and “under control” the Suez Canal ship was deliberately grounded to inflate costs to the consumer ... I could go on and on. As I say he’s sound but very deluded and gullible and I wouldn’t want to hurt his feelings and tell him to cop on and stop talking diarrhoea, unfortunately they’re is growing generation of people who don’t participate in protests etc but STIlLL but in to the ****e.

Jim_Hodge

Carefree88 wrote: »

3.5% is wrong.Israel are saying 94% efficacy and 96% at preventing hospital cases

That's 0.24% chance of hospitalisation, 2.4 in a thousand, 2,400 in a 1 million, NPHET and Leo can't even do basic math.Worst case like Chile with that Chinese vaccine its 50% efficacy and 90% preventing hospital cases according to them, its 5,000 hospitalisations in a million.

Ach you're playing with numbers there.

And Chile with the third highest vaccination rate on an efficacy 90% preventing hospitalisations has declared a major emergency due to the hospital service now being overrun.

But carry on, you'll be fun for a while.

Jim_Hodge

Carefree88 wrote: »

Slovakia did similar not sure how they got on with it.

Population slightly above ours and currently about 1500 new cases per day for the past three months and 70+ deaths per day.

JRant

Klonker wrote: »

I think it's very hard to give exact figures as the vaccination numbers are changing every day but NPHET should have a rough idea of our current expected deaths/hospitalisations per number of cases at the moment but they are very slow to mention anything like this.

They have however said that even after the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated we would have 3.5% of cases ending up in hospital. Leo also said that he was told this by NPHET. The funny thing is at moment less than 3% of under 65s end up in hospital. That's before the vulnerable under 65s are vaccinated so you'd expect that percentage to drop a lot further after that too. Either their modelling is way off or they are being dishonest with us on purpose. Either way it's not good enough.

Nolan was asked that question on Thursday and waffles around for a while without answering it. I don't understand why he wouldn't. Those numbers are being used to form decisions that will most likely be acted upon by the government and effect us all. It's not like it's commercially sensitive information.

Jim_Hodge

Carefree88 wrote: »

Chile is one to watch for sure, if vaccines work as we are told then that math should mean the emergency should be short lived there, interesting times ahead, Israel vaccine sunshine everything opened, Chile vaccine doubt closing everything and UK in two minds what to do and US ploughing on.

No idea what point you're making there. It seems to contradict your first post.

Good luck. I'm out.

Wolf359f

Carefree88 wrote: »

3.5% is wrong.Israel are saying 94% efficacy and 96% at preventing hospital cases

That's 0.24% chance of hospitalisation, 2.4 in a thousand, 2,400 in a 1 million, NPHET and Leo can't even do basic math.Worst case like Chile with that Chinese vaccine its 50% efficacy and 90% preventing hospital cases according to them, its 5,000 hospitalisations in a million.

The 3.5% figure is the non vaccinated young people.
So once those are all protected, Leo is saying 3.5% of that young unvaccinated group will need hospitals care still. Nothing to do with vaccine efficacy.

Wolf359f

Carefree88 wrote: »

Gleen said vaccinated 3.5%

That's different than what the OP references. The OP stats seem more realistic. No way hospitalisation rate in vaccinated people is running at 3%
I think you may have misheard Glynn.

Stormyteacup

Wolf359f wrote: »

That's different than what the OP references. The OP stats seem more realistic. No way hospitalisation rate in vaccinated people is running at 3%
I think you may have misheard Glynn.

Did Varadkar not say 35 in 1,000 expected to be hospitalised? As in .35% - or did Glynn give different figures - haven’t read what Glynn said yet.

Stormyteacup

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Did Varadkar not say 35 in 1,000 expected to be hospitalised? As in .35% - or did Glynn give different figures - haven’t read what Glynn said yet.

35 in 1000 is 3.5% and if that is the number being thrown around then we are being taken for fools

Stormyteacup

Carefree88 wrote: »

35 in 1000 is 3.5%?

Aw not deleted quickly enough - alcohol maths

Klonker

JRant wrote: »

Nolan was asked that question on Thursday and waffles around for a while without answering it. I don't understand why he wouldn't. Those numbers are being used to form decisions that will most likely be acted upon by the government and effect us all. It's not like it's commercially sensitive information.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that he was questioned on it. Hopefully it's questioned again because it really needs to be.

Klonker

Carefree88 wrote: »

I didn't here him say it, but people here said he did say it in his briefing, I said 0.24% is the correct figure based on pfizer israel, 2,400 in 1 million will need hospital care

I posted it here earlier. Ronan Glynn and Leo both said that if all elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated we'll still have 3.5% of cases ending up in hospital. They didn't mention what percentage of that 3.5% would be the vaccinated or unvaccinated but you'd expect that they think the unvaccinated will make up the majority of the 3.5%. They didn't say what age is viewed as elderly or what groups constitute vulnerable.

My point is currently less than 3% of cases under 65s are hospitalised so its hard to see how this would jump to 3.5% when vulnerable are vaccinated too. The modelling by NPHET certainly needs to be questioned on this.

TheDoctor

Hospital numbers at 8pm

Total 319 (up from 304 last night)
ICU 65 (down from 66 last night)

Last Saturday
Total 350
ICU 83

purplefields

Deeper Blue wrote: »

Most of this post is pure conjecture

Well of course it is.
I would have thought that self-evident considering I'm making predictions about the future.

The virus could certainly suddenly fizzle out. It could evolve to a dominant benign variant. However, there is also the possibility it could evolve into something far worse.

This is what Governments are terrified of - and lockdowns continue or even get more stringent.

From my armchair youtube research, I believe a worse variant is a likely outcome because:
1. People can spread it before getting sick. This means that the virus doesn't have to evolve into something more benign. It's spread before the person dies.

2. It seems to be able to infect vast numbers of people. More cases = more mutations. (also why Governments are worried about cases, even if it's 20 something year olds getting it)

3.It is a single strand RNA virus. This means it can mutate easier than a double strand style virus and harder to make vaccines for.

Wolf359f

Klonker wrote: »

I posted it here earlier. Ronan Glynn and Leo both said that if all elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated we'll still have 3.5% of cases ending up in hospital. They didn't mention what percentage of that 3.5% would be the vaccinated or unvaccinated but you'd expect that they think the unvaccinated will make up the majority of the 3.5%. They didn't say what age is viewed as elderly or what groups constitute vulnerable.

My point is currently less than 3% of cases under 65s are hospitalised so its hard to see how this would jump to 3.5% when vulnerable are vaccinated too. The modelling by NPHET certainly needs to be questioned on this.

I think they were trying to make the point that taking the vulnerable out of the equation (via vaccination), young and healthy people will still need hospital care.
The 3.5% seems a little high (it's currently 2.6% of under 65*)
Once would assume with cohort 4 being vaccinated, that 2.6% would drop.

*That's based on the 14 days reports, but if someone tests positive and are hospitalized after the 14 day report is complied, they would not be counted, so that figure could be wildly understated.

Klonker

Wolf359f wrote: »

I think they were trying to make the point that taking the vulnerable out of the equation (via vaccination), young and healthy people will still need hospital care.
The 3.5% seems a little high (it's currently 2.6% of under 65*)
Once would assume with cohort 4 being vaccinated, that 2.6% would drop.

*That's based on the 14 days reports, but if someone tests positive and are hospitalized after the 14 day report is complied, they would not be counted, so that figure could be wildly understated.

I get the point they're trying to make. We can't just forget all restrictions as soon as the vulnerable are all vaccinated. But they shouldn't be making up or manipulating stats or modelling to make this point. As you've shown the 3.5% makes absolutely no sense. If they think we'll need restrictions after the vulnerable are vaccinated (and I'm not trying to advocate we won't) then they should be able with real modelling to show this if it's true and not lie to us. They want us all to keep buying into all this yet they won't be honest with us.

Dickie10

i dont think there will be much retrictions eased between now and mid june. id say it will be july before hotels/pubs open

Wolf359f

Klonker wrote: »

I get the point they're trying to make. We can't just forget all restrictions as soon as the vulnerable are all vaccinated. But they shouldn't be making up or manipulating stats or modelling to make this point. As you've shown the 3.5% makes absolutely no sense. If they think we'll need restrictions after the vulnerable are vaccinated (and I'm not trying to advocate we won't) then they should be able with real modelling to show this if it's true and not lie to us. They want us all to keep buying into all this yet they won't be honest with us.

Totally agree. I've been looking and the data available is so hit and miss.
On the covid hub data https://opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fe9bb23592ec4142a4f4c2c9bd32f749_0.csv, it shows a total of 8516 hospital admissions and 9699 hospital confirmed covid. On the weekly reports, it lists a total of 13313 hospitalized with covid. Anybody any clue what the hospitalization rate actually is?
Another point, it lists a column (SUM_number_of_confirmed_covid_1) it doesn't tie in with daily case numbers, would this be the positive cases confirmed in hospital labs from swabs taken in the public?