Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

ArthurDayne

Arghus wrote: »

McConkey has for sure said some inconsistent things throughout, but he was referencing those kind of figures in terms of a possible worst case scenario, not that it was a certainty that those kind of figures were to be expected. He never said we are definitely going to have 80,000 deaths or more, he was making an assumption about the worst possible outcome.

It amazes me that so many people thanked your post, without really thinking about it. I guess if you just put the combination of "McConkey" and "doom" close together it'll get the thanks, even if the sentiments expressed aren't accurate or logical.

If someone asks you what is the worst possible outcome of a given situation, you outlining that isn't the same as saying you think it definitely will happen.

Did McConkey express that as a worst case scenario though? As far as I remember, 80,000 was the lower end of the scale he predicted, with the higher end going into the 100k+ reaches. I’m not even sure if he was talking about this being a ‘No Restrictions Whatsoever’ scenario either and I’m also not sure what his timescale for this prediction was. Also, I would point out that there is a particular responsibility on people in positions of expertise. When they make statements like this, they tend to be taken seriously by all — from the ordinary citizen, up through the media, and indeed all the way to government (I actually recall either Harris or Varadkar specifically saying that McConkey’s figures had been influential to their thinking). In that regard, if you are going to fire out these kinds of huge numbers as an expert, I think it is reasonable to expect that they will be influential in discourse and decision making and to expect that you will be pilloried for being wrong.

Also, McConkey seems to fall in line with other experts or academics who made similarly dire predictions. There can be no room for interpretation about “worse case scenarios” in other studies which reflected the kind of huge numbers McConkey was talking about. For example, a study from Uppsala University (using the Imperial College model that most definitely was influential in decision-making), predicted that Sweden’s Covid strategy last year would cause 96,000 deaths by July 2020. That statement, entirely unequivocal, can be found in paragraph 1 of page 17 of the study here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133v1.full.pdf

So, to me, given the severity of restrictions which citizens have been made to endure for over a year of their lives — one feels very ill-equipped to chastise people for calling out those who were projecting these kinds of numbers.

castletownman

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I've heard insinuations that people will be offered twirls if they can't be offered flakes.

To be fair, twirls are the superior chocolate.

No side-effects of it flaking everywhere either.

I'd take it.

Widdensushi

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I've heard insinuations that people will be offered twirls if they can't be offered flakes.

Supposedly flakes are widely available in private schools!!!!!

funnydoggy

Can we stop with the flakes / twirls argument?

Refuse either one and you'll be put to the back of the queue :pac:

kleiner feigling

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Also, I would point out that there is a particular responsibility on people in positions of expertise. When they make statements like this, they tend to be taken seriously by all — from the ordinary citizen, up through the media, and indeed all the way to government (I actually recall either Harris or Varadkar specifically saying that McConkey’s figures had been influential to their thinking). In that regard, if you are going to fire out these kinds of huge numbers as an expert, I think it is reasonable to expect that they will be influential in discourse and decision making and to expect that you will be pilloried for being wrong.

Some acknowledgment of the limitations of humans and modelling is needed, I feel.
We use modelling in my own work, and it can be powerful in coming to quick conclusions IF you input the right parameters. But in modelling its neccessary to significantly simplify/reduce the inputs parameters to get any conclusion.
With covid there are so many variables it seems a very challenging prospect to a) select the most relevant factors b) reach conclusions that are numerically accurate.

To date the modelling has tended to given us worst-case predictions that haven't been borne out in reality.

Another issue is society's reluctance to accept that all humans are fallible; government, scientists etc. The likes of McConkey etc. might mean well, but it doesn't mean they'll get it right every time, or even half the time. No need to ridicule them, as we get data we can and should rigorously review it and re-jig our approach.
Unfortunately, I've seen very little of that happening in the policies to date.

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Did McConkey express that as a worst case scenario though? As far as I remember, 80,000 was the lower end of the scale he predicted, with the higher end going into the 100k+ reaches. I’m not even sure if he was talking about this being a ‘No Restrictions Whatsoever’ scenario either and I’m also not sure what his timescale for this prediction was. Also, I would point out that there is a particular responsibility on people in positions of expertise. When they make statements like this, they tend to be taken seriously by all — from the ordinary citizen, up through the media, and indeed all the way to government (I actually recall either Harris or Varadkar specifically saying that McConkey’s figures had been influential to their thinking). In that regard, if you are going to fire out these kinds of huge numbers as an expert, I think it is reasonable to expect that they will be influential in discourse and decision making and to expect that you will be pilloried for being wrong.

Also, McConkey seems to fall in line with other experts or academics who made similarly dire predictions. There can be no room for interpretation about “worse case scenarios” in other studies which reflected the kind of huge numbers McConkey was talking about. For example, a study from Uppsala University (using the Imperial College model that most definitely was influential in decision-making), predicted that Sweden’s Covid strategy last year would cause 96,000 deaths by July 2020. That statement, entirely unequivocal, can be found in paragraph 1 of page 17 of the study here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133v1.full.pdf

So, to me, given the severity of restrictions which citizens have been made to endure for over a year of their lives — one feels very ill-equipped to chastise people for calling out those who were projecting these kinds of numbers.

Not one to defend McConkey, who is a bit of a donkey but from March 2020:

"My median scenario is that we’d have a 20 per cent attack rate and 20,000 deaths.

“We normally have 30,000 deaths in a year in this country so that’s almost two thirds of the year’s deaths all in one epidemic.

“Worst case scenario is potentially up to an 80 per cent attack rate — that’s four million and again the two per cent death rate which could even be three or four per cent because a lot of the people in China haven’t recovered yet.

“So it could be two or three per cent of those four million people will die — that’s 80,000 to 120,000 deaths.”

https://www.thesun.ie/news/5181665/coronavirus-ireland-kill-transform-scoiety/

So the median case scenario was 20,000 deaths and looking at what the likes of Hungary and Czech Republic have had, with significant restrictions, it does not in any way look particularly wild

Hellrazer

Arghus wrote: »

McConkey has for sure said some inconsistent things throughout, but he was referencing those kind of figures in terms of a possible worst case scenario, not that it was a certainty that those kind of figures were to be expected. He never said we are definitely going to have 80,000 deaths or more, he was making an assumption about the worst possible outcome.

Youre splitting hairs now - he was asked his opinion being the "Head of the Department of International Health and Tropical Medicine" and his response was this below.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/top-doctor-warns-coronavirus-claim-lives-120000-across-ireland-181227


He was wrong about swine flu aswell when he predicted a million cases - we had 3000 cases and 20 deaths - he was wrong about covid when he predicted 4 million cases - weve had 255,000 cases and 4940 deaths.

Even if covid 19 deaths are under estimated we`re still no where near his predictions.

It amazes me that so many people thanked your post, without really thinking about it. I guess if you just put the combination of "McConkey" and "doom" close together it'll get the thanks, even if the sentiments expressed aren't accurate or logical.

Show me where they are inaccurate - in two "pandemics" his predictions have been off by miles - to me thats either fairly inaccurate or an attempt to scare the sh1t out of the public.

If someone asks you what is the worst possible outcome of a given situation, you outlining that isn't the same as saying you think it definitely will happen.

You would generally look at what evidence you have around you before giving a random figure. While I agree that the actual death rate / infection rate was unknown in March 2020 - the evidence from the WHO was that the death rate in confirmed infections was between .5 and 3.0% - McConkey obviously picked the higher of these figures during these interviews ie 3% of his 4 million predicted infections instead of answering the question in a way that didnt frighten the crap out of the public.


Hes "supposed" to be an expert and while Im no expert even I could see that we were never going to have these case numbers or deaths.

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

Not one to defend McConkey, who is a bit of a donkey but from March 2020:



https://www.thesun.ie/news/5181665/coronavirus-ireland-kill-transform-scoiety/

So the median case scenario was 20,000 deaths and looking at what the likes of Hungary and Czech Republic have had, with significant restrictions, it does not in any way look particularly wild

Fair enough as far as McConkey’s stated projection goes (though the Uppsala University figures are still fairly unequivocal).
It’s probably worth pointing out though that McConkey’s words (and maybe this is just how the newspaper reported them for effect) seem to disregard the fact that a significant proportion of the 20,000 pandemic deaths in Ireland (versus the 30,000 average annual deaths figure) would still have been within non-excess deaths. He essentially makes out — and again, perhaps the article just doesn’t mention any acknowledgement on his part — that these 20,000 deaths are deaths that would not happen but for Covid, despite the severe underlying conditions and life expectancy age of many of the victims (a point which has been clear from quite early on).

I know it’s the Sun and they would have wanted the scary “20,000 people will die of Covid” headline rather than a “20,000 people will die of Covid but many of those will be within the expected range of deaths for the year due to their age and underlying conditions” — but I can only go by what’s on the page when judging McConkeys comments there. Sweden’s relatively lighter touch approach has yielded just over 14,000 deaths in something like 14 months. We would have to somehow assume that, with less than half of Sweden‘s population, a similar approach here would have emulated and even surpassed Sweden’s before coming close to McConkey’s median scenario.

Turtwig

Out of curiosity if there were zero restrictions and no social distancing. Everything continued like 2019. What do people think our deaths would have been?

Hellrazer

Turtwig wrote: »

Out of curiosity if there were zero restrictions and no social distancing. Everything continued like 2019. What do people think our deaths would have been?

10,000 - 13,000 is where I would have put deaths with no restrictions.

Based on
7000000 over 65s -According to official statistics 35% of this age group have caught covid.
Thats 245,000 people.

Death rate in confirmed cases is anywhere from 1.8%- 5%

At 1.8% it gives us 4410 deaths , at 4% it give 9800 and at 5% it gives us 12250 deaths.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

Out of curiosity if there were zero restrictions and no social distancing. Everything continued like 2019. What do people think our deaths would have been?

Like Sweden, not too much more.

Certainly wouldn’t be bodies piling up in the streets like the media would have you believe.

There is no real evidence that lockdown achieved much at all other than destroying business, the economy and neglecting people with illnesses other than Covid.

People only think that lockdown works because cases tend to go down after lockdown. But that’s because the illness has peaked and dies off itself.

Closing business when there is no evidence that cases are even occurring is just the government and NPHET looking like they are doing something

Doctor Jimbob

Turtwig wrote: »

Out of curiosity if there were zero restrictions and no social distancing. Everything continued like 2019. What do people think our deaths would have been?

It's difficult to put a number on it, but to guess I'd say higher than they are now but nothing close to some of the more extreme predictions. I don't think things would have continued like 2019 even if there was no government intervention. At some point, a good amount of people would have taken things into their own hands and limited their movements.

Turtwig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Like Sweden, not too much more.

Sweden had some level of restrictions. Social distancing was also applied. I'm asking for Sweden or Ireland in 2019 with no restrictions or social distancing.

Turtwig

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's difficult to put a number on it, but to guess I'd say higher than they are now but nothing close to some of the more extreme predictions. I don't think things would have continued like 2019 even if there was no government intervention. At some point, a good amount of people would have taken things into their own hands and limited their movements.

Try though. Put numbers on it. At what point does the population start the self controlled behavior, what proportion would this be and how does that alter the numbers of deaths?

CruelSummer

So RTÉ are still giving airtime to ISAG on national radio, in relation to our travel policy why?
What has Aoife McLysaght got to do with travel policy here? OR even Covid for that matter? What are her qualifications to be given a national platform on this. Claire Byrne's shameful support of this group needs to be reeled in and investigated.

Tomás Ryan has been on an ISAG video this morning stating he has NO DATA but that Covid could cause Autism in pregnant women...total scaremongering.

crossman47

Hellrazer wrote: »

10,000 - 13,000 is where I would have put deaths with no restrictions.

Based on
7000000 over 65s -According to official statistics 35% of this age group have caught covid.
Thats 245,000 people.

Death rate in confirmed cases is anywhere from 1.8%- 5%

At 1.8% it gives us 4410 deaths , at 4% it give 9800 and at 5% it gives us 12250 deaths.

But with no restrictions, many more than 245K would have got Covid - say 500K. Then, at 5%, you would have 25K deaths.

purplefields

Turtwig wrote: »

Out of curiosity if there were zero restrictions and no social distancing. Everything continued like 2019. What do people think our deaths would have been?

I believe that 80% of the population would get it, before herd immunity kicks in. Of those, maybe 2% fatality rate - possibly higher.
This is because the health system would have broken down. Oxygen shortages etc. If there is a non-functioning health system, sitting in a corridor in Ireland would be the same as those poor people in India experienced.

However, once the death figures start increasing, people become naturally more cautious, even without a lockdown. This would reduce the figures a bit, or at least spread it out a bit more.

I can't see how this wouldn't be the case.

CruelSummer

CruelSummer wrote: »

So RTÉ are still giving airtime to ISAG on national radio, in relation to our travel policy why?
What has Aoife McLysaght got to do with travel policy here? OR even Covid for that matter? What are her qualifications to be given a national platform on this. Claire Byrne's shameful support of this group needs to be reeled in and investigated.

Tomás Ryan has been on an ISAG video this morning stating he has NO DATA but that Covid could cause Autism in pregnant women...total scaremongering.

Just to add:
Aoife also stated that her view (ISAG's view) was no International travel should take place until 80% of the whole population are vaccinated, including children. Mentions Sept / Oct - smacks of desperation of the highest order to try and keep our borders closed. Claire Byrne was not impartial in this interview whatsoever and kept interrupting Tim Dooley when he tried to highlight the fact vaccinations work against variants, Europe are reopening and other valid points.

How many air routes and jobs would be gone by then and for what? Meanwhile rest of EU will be open and US also.

giveitholly

CruelSummer wrote: »

Just to add:
Aoife also stated that her view (ISAG's view) was no International travel should take place until 80% of the whole population are vaccinated, including children. Mentions Sept / Oct - smacks of desperation of the highest order to try and keep our borders closed. Claire Byrne was not impartial in this interview whatsoever and kept interrupting Tim Dooley when he tried to highlight the fact vaccinations work against variants, Europe are reopening and other valid points.

How many air routes and jobs would be gone by then and for what? Meanwhile rest of EU will be open and US also.

Heard that interview,disgraceful broadcasting by Claire Byrne,she might as well be a member of ISAG the way she spoke to Dooley

runawaybishop

Turtwig wrote: »

Out of curiosity if there were zero restrictions and no social distancing. Everything continued like 2019. What do people think our deaths would have been?

In reality once the hospitals were rammed and people started dying in droves people would have self-restricted so its impossible to say.

lee_baby_simms

CruelSummer wrote: »

So RTÉ are still giving airtime to ISAG on national radio, in relation to our travel policy why?
What has Aoife McLysaght got to do with travel policy here? OR even Covid for that matter? What are her qualifications to be given a national platform on this. Claire Byrne's shameful support of this group needs to be reeled in and investigated.

Tomás Ryan has been on an ISAG video this morning stating he has NO DATA but that Covid could cause Autism in pregnant women...total scaremongering.

Wow. I’ve long regarded Ryan as a POS but this is a new low.

What’s one of things that parents are most afraid of?
Let’s use that to emotionally blackmail and manipulate the public.

ISAG are only interested in using baseless fear rather than scientific reasoning to further their aims…whatever those aims actually are. It’s never been clear.

Absolute scum.

normanoffside

crossman47 wrote: »

But with no restrictions, many more than 245K would have got Covid - say 500K. Then, at 5%, you would have 25K deaths.

Many more than 245k did get covid, that's not disputed.
They weren't tested or had no symptoms so were never a confirmed 'case'.

Phillip Nolan and his dodgy seroprevalence study in August put the figure at 3x, the WHO says worldwide it is 10x.
In Ireland it's probably somewhere between those numbers.

Azatadine

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

Wow. I’ve long regarded Ryan as a POS but this is a new low.

What’s one of things that parents are most afraid of?
Let’s use that to emotionally blackmail and manipulate the public.

ISAG are only interested in using baseless fear rather than scientific reasoning to further their aims…whatever those aims actually are. It’s never been clear.

Absolute scum.

I dont know why RTE and TV3 keep bringing them on to contribute at this stage. They have been well and truly debunked as a fringe outfit.

RTE and TV3 should be embarrassed to be associated with them. Surely even the academic institutions that employ them must be embarrassed at this stage. These lads and ladies are a bad reflection on those institutions.

Goldengirl

wadacrack wrote: »

While India struggles with Covid and the Israel and Palestine conflict, we seem to be more concerned with a 99 flake shortage. Its a premium article now on the Independent

Yes , saw that !
And the good lady from Cadburys apparently is hiding them under her bed ..bizarre article

Hellrazer

crossman47 wrote: »

But with no restrictions, many more than 245K would have got Covid - say 500K. Then, at 5%, you would have 25K deaths.

How do you know that many more would have got it - theres really no comparison out there as almost every country has had restrictions in one form or another. You havent really got a "control" so to speak.

Also covid can be completely asymptomatic so people dont even know if they have it or have had it.

I know I said it before but unless a whole country is tested ie - every single person then its almost impossible to predict. The best you can do is work backwards from what we do know already.

Hellrazer

Deleted User wrote: »

Like Sweden, not too much more.

Certainly wouldn’t be bodies piling up in the streets like the media would have you believe.

There is no real evidence that lockdown achieved much at all other than destroying business, the economy and neglecting people with illnesses other than Covid.

People only think that lockdown works because cases tend to go down after lockdown. But that’s because the illness has peaked and dies off itself.

Closing business when there is no evidence that cases are even occurring is just the government and NPHET looking like they are doing something

Thats interesting about Sweden - if you take their confirmed cases against their death rate you get around 1.36% 1.05million and 14301 deaths

In Ireland if you do a similar you get a 1.93% death rate. 255,000 cases and 4941 deaths.

Goldengirl

crossman47 wrote: »

But with no restrictions, many more than 245K would have got Covid - say 500K. Then, at 5%, you would have 25K deaths.

No restrictions and the numbers who would have caught Covid would have just gone up and up and our hospitals and emergency services would have been swamped .
January was scary enough and we only lifted restrictions for 3 weeks albeit that it was the festive season .

Vudgie

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Like Sweden, not too much more.

Certainly wouldn’t be bodies piling up in the streets like the media would have you believe.

There is no real evidence that lockdown achieved much at all other than destroying business, the economy and neglecting people with illnesses other than Covid.

People only think that lockdown works because cases tend to go down after lockdown. But that’s because the illness has peaked and dies off itself.

Closing business when there is no evidence that cases are even occurring is just the government and NPHET looking like they are doing something

I’m always amused at woefully unqualified people making general statements like these without any evidence etc just because it’s what they feel.

Jim_Hodge

Hellrazer wrote: »

Thats interesting about Sweden - if you take their confirmed cases against their death rate you get around 1.36% 1.05million and 14301 deaths

In Ireland if you do a similar you get a 1.93% death rate. 255,000 cases and 4941 deaths.

You can use stats many ways.

Sweden per 100k: 103,600 case and 1413 deaths.
Ireland per 100k: 51,400 cases and 991 deaths.

We'd need over 2000 mire deaths to equal Sweden.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Like Sweden, not too much more.
Certainly wouldn’t be bodies piling up in the streets like the media would have you believe.
There is no real evidence that lockdown achieved much at all other than destroying business, the economy and neglecting people with illnesses other than Covid.
People only think that lockdown works because cases tend to go down after lockdown. But that’s because the illness has peaked and dies off itself.
Closing business when there is no evidence that cases are even occurring is just the government and NPHET looking like they are doing something

Sweden's death toll was multiple that of its neighbours - who did lockdown.
Without lockdown, our death toll would have been multiples higher.

Lockdown had nothing to do with what happened to people with illnesses other than Covid. Please show how health services such as cancer sceenings continued uniterrupted in Sweden, for example. Or economic activity.
You won't be able to - because they did not.
They are two entirely separate things.
You don't know what you are talking about.