China Coronavirus

[armaghniac]

396 cases 241 in Dublin.
A definite problem and no doubt they knew this was coming

[sid waddell]

Taoiseach Martin has instructed the people to count the number of close contacts they've had this week, and then try to halve that number for the coming week

I'm sure this will be a topic of discussion in the pubs tomorrow as they re-open for the first time since March

[trileacman]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/coronavirus-is-out-there-seeding-widely-and-things-will-get-worse-1.4357549

Case numbers started rising rapidly five weeks ago.

That increase is now a national trend, not just confined to Dublin.

Dublin, though, has an incidence three to five times higher than the rest of the country.

More older people are becoming infected; for example, the incidence among 65-74 year-olds, which fell to zero at one point over the summer, is now 23.6 cases per 100,000 population.

Case numbers are doubling every 10-14 days at current rates.

From a letter to The Irish Times on Wednesday:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/covid-19-is-far-more-dangerous-than-flu-1.4354743

Sir, – The HSE has rejected the claims of Dr Martin Feeley (clinical director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group) that Covid-19 is less serious than the annual flu and that people at low risk of the virus should be allowed to be exposed to it, which would enable the country to develop herd immunity ("HSE rejects senior doctor's comments Covid-19 is 'less severe' than annual flu", News, September 12th).

We fully support the HSE's rejection of Dr Feeley's opinions.

When it comes to Covid-19, we must where possible be led by data. On average, seasonal flu strains kill about 0.1 per cent of people who become infected. Current data indicates that Covid-19 is substantially more dangerous than flu. Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the US, has given a death rate 10 times that of seasonal flu.

Regarding herd immunity, no country has explicitly advocated this approach because of the dangers it will entail. Recent seroprevalence studies indicate that 1.7 per cent of the Irish population has been infected with Sars-CoV-2 and there have been 1,784 deaths and many survivors with severe long-term effects of Covid-19. It has been estimated that at least 70 per cent of the population need to be infected (or immunised with a highly effective vaccine) to reach the critical threshold for herd immunity. Therefore, herd immunity through infection will come at price of substantially more morbidity and mortality from Covid-19 in the Irish population.

It would also be virtually impossible to protect vulnerable people, since a large proportion, as many as one in three, of the Irish population are in a high-risk group. Apart from older people, this includes those with heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Widespread infection would also likely give rise to people with debilitating persistent symptoms.

Since he is advocating for herd immunity, can Dr Feeley give an upper limit of the likely number of deaths that would be acceptable if a herd immunity approach were to be taken?

We are in a most important phase of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is essential that commentators base their statements on current science as best they can. Otherwise they are in danger of misleading the general public or providing support for those who support disinformation for political ends. – Yours, etc,

LUKE O'NEILL, PhD

MRIA FRS;

DAVID McCONNELL,

PhD, MRIA;

KINGSTON MILLS,

PhD, MRIA;

TOMÁS RYAN, PhD

Trinity College Dublin,

Dublin 2.

Let's do some maths

There are 4.8 million people in the saorstát

1.7% of that is 81,600 - that's how many the experts above think have got Covid to date

We've had 1,784 deaths as of the other day

1,784 as a percentage of 81,600 is 2.18% of a death rate for those infected

70% of 4.8 million = 3.36 million - that's the figure you'd need to be infected for herd immunity, in theory

2.18% of 3.36 million = 73,248

So under the herd immunity the internet experts want you could be looking at a death toll of 73k

Even under more generous assumptions, ie, a death rate of 1%, or even 0.5%, you're looking at a pretty monstrous toll under this crazy plan

None of this takes a big brain, it's basic maths

And we don't even know whether herd immunity exists - it seems that most experts assume immunity of maybe 2 to 3 years - but we don't yet know for sure - and there have now been documented cases of re-infection, even if extremely rare so far

If 1.7% of the population has so far been infected, you'll be waiting a long, long time to reach 70% - we're now over six months into this thing

Let's be generous and assume for the purposes of argument 10% of the population has been infected - you'll still be waiting a long time to reach 70% - unless you let the virus rip - and then you overwhelm the health system and the death rate goes way up

Herd immunity as an idea is hare brained, but the internet experts and libertarian zealots seem to like it

Libertarianism as an idea is also hare brained and beloved of internet experts, so these ideas go nicely together, they tend to come as a pair

The true death rate is between 0.01 and 0.03% and as we get better at treating Covid it will probably move towards the 0.01% and lower.

[sid waddell]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/coronavirus-is-out-there-seeding-widely-and-things-will-get-worse-1.4357549

Case numbers started rising rapidly five weeks ago.

That increase is now a national trend, not just confined to Dublin.

Dublin, though, has an incidence three to five times higher than the rest of the country.

More older people are becoming infected; for example, the incidence among 65-74 year-olds, which fell to zero at one point over the summer, is now 23.6 cases per 100,000 population.

Case numbers are doubling every 10-14 days at current rates.

From a letter to The Irish Times on Wednesday:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/covid-19-is-far-more-dangerous-than-flu-1.4354743

Sir, – The HSE has rejected the claims of Dr Martin Feeley (clinical director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group) that Covid-19 is less serious than the annual flu and that people at low risk of the virus should be allowed to be exposed to it, which would enable the country to develop herd immunity ("HSE rejects senior doctor's comments Covid-19 is 'less severe' than annual flu", News, September 12th).

We fully support the HSE's rejection of Dr Feeley's opinions.

When it comes to Covid-19, we must where possible be led by data. On average, seasonal flu strains kill about 0.1 per cent of people who become infected. Current data indicates that Covid-19 is substantially more dangerous than flu. Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the US, has given a death rate 10 times that of seasonal flu.

Regarding herd immunity, no country has explicitly advocated this approach because of the dangers it will entail. Recent seroprevalence studies indicate that 1.7 per cent of the Irish population has been infected with Sars-CoV-2 and there have been 1,784 deaths and many survivors with severe long-term effects of Covid-19. It has been estimated that at least 70 per cent of the population need to be infected (or immunised with a highly effective vaccine) to reach the critical threshold for herd immunity. Therefore, herd immunity through infection will come at price of substantially more morbidity and mortality from Covid-19 in the Irish population.

It would also be virtually impossible to protect vulnerable people, since a large proportion, as many as one in three, of the Irish population are in a high-risk group. Apart from older people, this includes those with heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Widespread infection would also likely give rise to people with debilitating persistent symptoms.

Since he is advocating for herd immunity, can Dr Feeley give an upper limit of the likely number of deaths that would be acceptable if a herd immunity approach were to be taken?

We are in a most important phase of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is essential that commentators base their statements on current science as best they can. Otherwise they are in danger of misleading the general public or providing support for those who support disinformation for political ends. – Yours, etc,

LUKE O'NEILL, PhD

MRIA FRS;

DAVID McCONNELL,

PhD, MRIA;

KINGSTON MILLS,

PhD, MRIA;

TOMÁS RYAN, PhD

Trinity College Dublin,

Dublin 2.

Let's do some maths

There are 4.8 million people in the saorstát

1.7% of that is 81,600 - that's how many the experts above think have got Covid to date

We've had 1,784 deaths as of the other day

1,784 as a percentage of 81,600 is 2.18% of a death rate for those infected

70% of 4.8 million = 3.36 million - that's the figure you'd need to be infected for herd immunity, in theory

2.18% of 3.36 million = 73,248

So under the herd immunity the internet experts want you could be looking at a death toll of 73k

Even under more generous assumptions, ie, a death rate of 1%, or even 0.5%, you're looking at a pretty monstrous toll under this crazy plan

None of this takes a big brain, it's basic maths

And we don't even know whether herd immunity exists - it seems that most experts assume immunity of maybe 2 to 3 years - but we don't yet know for sure - and there have now been documented cases of re-infection, even if extremely rare so far

If 1.7% of the population has so far been infected, you'll be waiting a long, long time to reach 70% - we're now over six months into this thing

Let's be generous and assume for the purposes of argument 10% of the population has been infected - you'll still be waiting a long time to reach 70% - unless you let the virus rip - and then you overwhelm the health system and the death rate goes way up

Herd immunity as an idea is hare brained, but the internet experts and libertarian zealots seem to like it

Libertarianism as an idea is also hare brained and beloved of internet experts, so these ideas go nicely together, they tend to come as a pair

The true death rate is between 0.01 and 0.03% and as we get better at treating Covid it will probably move towards the 0.01% and lower.

What's your evidence?

Seasonal flu death rate is typically around 0.1%, which is ten times greater than 0.01%

[trileacman]

Go to worldometer corona stats. Take the countries that have tested >50% of the population. Remove the countries with small populations which removes the anomalies of small groups.

Or look at at countries who have tested pretty much every in contact and have a large sample size. South Korea is a good example. Only one I really know. Then divide their Deaths by cases to get the fatality rate.

Do it for the top 10 countries in those parameters and you'll consistently get a fatality rate between 0.05 and 0.01%.

Using uk, Irish or America stats to figure case fatality is really worthless because there's such a large population of untested positives.

[armaghniac]

Go to worldometer corona stats. Take the countries that have tested >50% of the population. Remove the countries with small populations which removes the anomalies of small groups.

Or look at at countries who have tested pretty much every in contact and have a large sample size. South Korea is a good example. Only one I really know. Then divide their Deaths by cases to get the fatality rate.

Do it for the top 10 countries in those parameters and you'll consistently get a fatality rate between 0.05 and 0.01%.

Using uk, Irish or America stats to figure case fatality is really worthless because there's such a large population of untested positives.

Your approach has merit but your sums are a bit off,
South Korea
22,975    cases
383 deaths
fatality rate 1.6%

Your comments about the US or UK have validity as a lot of people died in April when testing was well short, both are now testing a lot more. Testing in Ireland feel short too, but we always tested people with symptoms even if they did not go to hospital.

The Asian country you wanted for your point was Singapore
Singapore
Cases 57,576
Deaths: 27
fatality rate 0.05%

Covid never got going in the native Singapore population, although there were some deaths, the cases were among immigrants who were typically in their 20s and in good shape (or the would not have got in).

[sid waddell]

Go to worldometer corona stats. Take the countries that have tested >50% of the population. Remove the countries with small populations which removes the anomalies of small groups.

Or look at at countries who have tested pretty much every in contact and have a large sample size. South Korea is a good example. Only one I really know. Then divide their Deaths by cases to get the fatality rate.

Do it for the top 10 countries in those parameters and you'll consistently get a fatality rate between 0.05 and 0.01%.

Using uk, Irish or America stats to figure case fatality is really worthless because there's such a large population of untested positives.

You're doing the maths wrong

According to Worldometers, South Korea has had 22,975 cases and 383 deaths - that's a case fatality rate of 1.66%

The infection fatality rate is lower because you won't catch every infection - although in South Korea they have have done a much better job than almost everybody else, certainly far better than Ireland

Various European countries have done seroprevalence tests and in each case, a low, single figure percentage of the population is indicated to have had the virus

In Ireland it was 1.7%

I had a look at the source and that study was carried out up to July, so let's say it's now around 2.5%, just for argument - and that's a generous assumption - it's nearly four times the recorded case number of 32,933

2.5% of 4.8 million is 120k

1,792 people have died in Ireland, so working off 120k infected that would be an infection fatality rate of 1.49%

Also, there is no true fatality rate, because the fatality rate will inevitably be influenced by what sort of treatment people can receive

The more people infected, the more cases there are, the more difficult it becomes for hospitals to cope, not just as regards Covid, but as regards every other illness and condition

If so many people were to get infected that the hospitals couldn't cope, that would be upward push factor as regards the death rate - though with better treatment available now than in March and April (as long as hospitals aren't overflowing and people can actually get into hospital), that would be somewhat of a downward pull factor

[macdanger2]

Go to worldometer corona stats. Take the countries that have tested >50% of the population. Remove the countries with small populations which removes the anomalies of small groups.

Or look at at countries who have tested pretty much every in contact and have a large sample size. South Korea is a good example. Only one I really know. Then divide their Deaths by cases to get the fatality rate.

Do it for the top 10 countries in those parameters and you'll consistently get a fatality rate between 0.05 and 0.01%.

Using uk, Irish or America stats to figure case fatality is really worthless because there's such a large population of untested positives.

You're doing the maths wrong

According to Worldometers, South Korea has had 22,975 cases and 383 deaths - that's a case fatality rate of 1.66%

The infection fatality rate is lower because you won't catch every infection - although in South Korea they have have done a much better job than almost everybody else, certainly far better than Ireland

Various European countries have done seroprevalence tests and in each case, a low, single figure percentage of the population is indicated to have had the virus

In Ireland it was 1.7%

I had a look at the source and that study was carried out up to July, so let's say it's now around 2.5%, just for argument - and that's a generous assumption - it's nearly four times the recorded case number of 32,933

2.5% of 4.8 million is 120k

1,792 people have died in Ireland, so working off 120k infected that would be an infection fatality rate of 1.49%

Also, there is no true fatality rate, because the fatality rate will inevitably be influenced by what sort of treatment people can receive

The more people infected, the more cases there are, the more difficult it becomes for hospitals to cope, not just as regards Covid, but as regards every other illness and condition

If so many people were to get infected that the hospitals couldn't cope, that would be upward push factor as regards the death rate - though with better treatment available now than in March and April (as long as hospitals aren't overflowing and people can actually get into hospital), that would be somewhat of a downward pull factor

Sid is correct here

[armaghniac]

When they did post hoc antibody tests in New York the fatality rate was about 0.7% . Now thing were a bit out of control there, if you don't let things out of control the fatality rate would be 0.4-0.5%. You'd be talking 20,000 dead on this island if you didn't act.

[thewobbler]

When they did post hoc antibody tests in New York the fatality rate was about 0.7% . Now thing were a bit out of control there, if you don't let things out of control the fatality rate would be 0.4-0.5%. You'd be talking 20,000 dead on this island if you didn't act.

Nice random number plucking skills.

Any chance that next time you can pull one out that doesn't have doomsday undertones?

[seafoid]

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/mark-paul-government-faces-dilemma-on-which-businesses-to-save-1.4357541

Mark Paul: Government faces dilemma on which businesses to save

Central Bank governor warns Government to be careful with taxpayer cash
Fri, Sep 18, 2020


The Government could have taken the sensible decision to allow wet pubs to safely trade long before it did



Sometimes it takes an outsider to point to issues that, deep down, we suspect are there but ignore. Gabriel Makhlouf, governor of the Central Bank of Ireland, is a mix of British, Cypriot, Greek and Egyptian. If he was Irish, he might have been less willing to suggest to the Government – as he did in a letter released this week – that it may need to consider standing back to allow some Irish SMEs to go bust.

Makhlouf hit upon an interesting moral dilemma that is likely to hit ministers square between the eyes before too long: the extent to which precious taxpayers' resources should support businesses that may be unviable in the medium term due to social distancing. Makhlouf didn't mention pubs and other hospitality businesses specifically, but his words suggested they were in his mind.

The question of whether or not the State should save pubs and other businesses is a moral one, as much as it is fiscal, because what happened to them in the pandemic is not their fault. They are totally innocent, with some devastated for six months by a State closure order that persisted for longer than it ought to have. Normally, the State should strive to protect and sustain the innocent.

But, in his September 3rd letter to Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe, Makhlouf warns that if such businesses are going to be unviable for a long time anyway barring an end to the pandemic, scarce taxpayer cash might be better spent elsewhere. It is a hard-nosed, clinical way of looking at things. That is the governor's job.

He has also been in Ireland for long enough by now to understand that these kinds of businesses are a part of the social fabric, perhaps even the identity, of the nation. In particular, pubs in Ireland mean far more to society here than pubs do in Cyprus. Weighing up this issue is more than a simple balance sheet exercise, given the social consequences. I do not envy those faced with the task.

But like many of the dilemmas currently facing this most skittish of governments, the problem over what to do with the traumatised hospitality industry is a self-made one.

It has previously been argued on these pages that it was immoral for the State to simply stand by and watch, for example, pubs go bust, while doing nothing to help. There are two ways it could have assisted them. It could have picked up the tab for their closure in the form of more grants, although that sort of corporate welfare is not ideal. Or it could have taken the sensible decision to allow them to safely trade. For far too long, it dithered and chose to do neither of the above.

[armaghniac]

When they did post hoc antibody tests in New York the fatality rate was about 0.7% . Now thing were a bit out of control there, if you don't let things out of control the fatality rate would be 0.4-0.5%. You'd be talking 20,000 dead on this island if you didn't act.

Nice random number plucking skills.

Any chance that next time you can pull one out that doesn't have doomsday undertones?

Random numbers are common enough in this thread, but I quoted quoted a scientific study, it says what it says. If you feel that I am wrong then refute my point rather than complaining that the answer doesn't suit.

[Rossfan]

If I'm not feeling well should I go to Wobbler or other Gaaboarders, "Karen" or the Doctor???

[thewobbler]

When they did post hoc antibody tests in New York the fatality rate was about 0.7% . Now thing were a bit out of control there, if you don't let things out of control the fatality rate would be 0.4-0.5%. You'd be talking 20,000 dead on this island if you didn't act.

Nice random number plucking skills.

Any chance that next time you can pull one out that doesn't have doomsday undertones?

Random numbers are common enough in this thread, but I quoted quoted a scientific study, it says what it says. If you feel that I am wrong then refute my point rather than complaining that the answer doesn't suit.

In my opinion, you have not quoted a scientific study, so much as have spun some of a scientific study's numbers to suit an agenda.

[armaghniac]

When they did post hoc antibody tests in New York the fatality rate was about 0.7% . Now thing were a bit out of control there, if you don't let things out of control the fatality rate would be 0.4-0.5%. You'd be talking 20,000 dead on this island if you didn't act.

Nice random number plucking skills.

Any chance that next time you can pull one out that doesn't have doomsday undertones?

Random numbers are common enough in this thread, but I quoted quoted a scientific study, it says what it says. If you feel that I am wrong then refute my point rather than complaining that the answer doesn't suit.

In my opinion, you have not quoted a scientific study, so much as have spun some of a scientific study's numbers to suit an agenda.

Other posts started discussion of this fatality thing, I was merely contributing to that discussion with an actual study.