China Coronavirus

[trileacman]

The thing with herd immunity is that we're working off an assumption that immunity will only last maybe 2-3 years

I don't know what you're basing that assumption off. Also strictly defining immunity in time is impossible. Immunity wanes it doesn't just stop. But for argument's sake let's say we need get an effective immunity for 6-9 months and a variable level of immunity for 12 months after that. There's very few viruses that will give you a shorter immunity than that especially one that changes as slowly as Covid-19.

There's a number of flaws in your mathematics because you're suggesting a complete cessation of immunity at 2 years and also ignoring Covid's potential for exponential spread.

So in a herd immunity plan we'd be talking about younger and healthy people being infected by Covid and isolating the elderly and those with co-morbidities. About 75% of the Irish population are under 55. So about 3.75 million. Now about 3.6% of under 55 who are infected will require hospitalisation (the math on that is a bit sketchy, it's from this paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1.full.pdf but could do with being updated). Now 17% of hospital admissions need an ICU bed so 17% of 3.6% = 0.6%. So 0.6% of people will need an ICU bed if we only infect under 55s. There's currently 400 odd ICU beds in Ireland. Say we keep 100 for non-covid cases. That leaves 300 ICU beds. Average ICU stay is 7 days. So we can infect 50,000 people weekly with out maxing out ICU capacity if we only infect the under 55s.

There's science and reasoning behind this proposal so it has to be worthy of consideration. Dismissing it out of hand whilst we wait for a vaccine that may never appear to ride over the horizon to literally save the world from Covid isn't sound policy. It's certainly risky and bold but it deserves a strict crunching of the numbers to investigate it's worthiness.

I'm basing what I said about immunity off a general picture of what I've read over the last six months, and no, I'm not saying that immunity comes to a sudden stop rather than waning, but if something wears off gradually, it's still gone at the end of it

It won't be only under 55s who get infected, that's ludicrous, it will be all ages because people who care for the old and the vulnerable will get infected and will pass it on, they do not exist in isolation from society - everybody in society is connected to each other and if the virus is as contagious as some people make out, it won't be controlled under such a strategy

Like, I find it difficult to see how somebody can simultaneously hold the view that the virus cannot be effectively suppressed among the population as a whole, but yet think that it can be suppressed in a particular age group - it just doesn't make sense

If you let over 3 million people get the virus in a short period of time, there will be a lot of deaths, much more than we currently have

There will be more deaths than we currently have irregardless of the strategy ahead. What do you propose we do then? A continued series of lockdowns isn't going to be acceptable to people for another 18 months in my opinion. There's already significant push back against the government. How else could you explain the opening of pubs whilst we're facing in to an explosive 2nd wave of infection.

[GetOverTheBar]

The thing with herd immunity is that we're working off an assumption that immunity will only last maybe 2-3 years

I don't know what you're basing that assumption off. Also strictly defining immunity in time is impossible. Immunity wanes it doesn't just stop. But for argument's sake let's say we need get an effective immunity for 6-9 months and a variable level of immunity for 12 months after that. There's very few viruses that will give you a shorter immunity than that especially one that changes as slowly as Covid-19.

There's a number of flaws in your mathematics because you're suggesting a complete cessation of immunity at 2 years and also ignoring Covid's potential for exponential spread.

So in a herd immunity plan we'd be talking about younger and healthy people being infected by Covid and isolating the elderly and those with co-morbidities. About 75% of the Irish population are under 55. So about 3.75 million. Now about 3.6% of under 55 who are infected will require hospitalisation (the math on that is a bit sketchy, it's from this paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1.full.pdf but could do with being updated). Now 17% of hospital admissions need an ICU bed so 17% of 3.6% = 0.6%. So 0.6% of people will need an ICU bed if we only infect under 55s. There's currently 400 odd ICU beds in Ireland. Say we keep 100 for non-covid cases. That leaves 300 ICU beds. Average ICU stay is 7 days. So we can infect 50,000 people weekly with out maxing out ICU capacity if we only infect the under 55s.

There's science and reasoning behind this proposal so it has to be worthy of consideration. Dismissing it out of hand whilst we wait for a vaccine that may never appear to ride over the horizon to literally save the world from Covid isn't sound policy. It's certainly risky and bold but it deserves a strict crunching of the numbers to investigate it's worthiness.

I'm basing what I said about immunity off a general picture of what I've read over the last six months, and no, I'm not saying that immunity comes to a sudden stop rather than waning, but if something wears off gradually, it's still gone at the end of it

It won't be only under 55s who get infected, that's ludicrous, it will be all ages because people who care for the old and the vulnerable will get infected and will pass it on, they do not exist in isolation from society - everybody in society is connected to each other and if the virus is as contagious as some people make out, it won't be controlled under such a strategy

Like, I find it difficult to see how somebody can simultaneously hold the view that the virus cannot be effectively suppressed among the population as a whole, but yet think that it can be suppressed in a particular age group - it just doesn't make sense

If you let over 3 million people get the virus in a short period of time, there will be a lot of deaths, much more than we currently have

There will be more deaths than we currently have irregardless of the strategy ahead. What do you propose we do then? A continued series of lockdowns isn't going to be acceptable to people for another 18 months in my opinion. There's already significant push back against the government. How else could you explain the opening of pubs whilst we're facing in to an explosive 2nd wave of infection.

Bars have been closed for months upon months. Infection continued to hold/rise. That particular industry has been scapegoated to the hilt. I expect that to continue as they now continue to reopen. Time to find a new football. People deserve the right to try and earn a living. 

As a teetotaller it makes no difference to me if they are open or closed but again, it's been a victim of "this suits us, lets nail it". When the same people likely will deny a new rise in cases directly coincides with the schools reopening because that doesn't suit them.

Too much of the commentary regarding this virus comes with degrees of such and such won't impact my life, so let's deflect the blame there.

[sid waddell]

The thing with herd immunity is that we're working off an assumption that immunity will only last maybe 2-3 years

I don't know what you're basing that assumption off. Also strictly defining immunity in time is impossible. Immunity wanes it doesn't just stop. But for argument's sake let's say we need get an effective immunity for 6-9 months and a variable level of immunity for 12 months after that. There's very few viruses that will give you a shorter immunity than that especially one that changes as slowly as Covid-19.

There's a number of flaws in your mathematics because you're suggesting a complete cessation of immunity at 2 years and also ignoring Covid's potential for exponential spread.

So in a herd immunity plan we'd be talking about younger and healthy people being infected by Covid and isolating the elderly and those with co-morbidities. About 75% of the Irish population are under 55. So about 3.75 million. Now about 3.6% of under 55 who are infected will require hospitalisation (the math on that is a bit sketchy, it's from this paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1.full.pdf but could do with being updated). Now 17% of hospital admissions need an ICU bed so 17% of 3.6% = 0.6%. So 0.6% of people will need an ICU bed if we only infect under 55s. There's currently 400 odd ICU beds in Ireland. Say we keep 100 for non-covid cases. That leaves 300 ICU beds. Average ICU stay is 7 days. So we can infect 50,000 people weekly with out maxing out ICU capacity if we only infect the under 55s.

There's science and reasoning behind this proposal so it has to be worthy of consideration. Dismissing it out of hand whilst we wait for a vaccine that may never appear to ride over the horizon to literally save the world from Covid isn't sound policy. It's certainly risky and bold but it deserves a strict crunching of the numbers to investigate it's worthiness.

I'm basing what I said about immunity off a general picture of what I've read over the last six months, and no, I'm not saying that immunity comes to a sudden stop rather than waning, but if something wears off gradually, it's still gone at the end of it

It won't be only under 55s who get infected, that's ludicrous, it will be all ages because people who care for the old and the vulnerable will get infected and will pass it on, they do not exist in isolation from society - everybody in society is connected to each other and if the virus is as contagious as some people make out, it won't be controlled under such a strategy

Like, I find it difficult to see how somebody can simultaneously hold the view that the virus cannot be effectively suppressed among the population as a whole, but yet think that it can be suppressed in a particular age group - it just doesn't make sense

If you let over 3 million people get the virus in a short period of time, there will be a lot of deaths, much more than we currently have

There will be more deaths than we currently have irregardless of the strategy ahead. What do you propose we do then? A continued series of lockdowns isn't going to be acceptable to people for another 18 months in my opinion. There's already significant push back against the government. How else could you explain the opening of pubs whilst we're facing in to an explosive 2nd wave of infection.

The aim of policy has to be to minimise deaths, this is the most basic function of government

I think the zero Covid strategy is worth a genuinely serious investigation, that would be the only way you could open up your internal economy fully with no restrictions

The current strategy of tinkering with liberalisation while still having an option to reverse should things go wrong is still a lot better than no strategy except let it rip

I think both of the above strategies aim to minimise deaths, just in different ways

Letting it rip doesn't aim to minimise deaths, it's basically a big, crazy plan to bring a lot of deaths forward

That would be incredibly irresponsible and immoral and wouldn't work in economic terms either

Pubs are open because the authorities believe they can open them without things getting out of control, it's a dip your toes in the water and see what happens manoeuvre, you can reverse it if it fails

I remain to be convinced pubs opening will work but sure we'll see what happens, maybe it will, I suppose we have to keep dipping our toes in the water, it's the only way we'll know what will happen

If the pubs and the schools can open while still keeping a modicum of control over the virus, you might then be able to move on to the next step which would probably be admitting small crowds to sports arenas

This will no doubt be a very testing winter for everybody

[Jeepers Creepers]

A good read; well worth your time:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09/k-overlooked-variable-driving-pandemic/616548/

Very interesting. Some stat that 10-20% of those infected are responsible for 80-90% of infections?

[Rossfan]

For the record 853 cases reported in all of Ireland today (429 here, 424 "up there").
While Ros was low today officially there's talk of cases in Ballagh, Boyle, Monksland, Ros Town and a few more rural locations too.

Any around the Loughglynn area?

Haven't heard it mentioned but it's a bit far west.

[Farrandeelin]

For the record 853 cases reported in all of Ireland today (429 here, 424 "up there").
While Ros was low today officially there's talk of cases in Ballagh, Boyle, Monksland, Ros Town and a few more rural locations too.

Any around the Loughglynn area?

Haven't heard it mentioned but it's a bit far west.

As is Ballaghaderreen 

442 more with 4 deaths.

[armaghniac]

Haven't heard it mentioned but it's a bit far west.

Being too far West is a problem for Roscommon generally.

The point was made in the summer that there were few deaths and there were more deaths on the road etc. Now we see that although it is mostly young people that have this there are some deaths, it remains a fatal disease.

[Cunny Funt]

Haven't heard it mentioned but it's a bit far west.

Being too far West is a problem for Roscommon generally.

The point was made in the summer that there were few deaths and there were more deaths on the road etc. Now we see that although it is mostly young people that have this there are some deaths, it remains a fatal disease.

Only 4 covid deaths in August in ROI compared to 32 in September. If cases continues to rise so too will the deaths.

This is the latest on vaccines. Looks like one could be approved soon but could still be a while before this island gets it.

[armaghniac]

I presume the above does not include the Russian and Chinese vaccines? These are being tested in a somewhat unorthodox manner, but if it becomes apparent that they work then they have to come into the mix.

The EU has contracts for some of these, I expect they will allocate a small amount of vaccine to Ireland which will help out health care workers at least.

[trileacman]

The thing with herd immunity is that we're working off an assumption that immunity will only last maybe 2-3 years

I don't know what you're basing that assumption off. Also strictly defining immunity in time is impossible. Immunity wanes it doesn't just stop. But for argument's sake let's say we need get an effective immunity for 6-9 months and a variable level of immunity for 12 months after that. There's very few viruses that will give you a shorter immunity than that especially one that changes as slowly as Covid-19.

There's a number of flaws in your mathematics because you're suggesting a complete cessation of immunity at 2 years and also ignoring Covid's potential for exponential spread.

So in a herd immunity plan we'd be talking about younger and healthy people being infected by Covid and isolating the elderly and those with co-morbidities. About 75% of the Irish population are under 55. So about 3.75 million. Now about 3.6% of under 55 who are infected will require hospitalisation (the math on that is a bit sketchy, it's from this paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1.full.pdf but could do with being updated). Now 17% of hospital admissions need an ICU bed so 17% of 3.6% = 0.6%. So 0.6% of people will need an ICU bed if we only infect under 55s. There's currently 400 odd ICU beds in Ireland. Say we keep 100 for non-covid cases. That leaves 300 ICU beds. Average ICU stay is 7 days. So we can infect 50,000 people weekly with out maxing out ICU capacity if we only infect the under 55s.

There's science and reasoning behind this proposal so it has to be worthy of consideration. Dismissing it out of hand whilst we wait for a vaccine that may never appear to ride over the horizon to literally save the world from Covid isn't sound policy. It's certainly risky and bold but it deserves a strict crunching of the numbers to investigate it's worthiness.

I'm basing what I said about immunity off a general picture of what I've read over the last six months, and no, I'm not saying that immunity comes to a sudden stop rather than waning, but if something wears off gradually, it's still gone at the end of it

It won't be only under 55s who get infected, that's ludicrous, it will be all ages because people who care for the old and the vulnerable will get infected and will pass it on, they do not exist in isolation from society - everybody in society is connected to each other and if the virus is as contagious as some people make out, it won't be controlled under such a strategy

Like, I find it difficult to see how somebody can simultaneously hold the view that the virus cannot be effectively suppressed among the population as a whole, but yet think that it can be suppressed in a particular age group - it just doesn't make sense

If you let over 3 million people get the virus in a short period of time, there will be a lot of deaths, much more than we currently have

There will be more deaths than we currently have irregardless of the strategy ahead. What do you propose we do then? A continued series of lockdowns isn't going to be acceptable to people for another 18 months in my opinion. There's already significant push back against the government. How else could you explain the opening of pubs whilst we're facing in to an explosive 2nd wave of infection.

The aim of policy has to be to minimise deaths, this is the most basic function of government

If that was the aim of policy we would currently be in lockdown. We'd have closed ever sea, air and land border and everyone would be at home. Cases and deaths are rising. If the aim of policy is to minimise deaths then it is failing miserably.

[imtommygunn]

The dup would never allow channels to their beloved mainland to be shut. It just wouldn't happen.

[trileacman]

The dup would never allow channels to their beloved mainland to be shut. It just wouldn't happen.

Exactly. And no Dublin government will impose a hard border along the 6 counties. So a zero Covid policy isn't a realistic proposition.

[Rudi]

The dup would never allow channels to their beloved mainland to be shut. It just wouldn't happen.

Exactly. And no Dublin government will impose a hard border along the 6 counties. So a zero Covid policy isn't a realistic proposition.

0 Covid is achievable by Christmas according to Sam McConkey. You would think coming from a border county how impossible that is. He then went on talking about 0 Covid in Faro Islands and Greenland. Apples and Oranges.

[armaghniac]

The dup would never allow channels to their beloved mainland to be shut. It just wouldn't happen.

Exactly. And no Dublin government will impose a hard border along the 6 counties. So a zero Covid policy isn't a realistic proposition.

0 Covid is achievable by Christmas according to Sam McConkey. You would think coming from a border county how impossible that is. He then went on talking about 0 Covid in Faro Islands and Greenland. Apples and Oranges.

Of course he knows about the border, he is simply stating that if the politicians take the necessary steps it can be done, the likelihood of Stormont acting responsibly is very small. There is a feck all Covid in China or Taiwan, places bigger than Ireland.

[sid waddell]

The thing with herd immunity is that we're working off an assumption that immunity will only last maybe 2-3 years

I don't know what you're basing that assumption off. Also strictly defining immunity in time is impossible. Immunity wanes it doesn't just stop. But for argument's sake let's say we need get an effective immunity for 6-9 months and a variable level of immunity for 12 months after that. There's very few viruses that will give you a shorter immunity than that especially one that changes as slowly as Covid-19.

There's a number of flaws in your mathematics because you're suggesting a complete cessation of immunity at 2 years and also ignoring Covid's potential for exponential spread.

So in a herd immunity plan we'd be talking about younger and healthy people being infected by Covid and isolating the elderly and those with co-morbidities. About 75% of the Irish population are under 55. So about 3.75 million. Now about 3.6% of under 55 who are infected will require hospitalisation (the math on that is a bit sketchy, it's from this paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1.full.pdf but could do with being updated). Now 17% of hospital admissions need an ICU bed so 17% of 3.6% = 0.6%. So 0.6% of people will need an ICU bed if we only infect under 55s. There's currently 400 odd ICU beds in Ireland. Say we keep 100 for non-covid cases. That leaves 300 ICU beds. Average ICU stay is 7 days. So we can infect 50,000 people weekly with out maxing out ICU capacity if we only infect the under 55s.

There's science and reasoning behind this proposal so it has to be worthy of consideration. Dismissing it out of hand whilst we wait for a vaccine that may never appear to ride over the horizon to literally save the world from Covid isn't sound policy. It's certainly risky and bold but it deserves a strict crunching of the numbers to investigate it's worthiness.

I'm basing what I said about immunity off a general picture of what I've read over the last six months, and no, I'm not saying that immunity comes to a sudden stop rather than waning, but if something wears off gradually, it's still gone at the end of it

It won't be only under 55s who get infected, that's ludicrous, it will be all ages because people who care for the old and the vulnerable will get infected and will pass it on, they do not exist in isolation from society - everybody in society is connected to each other and if the virus is as contagious as some people make out, it won't be controlled under such a strategy

Like, I find it difficult to see how somebody can simultaneously hold the view that the virus cannot be effectively suppressed among the population as a whole, but yet think that it can be suppressed in a particular age group - it just doesn't make sense

If you let over 3 million people get the virus in a short period of time, there will be a lot of deaths, much more than we currently have

There will be more deaths than we currently have irregardless of the strategy ahead. What do you propose we do then? A continued series of lockdowns isn't going to be acceptable to people for another 18 months in my opinion. There's already significant push back against the government. How else could you explain the opening of pubs whilst we're facing in to an explosive 2nd wave of infection.

The aim of policy has to be to minimise deaths, this is the most basic function of government

If that was the aim of policy we would currently be in lockdown. We'd have closed ever sea, air and land border and everyone would be at home. Cases and deaths are rising. If the aim of policy is to minimise deaths then it is failing miserably.

It isn't failing miserably

Mistakes were made in the initial wave certainly

We have had a small number of deaths over the last few months while opening up the economy as much as possible

It's a balancing act, minimise deaths while opening up

That is not miserable failure by any stretch of the imagination