Coronavirus 2020


#2205

I dont know where you got your data but the new cases has been falling since the 16th April (around 900 per day ) to currently under 500

Based on this data

Besides positives is a poor measurement as it depends on how much you are testing and your testing criteria
The positive:nagative ratio would need to accompany any testing positive rate


#2206

One of the reasons any lockdown will fail

Plus the government refuse to quarantine those who come through the airport


#2207

My data is correct. Note it is plotting 7 day averages as clearly stated on graph. 16th April was not around 900 per day. Data used starting from your April 16 quoted figure are:

16-Apr 629
17-Apr 597
18-Apr 630
19-Apr 445
20-Apr 401
21-Apr 388
22-Apr 631
23-Apr 936
24-Apr 577
25-Apr 377
26-Apr 701
27-Apr 386
28-Apr 229
29-Apr 376
30-Apr 359

Leaving aside the old agenda coming through there from you, the consensus has evolved. It was discovered that lockdowns done right result in exponentially decreasing numbers of cases - in a comparatively short amount of time you can achieve practical virus extinction, after which relaxing restrictions can be done without resurgence.


#2208

:laughing:
‘Compare like with like’

  • Linear scale for maximum hysteria
  • Not rebased for population (deaths per million)

#2209

A linear scale over logarithmic scale is absolutely more appropriate for what we’re viewing there, and it IS showing deaths per million, definitely for the Ireland chart. But Sweden is multiples worse for deaths than their neighbours, nine times higher than in Finland, nearly five times higher than in Norway. Look it up.


#2210

Im finding it difficult to keep up with you

So you’re now advocating full eradication of the virus based on a rigid scientific consensus that has “evolved”, presumably from yesterday, when you stated the following…

Id suggest that your figures/data have not “evolved” over the past 24 hours, simply your willingness to apply such a method (that you previously decried in others) to determining the best course of action.

Its in everyones best interest (bar those with transparent political/ideological agendas) that we begin the process of phased withdrawal from lockdown sooner rather than later.


#2211

The chart for Sweden does NOT show deaths per million.

The chart with Ireland in it does.

Please stop being disingenuous.

Would you Compare USA with Canada? Or USA with Mexico?

Why not compare Ireland with the six counties?

Do you know something about death clusters in Sweden, or Singapore?


#2212
17-Apr 597
18-Apr 630
19-Apr 445
20-Apr 401
21-Apr 388
22-Apr 631
23-Apr 936

Average of these is 575 - your graph doesnt show anything like 575 on the 23rd. Plus the figures quoted strips out the Germany lab figures and from what i can see doesnt assign them to earlier dates.
A total of 403 between the 16th and 20th. The average is over 700 on this period unless we pretend cases in the german labs dont count.

for instance

24-Apr 577
25-Apr 377
26-Apr 701
27-Apr 386
28-Apr 229
29-Apr 376
30-Apr 359

Average 430

There is also your averaged of data from the 16th over 7 days and not including the previous 6 days???


#2213

Provisional Death Counts of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), Pneumonia, or Influenza by week, United States. Week ending 2/1/2020 to 4/11/2020.*

Data as of 4/16/2020

COVID-19 Deaths (U07.1)1
11,356

Deaths with Pneumonia, Influenza, or COVID (U07.1 or J09-J18.9)2
54,217

Full table and more details in link:


#2214

Interesting huge overview of UK cases.


#2215

Who wants to end up in a old folks home? Will this see a shift in residential care homes for older people??


#2216

In due course I imagine that we will learn of scandalous neglect by the nonchalant state, uncaring owners and feckless employees.


#2217

Quite depressing to see even this place too overrun by the “new right” (little different to the “new left” of the 60’s) and any meaningful discussion drowned in abject, bungling, agenda ridden witterings strewn across page after page.

Case in point, a poster who colonised far too much of this page due to their being incapable of even reading the chart title. (And that was only one entry point to yet more bungling).

On that, the case is quite clear, however much people don’t want to acknowledge it, that lockdowns done right result in exponentially decreasing numbers of cases. When everyone is locked down for two weeks, if someone develops symptoms, the people with them can be isolated. No one else can become infected. As per the chart I posted above all countries who succeeded brought down their cases exponentially to near zero. Look at the slope of the downside.

Whereas run the numbers yourselves. Ireland’s lock-down has not achieved that, nowhere near it from the available numbers, anyone with the most rudimentary faculty with numbers could see it. So I predicted above on that basis no let up in lock-down, and I was right (if new cases don’t go down in next few days I predict 2km will be re-instated or be made even more stringent).

Another point I made that was misinterpreted by the bungling anti-government far right on here (for whom everything must be blamed on either immigration or an anti-government conspiracy), was my extending the ‘Naive Empiricism’ point which was primarily about the inadequacy of traditional statistical techniques presented on here by another poster.

My point on this was actually directed not at the professionals, but at the usual far right suspects who greet everything they don’t like to hear with Bannon-like witterings of “show me the evidence”, or they demand you posit some simplistic “cause and effect”, and so on. My point was not directed at the scientists and other professional researchers and practitioners who immerse themselves daily in their art and yes, ‘science’ in an important sense - those who spend their entire working life engaged in a systematic and disciplined effort to understand these phenomena, far beyond the range of the mental habits and factual knowledge of everyday life, and thus are able to feel their way to better sense of the data, which they do in a framework of peer review, in a community of other scientists and professionals etc.

The point was there’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about. And how the wittering far-right on here and elsewhere perpetually hold up things that have the cosmetic attributes of science but without its rigour. And how they as dilettantes are incapable of judging or interpreting “evidence-based” methods in this domain. How, yes, they might do better to listen to the consensus of experts for once, and for just one minute stop trying to superimpose their conspiracies, anti-immigrant and anti government sentiment onto absolutely everything they come across.

Anyway, against the raucous cries of these usual suspects, there needs to be a lockdown, with overactive testing and contact tracing to come out the other side. The question is, will the kind of politically motivated illiteracy and mindlessness I am railing against above in this post generate a critical mass that means we will have to go through repeated, and repeated cycles?

Well I for one am going to leave this forum again now, mainly so as not to give the assembled “far right” voices on here more oxygen. I think that is the best thing I could do now. It seems to me there are extremely few civilised, enlightened voices left, interested in real discussion, just a small handful of the old posters. And any real discussion that presents itself just gets drowned out by reams of abject stupidity and “pravda” (same same but different to the ‘boyracer’ american libertarian spam era on here). Though that seems to be the case across a lot of these kind of forums these days. Addio. Yes, I’ll mind the door etc.


#2218

Someone disagrees with you and they’re automatically “far-right” or engaged in pushing a covert agenda ie they dont just harbour an opposing viewpoint, they are morally deficient. Theres clearly more than one type of conspiracy theorist knocking about (reds under the bed etc).

Some people are of the view that the lockdown has served its purpose and that a phased relaxation is now the best way forward. The reason being that such an approach will result in less economic destruction and thereby lessen the likelihood of increased poverty levels across wider society.

Obviously a risk attaches to such an approach as it could potentially result in an uptick in cases of the virus. If that was to happen, clearly the approach would need to be looked at again and possibly reversed.

However, the intent of the lockdown was not to eradicate the virus but rather to flatten the curve and ensure that ICUs would not be overrun. This has been achieved and as a result, based on the now available information, the most sensible, most proportional approach now is to begin such a phased withdrawal from lockdown.

We have examples of other countries who have gone this route already and are doing ok. We should be moving in the same direction.

Edit - in further support of relaxation, its reprted today that number of people in ICUs in Ireland now stand at just 99


#2219

Roc

What load of self righteous shite. Must be cabin fever. Unsurprising in the circumstances. The whole country has gone insane.

Here is a a starting point. Only four countries have published mathematically meaningful and accurate statistics on the current SARs CoV 2 pandemic. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. With Germany almost there. All other countries statistics are various degrees of garbage. Of little or no statistical value.

Do you know why? Because those 4 countries are the only countries who carefully record and tabulate actual genuine COVID-19 deaths. People who actually die from acute pneumonia with novel pathogen. Which in most cases is ARDS.

If a patient does not have clinical severe viral pneumonia then they dont have COVID. The SAR bit in SARs CoV 2 is Sever Acute Respiratory. You know, a severe infection in the lower respiratory system. And given that the daily death rate from non-novel pathogen pneumonia account for almost half of all deaths of old people from respiratory illness (10% of deaths) we have the current situation where countries like Italy and Ireland are lumping in everyone who test positive, looks like they might test positive, or have some of respiratory condition as COVID deaths with out any proper clinical diagnosis the numbers claims as COVID deaths are quite simply untrue.

Look at the ICU deaths numbers published for Ireland. Funny how the majority of claimed deaths so far seem to have by-passed the ARDS stage. Unlike what happened in Taiwan and South Korea where very few died of COVID without going through the ARDS stage. It ARDS that makes the infection severe, and usually fatal with older people.

The actual number of people in Ireland who have died so far from a severe viral pneumonia caused by a serious SARs CoV 2 infection, and not from other causes, is unlikely to be more than 200 so far. Based on the very vague official details being published.

All models used to justify the lockdowns are based on an initial estimate of the R0 that has not been supported by the most accurate and complete datasets we have so far from South Korea and Taiwan. The actual R0 is around 1.6. Not the 3 to 4 used by the more speculative models.

With a R0 of 1.6 lockdown have zero effect on eventual excess mortality among high risk group. Nada. Zinch. None. That is the mathematics. The main purveyor of the R0 of around 4 at the moment is the WHO. Whose credibility is zero after the way they have defended the utterly fraudulent epidemiological statistical data from China.

Let me repeat that. The justification for the continued shutdown of the Irish economy are the completely fraudulent statistics of the WHO. You cannot have the lockdown reducing the R0 from 4 to under one if it was never 4 in the first place.

Some history. The first published estimate of R0 was 2.5 used in the HK Univ Med epistemological model on Jan 23’rd based on what they had observed on the ground in Wuhan over the previous few days. This estimate was based on a reasonable set of assumptions given the very high number of older people who were dying. Influenza type diseases following pretty much the same age / mortality curve. So a much higher older death rate make it look like a R0 at least twice of seasonal flu.

What later transpired is that younger people had very strong cross immunity and older people had weak cross immunity so older people died disproportionately. Once the first large dataset came in from South Korea and Taiwan the R0 was adjusted down to 1.6. In the meantime modelers in US and Europe took the fraudulent official data sets from China and extrapolated a R0 of 3 or 4. And then started making wildly inaccurate predictions based on these models. If there was not strong cross immunity over most age groups these predictions might have been more accurate. If the official Chinese government epidemiological statistics had not been fraudulent these predictions might have been more accurate. But they were n’t. And are n’t. Thiose models are wrong because the key variable are wrong. Far to high,

Lockdowns do not work as advertised if the R0 is pretty low. Lockdowns do not work if there are no pharmaceutical treatments that over time will have a material impact on the mortality rates of the high risk groups.

Flattening the curve is pointless if the R0 is low and there are no pharmaceutical treatments available for high risk group. There was almost zero uptake of the field hospitals and overflow hospitals where they were created. All counties that had health systems that collapsed under stress had socialized systems. Mixed systems had no need to flatten curve as they had surge capacity. So no need for lockdown.

Vaccines will not have any material impact on the mortality rates of high risk group. In fact high risk group have much higher risk of adverse effect from novel vaccines. None of the novel pharmaceutical treatments will material effect survival rates in high risk group. A comprehensive vaccination programme will have little effect on the low mortality rates of low risk group. But will have a measurable increase due to adverse reactions.

Lockdowns do increase mortality rates in all population groups, high risk and low risk due to deferred medical treatment. When the final excess mortality rates are tabulated in a few years it is a given that the excess deaths due t o the massive disruption caused by the lockdown will be greater than any potential (if even measurable) decrease in the mortality rates due to actual SARs Cov 2 infections due to the temporary halt in the community spread of SARs CoV 2 until it reaches a population infection rate of around 60%.

The simple fact is the Irish government is currently consumed by a media driven mass hysteria making decisions that are so mind boggling stupid as to make the bailing out of Anglo in 2008 look like an act of the highest level of considered statesmanship. Rather than the covering up of a massive money laundering scheme.


#2220

So this is not a highly infectious disease? Jesus this no fucking hope! So what happened in New Orleans for example. Against advice they went ahead with Mardi Gras and St patricks Day parade and had a huge outbreak. Louisiana clamped down and successfully contained the outbreak. Just look at the curve for Louisiana.
The R0 number of any infectious disease is not some fixed number like the decay half time of an isotope. It is highly variable dependent on the specific population, type of society. weather etc. It is constantly changing even for a given infection.
Here is a good discussion of the uses and limitations of R0
.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935673/
And I quote
The key issues for the interpretation of R values are the period for which an estimate is valid (e.g., does the estimate need to be updated weekly, based on patterns in surveillance data?), the applications thereof for theoretical practices (e.g., determining the propagation of the disease or the potential intervention impact), and how well an estimate for one population applies to another. For example, can an estimate made in California apply to Nevada? Is an R 0 for the United Kingdom relevant to New Zealand? Another critical consideration is the applicability of the estimate to a particular population (e.g., was data collected representative of an entire metropolitan area or just an unobserved subcommunity?).

The fact that some Asian countries have achieved a low R0 number does not mean that that is the R0 number in Ireland or anywhere else. It all depends on local specific factors.In fact we should be looking at these countries to learn what they are doing differently


#2221

We live in an age where the amount of information available is astounding even overwhelming. Unfortunately as information increases the proportion of it that’s knowledge based on actual fundamental truth seems to decrease.
Richard P Feynman said that a scientist must have a form of honesty. State their theory and evidence for why it may be correct but also state every reason they can think of why they might be wrong.
As regards Covid-19 we have best theories on unreliable data at the moment. Its probably knowledge that its best not to go coughing on others if you’ve got a fever. (then again I could be wrong)
There’s very little of whats out there that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny. Some ancient Greek philosophy is still seen as relevant today so there might be some actual knowledge in it.
We tend to be more trusting of people who are confident when they say something. I have the impression competence comes from double checking what you’re presenting as facts.
Critics will say if you thought like that you’d never make a decision. All you can do is make decisions based on your best guess with the information you have to hand. Sometimes you have to present confidence in those decisions to get others to follow them.


#2222

datavsinformation


#2223

You had a third chance to get your figures right. A 7 days average needs 7 days of data to average. To post numbers that you have makes you either disingenuous or dangerous.

(based on actual data

10-Apr 480
11-Apr 553
12-Apr 430
13-Apr 527
14-Apr 548
15-Apr 657
16-Apr 629

Which excludes the germany lab results
Average is 546, not less than 100 as on your graph (because you just divided 629 by 7). :blush:

Easy visualisations here http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ incl 7 day average for new cases, to help you out

Its never too late


#2224

Good post.

ROC its a pity to see you leave.

Labelling sundry folks as ‘far right’ and ‘right wing’ reminds one of the often vicious group-think and name calling targeting property market contrarians in 2007.

Recall how reasonable arguments were dismissed as coming from ‘doom and gloom merchants’. Bertie memorably invited them to commit suicide.