Prof. Philip Nolan published a long Twitter thread on the modelling last night. I don't think it passes the sniff test at all and it boggles the mind that NPHET's modelling is not subject to any external oversight or interrogation. There's probably plenty of people on here that prepare projections for work and we all know how significant a few minor changes in assumptions can be when compounded over time. With exponential growth this would seem an even bigger issue. The professor also seems to completely misrepresent or misunderstand what 95% vaccine efficacy actually means with his 5% of 500,000 calculation - truly bonkers stuff. The probability of some of these pessimistic scenarios coming to pass seems pretty remote given the real world evidence we have. Case numbers may rocket but an IFR rate of 0.29% seems to be at the very upper end of the scale, which paints a far grimmer picture. It seems a classic case of plugging figures into a model to arrive at the answer you want.
Easing of Restrictions from 10th May
- Thread starter odyssey06
- Start date
What I don't get is the logic of the vaccine passport for indoor hospitality. What it the purpose of such a scheme? A fully vaccinated person over 75 is still more likely to die from Covid19 than an unvaccinated 29 year old. Both can carry the virus so both can spread the disease so what's the point of it all?
US CDC risk ratio by age for unvaccinated people.
| Rate ratios compared to 18-29 year olds | |||||||||
| 0-4 years old | 5-17 years old | 18-29 years old | 30-39 years old | 40-49 years old | 50-64 years old | 65-74 years old | 75-84 years old | 85+ years old | |
| Cases | <1x | 1x | Reference group | 1x | 1x | 1x | 1x | 1x | 1x |
| Hospitalization | <1x | <1x | Reference group | 2x | 2x | 4x | 6x | 9x | 15x |
| Death | <1x | <1x | Reference group | 4x | 10x | 35x | 95x | 230x | 610x |
Last edited:
I'm not on Twitter. Can you post the details of his errors?
Did he?
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
Thanks for posting the tweet, his first mistake was to publish it on Twitter, a blog would be an easier read.
I'll have to try and read this later on a big screen, its highly complex but there appears to be a reliance on data from last year, for example on social mixing , then using a model that assumes everyone can transmit the virus in the same manner? But it's simple to use?
In one scenario they forecast more people dying than in ICU , its possible but how would they know it was covid? Of course there seems little information/data on recovery from ICU which we know happens and has to be a variable in forecasting .
My forecasting/modelling skills are 20 years old , and this is probably way beyond my pay grade.
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
The modelling didn't include the change in rolling out AZ and J&J to sub 40 year olds.
Bad communication between various parts of the HSE , nothing novel there.
Paul, @24601 posted the Tweet.
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
My bad thanks 24601
All, you can view the full thread without having to do so via the awful medium of 36 tweets here:
threadreaderapp.com
Thread by @President_MU on Thread Reader App
Thread by @President_MU: It has been a difficult and disappointing week for many, as the rise to dominance of the delta variant has delayed plans for wider reopening; but the likely impact of delta is stark,...…
threadreaderapp.com
Having read the full article he noted that with the Delta Variant 99% of deaths will be in the over 40's age group and the group in danger are the over 75's who have been vaccinated since the vaccine only offers 95% protection.All, you can view the full thread without having to do so via the awful medium of 36 tweets here:
Thread by @President_MU on Thread Reader App
Thread by @President_MU: It has been a difficult and disappointing week for many, as the rise to dominance of the delta variant has delayed plans for wider reopening; but the likely impact of delta is stark,...…
That backs up my earlier post about the proposed vaccine passport; what is the logic of allowing vaccinated older people to dine and drink in-doors and not younger people when the older group are at a high higher risk?
Either open for everyone or open for no-one.
I think nphet and Tony holohan (well nphet is Tony holohan because he has enormous power over it) have been guilty of that before last summer. They had the case numbers down to single figures and as soon as the July opening date approached suddenly jump in figures and the "very concerning" narrative . But the jump in figures was really just the distortion around weekends and when figures were added to the system. But the media not the most numerate people lapped it all up and sensationalized the whole thing.
Of course reopening last summer would have caused an increase in numbers but it would have been a release valve and maybe prevented the mayhem at Christmas when the pressure to socialize was too great after so long locked down
Am I losing my marbles or is he completely misrepresenting 95% efficacy by suggesting that 1 in 20 fully vaccinated persons with have 0% protection against severe illness or death? In that scenario 25,000 people are not vulnerable in such a way. That is not how vaccines work.
I'm bemused by the approach to indoor dining now @Purple . As you have outlined they should logically be prohibiting older, fully vaccinated people above a certain age from indoor dining. It makes no sense.
The goal posts keep moving. If the modelling was even believed by NPHET they would be arguing for a full lockdown, not just a delay to the return of indoor dining. They're not, because they know it's nonsense. And also, it's not like any of those pessimistic scenarios would even be allowed to transpire, the Government would lockdown as soon as the hospital system came under severe pressure.
If Delta is as transmissible and as concerning as the modelling predicts then cases are going to rise exponentially anyway with or without indoor dining. And what then? Never-ending restrictions? Banning pubs forever? It has descended into farce. What if the next more transmissible variant comes along between now and the 19th? Will we lockdown in future years during a particularly bad flu season? I'm with Paul Moynagh on this, we need to just get on with the reopening and do what we can to mitigate it. We don't have a crystal ball but if we continue to outsource government to NPHET we'll never be out of this.
I'm bemused by the approach to indoor dining now @Purple . As you have outlined they should logically be prohibiting older, fully vaccinated people above a certain age from indoor dining. It makes no sense.
The goal posts keep moving. If the modelling was even believed by NPHET they would be arguing for a full lockdown, not just a delay to the return of indoor dining. They're not, because they know it's nonsense. And also, it's not like any of those pessimistic scenarios would even be allowed to transpire, the Government would lockdown as soon as the hospital system came under severe pressure.
If Delta is as transmissible and as concerning as the modelling predicts then cases are going to rise exponentially anyway with or without indoor dining. And what then? Never-ending restrictions? Banning pubs forever? It has descended into farce. What if the next more transmissible variant comes along between now and the 19th? Will we lockdown in future years during a particularly bad flu season? I'm with Paul Moynagh on this, we need to just get on with the reopening and do what we can to mitigate it. We don't have a crystal ball but if we continue to outsource government to NPHET we'll never be out of this.
I am amazed at the Vaccine centre at the Aviva is been halted to facilitate a rugby international. Where is the priority in this instance.
Surely there are rugby grounds in the country which this match could have been used. I wonder how many unvaccinated people will be at this match.
Baffling.
Surely there are rugby grounds in the country which this match could have been used. I wonder how many unvaccinated people will be at this match.
Baffling.
What is your understanding of vaccine efficacy and we'll be able to tell if your marbles are in place or not.
Surely there are other sports grounds that could be used for vaccinations...
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
Just on this , let's assume the risk is there and it's a valid calculation, however how many of those 500,000 are going to be in regular contact with younger people in an environment that would cause them to contract covid?
This seems a very blunt analysis with little or no consideration to the fact that many will be in care homes, or at home with carers. Its highly unlikely that a majority of these 500,000 will be out slugging pints and dining in restaurants. If they did frequent such an establishment it would probably be during the day when its quieter.( Staff will still, hopefully, be masked and carrying out good hygiene practices)
My parents are in that category and before covid they rarely went anywhere and since my sister does everything for them even though they are fully vaccinated for months.
The overall modelling is beyond my total understanding and I have attempted to read the links too, but it just seems very rigid and seems to ignore real life situations.
"Academic" was the word I was looking for to describe it.
While he says vaccination has been factored in there isn't a mention of those effects on cases and then by extension hospitalisation and deaths, I'm not doubting they are included but surely as a very important variable its effect should be explained.
Last edited:
So if you understand that 95% efficacy means that 95% of a cohort will be protected, surely you understand that this means 5%, or 1 in 20 will not be protected?
If it wasn't so, and that 5% had some level of protection, then the efficacy would be higher.