Based on these figures south of the border there could be 7,200 cases or approx 0.15% incidence amongst the general population. Sounds reasonable.
Only 6% of those tested in Ireland , tested positive
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Based on these figures south of the border there could be 7,200 cases or approx 0.15% incidence amongst the general population. Sounds reasonable.
We haven't sampled a large enough percentage of the population to know what the infection rate it.
We don't know what impact the social distancing rules will have as there is a 7-14 day lag.
We don't know what proportion of people will be infected and asymptomatic.
If a once in a century pandemic results in only a few thousand deaths then we'll have got away lightly.
We don't know what impact the social distancing rules will have as there is a 7-14 day lag.
We don't know what proportion of people will be infected and asymptomatic.
If a once in a century pandemic results in only a few thousand deaths then we'll have got away lightly.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,192
Eh, I had expressed an (uninformed) opinion that it might be higher than 6% and ligon was responding to that by correcting me.
Brendan
Then again, are the powers that be making it up as they go along. They're sure changing the goal posts as they move about and you wonder why. First GB was totally totally wrong in only testing the cases in hospital and dealing with the worst cases then, are we going down that road eventually? Seems we might be if the people who won't be tested now because they're not serious enough are told to go home and stay there for a fortnight.
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,426
My point is Brendan that people are already anxious and nervous so I don't think it is helpful to speculate on a % and make statements like we could have 6,000 deaths in the next few weeks. Maybe you guys are comfortable with such speculation but I certainly am not and would prefer if we stuck to facts on here.
Because the WHO advised them to change the criteria. People are trained in Public Health. They spend years studying it. They talk to other experts. They research. They take lessons from every outbreak. They deal with annual outbreaks around flu, measles and other diseases that kill thousands. They deal with preventing pandemics in refugee camps and some of the poorest regions in the world.
Maybe instead of everyone suddenly thinking they are experts in the field, they can simply do one thing. Follow the advice given. If anyone thinks the approach by GB or the US was correct compared to ours, they need their head examined.
There is this fascination around test cases but we are seeing a 94% negative result. To continue testing blindly is a massive waste of resources. If you are sick, isolate. Tell people that you have been in contact with to restrict their movements. You don't need a test for that. Health Officials worry about new cases but the priority is trying to control the numbers needing medical assistance and ICU care. If that gets swamped, our death rate is going to rocket just like Italy and Spain. So if the EXPERT public health officials think we are now at the stage after two weeks of restricted movements, that we can change the test criteria, then who I am to argue.
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
They are responding to an evolving situation.
Up to midnight on Monday last, of the 17,992 cases tested, 93% were negative.
The criteria for testing was changed to eliminate those who more than likely did not have COVID-19 in order to concentrate on testing on probable cases.
This is not the same as the UK.
This is the reason that has been given but I'm a bit sceptical about it. Have they published the advice? Does it come with some caveat such as 'due to the testing resources available'. The WHO previously said to 'test, test, test'. Has this changed?
This is from the Q&A on the independent.ie website yesterday:
'Q: I thought they were going to test everybody with symptoms. Why have the rules been changed?
A: This is due to new guidelines from the World Health Organisation and also the capacity of individual countries to respond to demand.'
Note the reference to capacity - has this come from the Government/Dept of Health.
Not entirely accurate. Healthcare workers and those with underlying conditions have been understandably prioritised so the criteria is only based partly on the probability of testing positive.
I believe that the WHO has started giving country specific advice. Again, I am not in any position to question either the WHO or the HSE. Just like they are not in a position to question what I do in my job. The conspiracy theories about them not telling the truth, not telling us everything, hiding information, lying about results is all a bit tiresome.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,192
As always, noproblem, you are dead right.
They should have set out the policy back in December when the first cases were mentioned in China.
And they should have stuck to that policy, irrespective of any new data or information or any change in advice from the WHO or anyone else.
Brendan
I wasn't aware of this but I suspected it might have been the case. Were our leaders quite open about this yesterday? I didn't think they were but I didn't see the full press conferences so I might have missed it.
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to think that the government/HSE are not telling us everything. They should not be above question.
HollowKnight
Registered User
- Messages
- 286
No, mainly due to lack of resources (test kits) and a thoroughly stretched public health system.
Didn't Singapore test something like 1 in 150?
the way I have been looking at it as follows:
85% will generally have mild or no symptoms so probably won’t be tested.
That leaves 15% that is tested. So if we have 1,500 positive tested cases that would mean 10,000 in the general population.
In a conference a few weeks back the U.K. medical officer was using a multiplier of 1000 of the total deaths to estimate total cases.
I suppose it’s all estimates and assumptions but it’s interesting anyway and gives an idea of the state of play. I don’t think the HSE have released any modelling?
If you apply the figures to Spain’s confirmed cases of 55k you get circa 360k cases.
If you apply it to America’s confirmed 75k cases they would have 500k cases!
Last edited:
Edited the above post to take out the death rate but if you were to reverse apply the 1000 multiplier to the total cases you would get the following:
Ireland 10,000 cases and 10 deaths
Spain 360k cases and 3,600 deaths
America 500k cases and 500 deaths.
I think those countries have 10, 4K and 1k deaths?
America’s testing has been poor so far so I’d imagine as they up their testing their figures might fall into line with these assumptions
Ireland 10,000 cases and 10 deaths
Spain 360k cases and 3,600 deaths
America 500k cases and 500 deaths.
I think those countries have 10, 4K and 1k deaths?
America’s testing has been poor so far so I’d imagine as they up their testing their figures might fall into line with these assumptions
Last edited:
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
Indeed!
The first reported case in the US was on 31 January and the first community transmission was on 26 February. Yet up to 15 March, fewer than 28,000 cases had been tested leading to a failure to identify clusters on time.
Ireland's first case was reported on 29 February and the first community transmission was on 5 March. Up to 23 March we managed to test 18,000 cases despite our comparatively limited resources.
The focused testing advised by WHO and increased lab capacity should enable us to deploy resources where they are most needed, though we still may be overwhelmed.
It is claimed that the US is 7 days behind in testing, but the data is suggesting that it may be weeks behind.
On 10 March the US reported 6,411 cases.
At the time of posting it reported 83,762 cases; 15,461 new cases today alone.
Last edited:
My take on tightening the requirements for a test.
We test to identify who to isolate, and to contact trace. The aim being to reduces the spread.
If we have a large backlog (of mostly negative people) and hence delay, we can't be as effective.
It makes sense to test as much as possible, but with demand for tests overwhelming supply, it makes sense to aim testing at folks most likely to be infected, most likely to spread it, and most needed to fight it.
This is about controlling the demand for tests so we can have timely results to fight the virus more effectively.
We test to identify who to isolate, and to contact trace. The aim being to reduces the spread.
If we have a large backlog (of mostly negative people) and hence delay, we can't be as effective.
It makes sense to test as much as possible, but with demand for tests overwhelming supply, it makes sense to aim testing at folks most likely to be infected, most likely to spread it, and most needed to fight it.
This is about controlling the demand for tests so we can have timely results to fight the virus more effectively.