# Misuse of data during Covid19 Pandemic



## Purple (21 May 2020)

It is very hard to get any clean data on this Pandemic, specifically in relation to death rates by age and pre-existing condition.
It is also troubling when This sort of thing is said;


odyssey06 said:


> As of midnight Monday 18 May, 295,626 tests have been carried out.
> Over the past week, 36,818 tests were carried out and of these 932 were positive, giving a positivity rate of 2.5%.
> Dr Cillian De Gascun, Chair of the NPHET Expert Advisory Group, said: “*Despite broadening the case definition and increases in referrals the positivity rate has continued to decline. This indicates a consistent suppression of COVID-19 in the community*.”


As the case definition is broadened and referrals are increased it is inevitable that the positivity rate will decrease so what Dr Cillian De Gascun should have said is “*Because of the* broadening of the case definition and increases in referrals the positivity rate has continued to decline. This indicates *an increasingly accurate picture of COVID-19* in the community"

The impression is still being given that this disease is dangerous to the fit and the young. It isn't. While we indulge in a "feeling" driven reaction to this disease we will continue to waste resources by misdirecting them. The longer we protect people who don't need to be protected the less we'll have left to protect those who do need to be protected. The only thing that will allow us to direct our resources efficiently is good data and I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Leper (21 May 2020)

Purple, with respect the Irish government and HSE and Paddy-the-Irishman/woman has handled the Covid-19 situation better than most other countries. Our death and infection rates are much below what we believed would happen. Have a look across the water in any direction and ask yourself "Could they have handled the situation better than us?" No matter what direction you look the bottom line is that "They screwed the Covid-19 situation up."

If you remember (back in January) many in the medical profession thought there was a 50/50 chance that Ireland would be infected. We didn't know too much about the situation back then and that was only 16 weeks ago. Almost the entire population bought into combating Covid-19. We are a compliant people and for once the government feared what could happen and threw the care of the nation to the medical profession much earlier than most. I know even one death is too much for any family member due to coronavirus.

Todate, we have (in general terms) weathered the storm. But stupidity would have us back in Square 1. The Taoiseach, Minister for Health, Advisors have showed clarity and facts that leave other governments to shame. The media has played it part. We are ahead of the game at the moment but let's not lose sight that Covid-19 is a killer and wants to kill you. Forget about age, class, etc we need to keep battling Covid-19. There is no such thing as Friendly Fire causing Collateral Damage here. Let's keep doing what we're doing.


----------



## Purple (21 May 2020)

Leper said:


> et's not lose sight that Covid-19 is a killer and wants to kill you. Forget about age, class, etc we need to keep battling Covid-19.


See that's the problem right there; If you are fit (not fat and no underlying conditions) and under 65 there is almost no chance of it killing you, or even making you very sick. There are limited resources available for the longer term fight against this disease so rather than wasting them by adopting policies which assume that everyone is equally at risk we should conserve them by targeting them at those who are at risk. 
We certainly did the right thing; we didn't know how dangerous this was or how it would impact on our health service but now we do and we need to act accordingly. 
This year we will borrow €30,000,000,000. Given that this disease will be with us for years is the plan to borrow €30,000,000,00 every year? 
Treatments will improve and that will help but the best protection for those in the at risk groups is for everyone in the rest of the population to get the disease, develop antibodies and get us 80% of the way towards herd immunity. The WHO guidance was developed when they thought that the disease was far more deadly than it actually is. Remember when it was 3.5% fatal? Now it's less than 0.55% fatal and decreasing. The non-covid related deaths due to the lockdown will continue to mount as cancer treatments and brain surgeries are cancelled and the quality of life for children with life changing conditions like scoliosis will be permanently reduced. 
We need clean data which allows us to have a more informed discussion. My impression is that the powers that be are fearful that moving the conversation on from the emotive fear based reaction which has ensured high levels if compliance so far will unravel the lockdown. Arguments based on fact, data and logic are harder to make than arguments based on emotion.


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 May 2020)

Purple I think your anxiety to get things back to normal, whilst perfectly understandable, is leading you to making definitive statements which are premature I feel.
Right now it may be true that the predominant pattern of this virus is that it is targetting the elderly and those with underlying conditions. However there are also warnings starting to come out of a possible link between the virus and kawasaki disease that may be very serious for younger people. As we learn more, there may be further concerns. The bottom line is we simple do not know enough to make definitive statements at this point in time. Our government may well be overly cautious in their approach but forgive me if I side with an over cautious leadership rather than a reckless one like in the US - there is no time for regrets when someone dies.
I appreciate I am saying this from the position of someone who still has his job so we have been largely unaffected by this. I can fully understand those who want to get back to work and get things going again. In fact there is every chance that these next few months may be the calm in this storm and there is an argument that we should all be trying to do as much over the summer as possible to enjoy ourselves before severe restrictions are reintroduced (possibly even more severe next time). There is a very real chance that this thing will kick off in a second wave come September and coming into the winter - and it may be much worse in the second wave. 
So I do get the sentiment here, I just feel we need to be careful about making definitive statements because none of us really know how this thing will go from here.


----------



## Sunny (21 May 2020)

One thing I don't understand when people talk about second waves is how we don't know this is the second wave? France have confirmed that they had cases back in December. I think it would be pretty unlikely that France is alone in that so this virus could have been living in the community since the end of last year. So instead of being on time with imposing restrictions, we could actually be months late. We have no idea how many people got the virus and either didn't get sick or just put it down to the flu. And now we could be delaying lifting the restrictions unnecessarily. 

We can only go by the figures provided and they seem to confirm that all new cases are coming from meat factories and residential settings. There are very little cases in the general community. At this stage with 60 cases a day, the majority of the Country must be virus free. Of course, the alternative is that our testing approach is completely wrong and we don't know what the true picture of the virus in the general population is. Either way as Purple says, borrowing 30,000,000,000 this year is a serious cost that people are entitled to question at this stage. I can understand waiting to see what happens in other Countries that open up but we are paying a lot of money to use other Countries as lab rats.....


----------



## Purple (21 May 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> Purple I think your anxiety to get things back to normal, whilst perfectly understandable, is leading you to making definitive statements which are premature I feel.
> Right now it may be true that the predominant pattern of this virus is that it is targetting the elderly and those with underlying conditions. However there are also warnings starting to come out of a possible link between the virus and kawasaki disease that may be very serious for younger people. As we learn more, there may be further concerns. The bottom line is we simple do not know enough to make definitive statements at this point in time. Our government may well be overly cautious in their approach but forgive me if I side with an over cautious leadership rather than a reckless one like in the US - there is no time for regrets when someone dies.
> I appreciate I am saying this from the position of someone who still has his job so we have been largely unaffected by this. I can fully understand those who want to get back to work and get things going again. In fact there is every chance that these next few months may be the calm in this storm and there is an argument that we should all be trying to do as much over the summer as possible to enjoy ourselves before severe restrictions are reintroduced (possibly even more severe next time). There is a very real chance that this thing will kick off in a second wave come September and coming into the winter - and it may be much worse in the second wave.
> So I do get the sentiment here, I just feel we need to be careful about making definitive statements because none of us really know how this thing will go from here.


I'm still going to work. We are as busy as ever. This has had no financial impact on me. I have family members who are high risk. I'm not suggesting that things go back to normal; normal will be different from now on no matter what we do.
I'm saying that we need good data to move the conversation on from an emotion based one to a logic based one. We will be living with this disease for years so we need to have a longer term plan and we need to conserve resources so that we can protect those who need protecting in the longer term.


----------



## Purple (21 May 2020)

Sunny said:


> One thing I don't understand when people talk about second waves is how we don't know this is the second wave? France have confirmed that they had cases back in December. I think it would be pretty unlikely that France is alone in that so this virus could have been living in the community since the end of last year. So instead of being on time with imposing restrictions, we could actually be months late. We have no idea how many people got the virus and either didn't get sick or just put it down to the flu. And now we could be delaying lifting the restrictions unnecessarily.
> 
> We can only go by the figures provided and they seem to confirm that all new cases are coming from meat factories and residential settings. There are very little cases in the general community. At this stage with 60 cases a day, the majority of the Country must be virus free. Of course, the alternative is that our testing approach is completely wrong and we don't know what the true picture of the virus in the general population is. Either way as Purple says, borrowing 30,000,000,000 this year is a serious cost that people are entitled to question at this stage. I can understand waiting to see what happens in other Countries that open up but we are paying a lot of money to use other Countries as lab rats.....


Yep, there's meant to be a branch of medical science called epidemiology (invented in China in the 16th century) which, along with Statisticians and outbreak mapping (like that done by the Gates Foundation in its fight against Polio) should, at this stage, be giving us a good picture of spread, infection rates, mortality rates, recovery rates and who exactly the at-risk groups are.


----------



## Purple (22 May 2020)

Mark Paul in the Irish Times is making the case for a balanced approach to opening things up. 
Is this idea getting some traction?


----------



## Purple (22 May 2020)

Pakistan's Prime Minister, speaking at the World Economic Forum said;
"In Pakistan, we have 25 million workers who are either [on] daily wages or get paid weekly or are self-employed. When we locked down, like the whole of the world, to stop the spread of the virus, all these people became unemployed. When we're talking about 25 million workers, you're talking about 25 million families and it has affected almost 120-150 million people...unless the men and women work, they cannot feed their families."
We are looking at economic collapse,  global famines, the loss of species through poaching (if there is no tourism then there's no income so elephants etc will be shot for money), instability and escalation of conflicts if we continue to indulge in this myopic fear based response to this disease.


----------



## michaelm (22 May 2020)

It is evident to anyone out and about that many people are moving ahead of the Government's glacial plan to ease the lockdown.  

IF testing/tracing is finally in place, as claimed, then we need a revised fast-track plan to the new normal. And they should get on with forming a new Government while their at it to add some ligimitacy to the curbing of people's freedoms.


----------



## Purple (22 May 2020)

michaelm said:


> It is evident to anyone out and about that many people are moving ahead of the Government's glacial plan to ease the lockdown.
> 
> IF testing/tracing is finally in place, as claimed, then we need a revised fast-track plan to the new normal. And they should get on with forming a new Government while their at it to add some ligimitacy to the curbing of people's freedoms.


I agree but the elephant in the room is the utter inability of the organs of the State to deliver a project like this efficiently.


----------



## Purple (22 May 2020)

Putting this disease in context;


----------



## XMarks (23 May 2020)

I couldn't agree more Purple. 

To get stats I look to the UK:
Age specific mortality rates UK per percentage population of same age group for March and April
40 - 44 - 0.0004%
45 - 49 - 0.0008%
50 - 54 - 0.0014%
55 - 59 - 0.0025%
60 - 64 - 0.0044%
65 - 69 - 0.0067%
70- 74 - 0.01%
75 - 80 - 0.02%
80 - 84 - 0.04%
85- 89 - 0.07%
90 + - 0.12%


91% of the above had at least one pre-existing condition. Most had two or more. In the under 65's  0.15 had no known pre-existing conditions.

Open the country up and shield the vulnerable. The cynic in me believes the government won't do it until the leaving cert should have been over. There is a reason they are not giving the stats which they absolutely have.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2020)

Has anyone got a link to recent data on the breakdown of deaths from Covid19 here?
As of the 8th of May the data was that 950 of the 1600 people who had died in this country were over 80 (650 of those over 85) and only 30 people under the age of 44 had died. I'm not seeing those breakdowns anymore.


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

One thing that I’ve found consistently misleading is the use of the “median age” (of those who died) as opposed to the “mean age” or “average age”.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jun 2020)

Purple said:


> Has anyone got a link to recent data on the breakdown of deaths from Covid19 here?
> As of the 8th of May the data was that 950 of the 1600 people who had died in this country were over 80 (650 of those over 85) and only 30 people under the age of 44 had died. I'm not seeing those breakdowns anymore.



Did you try here.




__





						Latest updates on COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
					

Latest news and updates on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) from the Department of Health




					www.gov.ie


----------



## Sunny (8 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> One thing that I’ve found consistently misleading is the use of the “median age” (of those who died) as opposed to the “mean age” or “average age”.



How is it misleading?


----------



## Sophrosyne (8 Jun 2020)

Purple said:


> Has anyone got a link to recent data on the breakdown of deaths from Covid19 here?
> As of the 8th of May the data was that 950 of the 1600 people who had died in this country were over 80 (650 of those over 85) and only 30 people under the age of 44 had died. I'm not seeing those breakdowns anymore.



That information is produced by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre

Data up to midnight June 5th [broken link removed]. See page 11, Table 8


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

Sunny said:


> How is it misleading?



Misleading is probably not the correct word, but, I think the mean age would be more informative and revealing. 
Not that I’ve had the opportunity to talk to that many people during the lockdown, but many people seem to interpret “median age” as the same thing as “average age”.

So, if three people died of COVID-19 today, and their ages were 30, 85, and 95, the median age is 85. Many people seem to tend to  think, “85, well, they’re in snipers’ alley anyway”.
But if the mean age was reported, we would be getting the true average age, i.e. 70. Many people may tend to say, “only 70, jeez, they’re only just into the cocooning age group”.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2020)

Sophrosyne said:


> That information is produced by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre
> 
> Data up to midnight June 5th [broken link removed]. See page 11, Table 8


Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
The total number of deaths for those under the age of 44 is 17.
The total number of deaths for those under the age of 54 is 40 (23 more). 
The total number of deaths for those under the age of 64 is 101 (61 more).


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Jun 2020)

The ICU cases skew differently: 
 5% for under 35s
 8% for 35-44
20% for 45-54
29% for 55-64
25% for 65-74
10% for 75-84
 2% for 85+

So, that translates to 34 cases for 35-44 & 119 for 55-64, for example.
It means the majority of ICU admissions - but not hospitalisations - were actually for under 65s.

See Table 4:
[broken link removed]


----------



## Sophrosyne (8 Jun 2020)

From the same link ...

ICU admissions:
Under 65s   258
65 & over   151


----------



## Sophrosyne (8 Jun 2020)

Sorry @odyssey06, posts crossed.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> The ICU cases skew differently:
> 5% for under 35s
> 8% for 35-44
> 20% for 45-54
> ...


It also tells us that 90.5% of those who died had underlying conditions. If that holds true for every age group then about 10 people of working age with no underlying condition, and about 2 under the age of 45, have died from Covid 19.


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

Purple said:


> It also tells us that 90.5% of those who died had underlying conditions.


I think SH said 90% on the RTÉ News a few days ago.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> I think SH said 90% on the RTÉ News a few days ago.


Table 5 on page 9 of Sophrosyne's [broken link removed]


----------

