# Only 6% of those tested in Ireland , tested positive



## Brendan Burgess (25 Mar 2020)

Apparently only 6% of tests proved positive which looks as if they were not prioritising properly at all. 

Or else, there were a huge proportion of worried well?

Or maybe people had got better by the time the test was done? 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Mar 2020)

I thought that the incidence in the general population might be higher than 6% 

Brendan


----------



## llgon (25 Mar 2020)

I've no idea what the figure is Brendan but I think it is much lower than 6%. 

6% would mean that there are about 300,000 currently infected with 60,000 expected to be severe or critical. With a fatality rate of say 2% that would be 6,000 expected to pass away in the next few weeks. Stark figures.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Mar 2020)

The fatality rate is very skewed by demographics
6% of school kids, students and under 60s infected has a very different rate to  6 percent spread over all ages.


----------



## llgon (25 Mar 2020)

40 have been admitted to ICU so far with Covid 19. Supposing these are 1% of cases, that's 4000 cases. Less than 0.1% of population.

Agree with you odyssey about figures being skewed, I'm not going to claim these figures are accurate, just putting them out there for discussion.

If incidence is currently 6% this will be over soon as rate of new infections will only increase.


----------



## noproblem (25 Mar 2020)

One wonders do they actually know what they're doing and I say that with respect. I do hope this post is not deleted, because it is a concern for me, and friends of mine, and theirs, who are now voicing that concern too.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Mar 2020)

The test is not great in that if you test too soon, someone incubating the virus will show as negative.

Then there are the mysterious cases of people who presented at a&e with severe respiratory issues, had not travelled or had known contacts. Then tested positive.
And seem to have infected many hospital staff.

I cant reconcile the low rate with how easily this virus seems to spread.
And that people without symptoms are infectious for 24-48 hours before they manifest.


----------



## Eireog007 (25 Mar 2020)

Hey Brendan given the number of positive cases in every other country in the world has not exceeded 1% of the population of those countries why would you assume that 6% is low?


----------



## Thirsty (26 Mar 2020)

It's not 6% of population, as I understand it; it's 6% of all the tests done.

New York has 33k cases, I don't recall what their testing figures are, be interesting to compare what % of their tests were positive.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Mar 2020)

There was an academic from Northern Ireland on Morning Ireland just now. 

He did this backward estimation. 

7 people have died in Northern Ireland. 
About 1 in 100 infected people die
It takes 17 days from infection to death.

So, 17 days ago, there were 700 people infected in Northern Ireland 

The numbers infected double every 6 days. 

So 11 days ago, there were 1400 infected
7 days ago, there were 2800

Today, there are 5,000 infected in Northern Ireland. 

I think that the numbers are too small and the assumptions too big for the calculation to be reliable, but it's interesting.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Mar 2020)

Eireog007 said:


> Hey Brendan given the number of positive cases in every other country in the world has not exceeded 1% of the population of those countries why would you assume that 6% is low?



Maybe I am just panicking.   

Have they done randomised testing anywhere to measure the incidence in the population. 

We have tested suspect cases and only 6% had the virus.

So it does look as if the incidence in the general population must be rare indeed.

Brendan


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Mar 2020)

Thirsty said:


> It's not 6% of population, as I understand it; it's 6% of all the tests done.


Exactly. I wish people would slow down a bit before posting opinions when they are based on an incorrect understanding of what has been said.
As Brendan said, it is only 6% of the tests carried out to date that have returned positive results. Nobody anywhere said 6% of the population have it so please Ilgon try and think before you post.
It clearly shows as Brendan alluded to that there were a lot of worried well out there. I can understand the anxiety right now but I also completely understand and agree with the change in policy around who should be referred for a test. I think the HSE and government are doing their best here in trying circumstances.


----------



## llgon (26 Mar 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I thought that the incidence in the general population might be higher than 6%





Ceist Beag said:


> Nobody anywhere said 6% of the population have it so please Ilgon try and think before you post.


----------



## allaround (26 Mar 2020)

not easy circumstances at all, 1/4 cases are healthcare workers which is worrying, will undoubtedly see an increase in positive tests percentage with narrowing of criteria, though this will cause more pressure on GP setting with many individuals who have not been allocated a testing date will have to be re 'triaged' based on the new testing criteria. health services in Spain and Italy are collapsing, the UK rate of positive test is around 9.8%


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Mar 2020)

Ok apologies Ilgon I missed that, but please can we stick to facts only here, leave hunches and opinion out of it. There is no point extrapolating from a fact of 6% of tests returning a positive result, to saying we could have "300,000 currently infected with 60,000 expected to be severe or critical. With a fatality rate of say 2% that would be 6,000 expected to pass away in the next few weeks ". That is just scaremongering and is not based on fact.


----------



## Eireog007 (26 Mar 2020)

Realistically when it comes down to accurate numbers and stats on this virus I think we are still far too early into the growth to have any confidence in stating what we know to date is what the situation actually is.
The numbers from each country will all have their own idiosyncrasies based on the average age of the infected population, the standard of the health service, the ability of the government to enforce a lockdown and social distancing and even the truthfulness of the reported figures in some countries eg Russia & China.


----------



## llgon (26 Mar 2020)

Apology accepted but your replies show you are missing the facts, not me. Did you also miss this:



llgon said:


> I've no idea what the figure is Brendan but I think it is much lower than 6%.



Please read the posts properly before commenting. The rest of my post was based on what I believe are well accepted figures ie
20% of cases are severe or critical
1-4% are fatal depending on the study.
That's not scaremongering, that's the reality.

Bredan speculated on the figure of 6%, not me. I commented on it. I said I thought it was much lower and gave my reasons. Apologies if that is unacceptable in a discussion forum.


----------



## Eireog007 (26 Mar 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Maybe I am just panicking.
> 
> Have they done randomised testing anywhere to measure the incidence in the population.
> 
> ...



Being worried is only natural in this unprecedented situation but another way to look at those figures is that we tested far more than was necessary initially which isn’t really a negative.


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Mar 2020)

I already posted what you said and it was scaremongering. I will just ignore any such posts in the future as clearly you cannot accept that.


----------



## Thirsty (26 Mar 2020)

Best figure I can get for New York State is 78k tests and 30k cases.

So around 38% positives; and from what I can gather they are testing 'on demand' through drive in centres as well as hospitals.


----------



## llgon (26 Mar 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> There was an academic from Northern Ireland on Morning Ireland just now.
> 
> He did this backward estimation.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Purple (26 Mar 2020)

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.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Mar 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> Nobody anywhere said 6% of the population have it so



Eh, I had expressed an (uninformed) opinion that it might be higher than 6% and ligon was responding to that by correcting me.

Brendan


----------



## noproblem (26 Mar 2020)

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 (26 Mar 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Eh, I had expressed an (uninformed) opinion that it might be higher than 6% and ligon was responding to that by correcting me.
> 
> Brendan


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.


----------



## Sunny (26 Mar 2020)

noproblem said:


> 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.



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 (26 Mar 2020)

noproblem said:


> 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



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.


----------



## llgon (26 Mar 2020)

Sunny said:


> Because the WHO advised them to change the criteria.



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.





Sophrosyne said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Sunny (26 Mar 2020)

llgon said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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 (26 Mar 2020)

noproblem said:


> Then again, are the powers that be making it up as they go along.



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


----------



## noproblem (26 Mar 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## llgon (26 Mar 2020)

Sunny said:


> I believe that the WHO has started giving country specific advice.



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.



Sunny said:


> The conspiracy theories about them not telling the truth, not telling us everything, hiding information, lying about results is all a bit tiresome.



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 (26 Mar 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Have they done randomised testing anywhere to measure the incidence in the population.



No, mainly due to lack of resources (test kits) and a thoroughly stretched public health system.


----------



## Leo (26 Mar 2020)

HollowKnight said:


> 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?


----------



## Eireog007 (26 Mar 2020)

Leo said:


> Didn't Singapore test something like 1 in 150?



With over 20,000 tests completed now we aren’t too far off that number ourselves.


----------



## allaround (26 Mar 2020)

going by NI figures they have a positive test result of just over 6%


----------



## Oisin19 (26 Mar 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> There was an academic from Northern Ireland on Morning Ireland just now.
> 
> He did this backward estimation.
> 
> ...



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!


----------



## Oisin19 (26 Mar 2020)

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


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Mar 2020)

Sunny said:


> If anyone thinks the approach by GB or the US was correct compared to ours, they need their head examined.



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.


----------



## SPC100 (27 Mar 2020)

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.


----------



## Sophrosyne (27 Mar 2020)

SPC100 said:


> This is about controlling the demand for tests so we can have timely results to fight the virus more effectively



Which is exactly what we are doing.


----------



## Thirsty (27 Mar 2020)

New York State figures today

138k tests, of which 44k positives

So 31% positives of those tested.

Edit to add:
NY is testing on demand from what I can gather, no pre-booking or triaging through GP.

So why is our positive rate so low?


----------



## Sophrosyne (27 Mar 2020)

Remember, the US is playing catch-up.

The virus would have been widely circulating because of delays in testing and isolating.


----------



## Frank (27 Mar 2020)

huge problem is the symptoms are very like the cold or sore throat or even hay fever.

People are so stressed and afraid of this that they are forgetting about the annual bout of hay fever. 
A guy in work had this very issue with his adult son.

I have talked to a friend and aunt who are both on the tail end of this and both say it is very hard couple of days in the middle of it.

Hope fully this new lockdown will help speed us to the end of it.


----------



## odyssey06 (27 Mar 2020)

.


Frank said:


> huge problem is the symptoms are very like the cold or sore throat or even hay fever.
> People are so stressed and afraid of this that they are forgetting about the annual bout of hay fever.
> A guy in work had this very issue with his adult son.
> I have talked to a friend and aunt who are both on the tail end of this and both say it is very hard couple of days in the middle of it.
> Hope fully this new lockdown will help speed us to the end of it.



From what I am reading, the fever\temperature is the key symptom. With a cold or hayfever runny nose\sneezing are the key symptoms, fever is not typical.
Dry cough also - early doors, whereas with other respiratory infections it follows after the main symptoms.


----------

