Covid 19 -

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

They have placed the onus on the vulnerable to take their own cautious approach to protect themselves. It will work out better for them in the medium term if they do build a herd immunity. Considering that our death rates are so small it’s really what we should have done. It’s what happens in nature, only the strong survive. World’s overpopulated anyway. Harsh, but it would have resulted in a stronger herd.

Hey Russ, where’s the unlike button? Crikey


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

They have placed the onus on the vulnerable to take their own cautious approach to protect themselves. It will work out better for them in the medium term if they do build a herd immunity. Considering that our death rates are so small it’s really what we should have done. It’s what happens in nature, only the strong survive. World’s overpopulated anyway. Harsh, but it would have resulted in a stronger herd.

look at the UK. they also tried the 'herd immunity' method before realising their health system just couldn't cope. They are now among the worst in the world for deaths/capita.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by prydey

look at the UK. they also tried the 'herd immunity' method before realising their health system just couldn't cope. They are now among the worst in the world for deaths/capita.

Compare the death rates. We have the high UV radiation levels that really help us.

Coronavirus just isn’t lethal enough to shut down the entire country.

But go on living in fear of something that really isn’t much worse than a strong flu. God forbid if we ever had an outbreak as lethal as mers or ebola here.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

Hey Russ, where’s the unlike button? Crikey


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We can’t all be in fear of a strong flu. The average healthy person won’t even show symptoms.

The media did a great job instilling fear into the average sucker though.

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

We can’t all be in fear of a strong flu. The average healthy person won’t even show symptoms.

The media did a great job instilling fear into the average sucker though.

This thing really kills people though - case in point being Sweden. It’s going to be a shocker. Given our natural sea border we can actually stamp it out completely and get back to some form of a normal life and avoid the massive European death toll.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Compare the death rates. We have the high UV radiation levels that really help us.

Coronavirus just isn’t lethal enough to shut down the entire country.

But go on living in fear of something that really isn’t much worse than a strong flu. God forbid if we ever had an outbreak as lethal as mers or ebola here.

Is that you Donald?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Compare the death rates. We have the high UV radiation levels that really help us.

Coronavirus just isn’t lethal enough to shut down the entire country.

But go on living in fear of something that really isn’t much worse than a strong flu. God forbid if we ever had an outbreak as lethal as mers or ebola here.

How would it look without the measures that the govt around the world have put in place?

Easy to look at current numbers and make assumptions as to its seriousness but it doesn't give credit to the restrictions and their effect.

Easy to say Australia is a different environment and that is the main contributing factor but I'd like to see credible evidence to back that up rather than just supposition. Correlation doesn't always equal causation either.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by GasoLane

Is that you Donald?

Orange man bad?

[BENT_8]

Reading back at the start of the thread and it only took 27 posts for someone to suggest this was nothing more than a scam, pointing to the 20k deaths from regular flu in the US as a comparison.
Well, fast forward 5 weeks and the US is at 50k deaths, yep, just like a regular flu for sure..

[russellw]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

They have placed the onus on the vulnerable to take their own cautious approach to protect themselves. It will work out better for them in the medium term if they do build a herd immunity. Considering that our death rates are so small it’s really what we should have done. It’s what happens in nature, only the strong survive. World’s overpopulated anyway. Harsh, but it would have resulted in a stronger herd.

Obviously neither you or anyone you care about (assuming you care about anyone) isn't in a high risk category or you'd have a different viewpoint. But hey, let's sacrifice the old and compromised as they don't matter. Or will it matter suddenly when it's your turn to be in one of those groups?

Originally Posted by [S

Bossxr8[/S]conspiracy_nut]We can’t all be in fear of a strong flu. The average healthy person won’t even show symptoms.
The media did a great job instilling fear into the average sucker though

Yeah right. The media not only duped us but all the World governments, health experts and scientists as well. Tell me, is the earth flat where you come from?

Factually: even your so-called average healthy person can have quite severe symptoms and globally 24.6% of the death toll has been people with no underlying conditions and 25% of all deaths have been under 65 years of age although some of those did have underlying issues.

I shouldn't have to spell it out by now but just in case there is anyone else deluded enough to share your view here are the key differences between Influenza and COVID19:

1. The median severity is much higher for COVID19 with 20% of cases being severe or critical compared to Influenza at ~1%.

2. The mortality rate is also much higher even at the current 'official' 3% estimate although the current global case mortality rate is actually over 7%. Comparably, the mortality rate for Influenza is 0.1% yet is still kills 4-500,000 people a year. If a similar number of people were infected with this virus as the flu each year (~1 billion) then we'd see somewhere between 11 and 30 million deaths even if the CMR was only 3%.

Let's take that in Australian terms. About 8% of the population gets influenza (2M cases), 18,000 of which require hospitalisation and somewhere around 3,000 resulting in death. If those 2M cases were COVID19 we would see 22,500 deaths even at our very low 1.126% case mortality rate although it would likely be higher as the health system would not cope. At the global average rate of 7% that would be 140,000.

3. The infection rate (R0) is about triple that of influenza which means it spreads faster.

They do share in common both the respiratory symptoms and at least part of the transmission method.

But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Perhaps Uncle Trump's advice to inject disinfectant would help?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by russellw

Perhaps Uncle Trump's advice to inject disinfectant would help?

To be fair I don't think he suggested that at all. I listened to his speech. He used the analogy of how disinfectant takes care of the virus outside the body and suggested researching something 'like' that for inside the body.

Pretty much how antibiotics work basically.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

They have placed the onus on the vulnerable to take their own cautious approach to protect themselves. It will work out better for them in the medium term if they do build a herd immunity. Considering that our death rates are so small it’s really what we should have done. It’s what happens in nature, only the strong survive. World’s overpopulated anyway. Harsh, but it would have resulted in a stronger herd.

Yep... Herd approach DOES work!!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by prydey

To be fair I don't think he suggested that at all. I listened to his speech. He used the analogy of how disinfectant takes care of the virus outside the body and suggested researching something 'like' that for inside the body.

Pretty much how antibiotics work basically.

Shh, that’s not the twist the media want you to see...

Context is everything and the media is using the fact that most people are too simple to read past the headline or at best the first paragraph so make the wording suit their agenda.

[EgoFG]

OK, so everyone thinks Trumps Brainstorming (BrainFarting) is crazy but he has captured why Australia has less problem with COVID than most other places.


Like Trump, I am not a doctor, I have mad ideas, and somehow that has kept my career going.


Disinfectant kills Covid-19, How do we get disinfectant inside our bodies ?
Alcohol is a good disinfectant.
How do you get it into your blood stream ? Trump said injecting ... I prefer Single malt scotch Whiskey, or beer.


SunLight shortens the "shelf life" of Covid-19 by maybe 97% (to under 2 min in the air, or on surfaces)


Likely it is UV that does that.


Australia 'suffers' because of the whole in the Ozone layer = UV


So ... Drink at night, get sun in the day ... the Australian lifestyle kills Covid-19


(Note Covid-19 is the disease, and I should really say xxxSARS2xxx ... but like I said I am not a doctor, so I do not know that)

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by prydey

look at the UK. they also tried the 'herd immunity' method before realising their health system just couldn't cope. They are now among the worst in the world for deaths/capita.

Yep and lately there death toll each day has been 2nd only to the USA, they are catching Italy, Spain, France quite quickly

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by prydey

How would it look without the measures that the govt around the world have put in place?

Easy to look at current numbers and make assumptions as to its seriousness but it doesn't give credit to the restrictions and their effect.

Easy to say Australia is a different environment and that is the main contributing factor but I'd like to see credible evidence to back that up rather than just supposition. Correlation doesn't always equal causation either.

Australia and NZ are different because we're both islands ,thats been the biggest help in infection rates, not the harsh UV

I cant understand how oz is doing better than NZ considering youve never been in full lockdown ....you would think that less person -person contact would achieve less spread....could be some of these

1; Australians have conformed better to self isolation

2; Australias a much larger island people are spread out more

3; NZ failing to quarantine people entering the country till later
on causing more spread

4;Australias a warmer climate

5; testing and reporting of statistics is not accurate
(if this is the case long term results should uncover it

[russellw]

Originally Posted by PooDog

I cant understand how oz is doing better than NZ considering youve never been in full lockdown ....you would think that less person -person contact would achieve less spread....could be some of these

We're not doing better although the numbers are close (see below for detail).

Australia had 14 new cases yesterday but also 4 deaths so the CMR rises to 1.184%.
NZ had 5 new cases and 1 death so the CMR also rises to 1.168%.
The UK had more than 5,000 new cases and the CMR rose to 13.596%.
The USA surpassed 50,000 deaths and the CMR rose to 5.667%.

In terms of cases per 100k pax, Australia is now slightly ahead of NZ at 39.265 (NZ 39.705) but the mortality rate per 100k is almost identical at 0.464 (NZ) and 0.465 (Australia). NZ has conducted slightly more tests with 2.95% of the population tested (Australia 2.84%).

[russellw]

Time for some graph updates:

The first look at the new case numbers but as there was starting to be too big a disparity in the numbers, the graph is divided into (1) Australia / NZ; (2) UK / Germany / Italy / Spain; and (3) USA. They pretty much speak for themselves.







The second set are 2nd order polynomial trends - again the USA has been separated out due to the higher raw numbers.

[prydey]

another statistic that isn't getting a lot of airtime is 'active cases'.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...b4559d9049b84f

from the article

But when you take out of those headline numbers the number of people who have recovered, a more accurate picture emerges of just how successful Australia has been in managing the COVID-19 crisis.

In NSW, the state hardest hit by COVID-19 there are currently 894 people battling the virus.

The headline tally is 2982 but that does not mention more than 2,000 people who have recovered.

In Queensland, there are currently 282 active COVID-19 cases. Another 738 people have recovered.

In the Northern Territory, there are 10 patients in Darwin hospital but none of these patients are in intensive care.

In South Australia, there are now 33 active cases. More than 400 people have recovered and there have been no new cases for days.

There are four people in the hospital and no patients on ventilators.

In Tasmania, a recent outbreak has spiked cases but there are still only 91 active cases.

There are 16 people in hospital but none of these patients currently require intensive care.

In Victoria, there are just 73 active cases and 1,254 people have recovered.

In WA, there are 76 active cases and 464 people have recovered.

Across Australia, there are only 138 serious cases under hospital care.

“Fortunately, the number of people in intensive care units is dropping, only 42 at the moment. Only 29 people on ventilators,’’ Prof Murphy said.

by no means am i suggesting australia become complacent though, as seen with singapore, cases can flare up again very quickly if restrictions are lifted prematurely, however it does show our health system is coping very well, which was the aim of the restrictions.

[CoupeKing]

[cs123]

Originally Posted by russellw

Time for some graph updates:

The first look at the new case numbers but as there was starting to be too big a disparity in the numbers, the graph is divided into (1) Australia / NZ; (2) UK / Germany / Italy / Spain; and (3) USA. They pretty much speak for themselves.

image

image

image

The second set are 2nd order polynomial trends - again the USA has been separated out due to the higher raw numbers.

image

image

Pretty interesting graphs Russ.

From a model/maths perspective what would we expect to see as the number of infections drop off like in AU and NZ.

From memory, I may be wrong... An exponential decay in maths terms will never cross the zero axis?? so at what stage could we ever say we are free from infection from a modelling perspective?

I'm kind of thinking from a practical perspective we cannot eliminate it as I think I heard a comment that you would need 2 incubation cycles with zero detected infections to have confidence it was gone... And I cannot see that happening

[CyberWasp]

So in the near future with the talk of easing restrictions we could also be in a unique position.
Other countries like Singapore have had a second wave after initially doing very well.
What are peoples thoughts on easing restrictions so as not to have a second wave and thus back into lock down again?
Should we ease different restrictions in different states, so any mistakes are identified and not multiplied across the whole country for example.

[PhilT2]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

So when I look at that I see Sweden (no lockdown) 1,765 deaths Norway (lockdown) 182 deaths I think Norwegians did the smarter thing. We already know the testing is not giving us a true picture of the number of cases so we can't rely on that.

His comments on the immune system bother me. My immune system has been coping with whatever the workd throws at it for quite a number of years. Suddenly a few weeks of isolation will weaken it? How?

[guzzis3]

Originally Posted by cs123

An exponential decay in maths terms will never cross the zero axis??

But this isn't theoretical mathematics, it's data analysis. His fits are curve smoothing not curve generation. If the real data produces no new cases then cases are zero.

If your aim is to eradicate the virus entirely in australia (for example) you have to achieve that through real world action.

Modelling predicts what might happen. Data analysis examines what has happened, and the data presentation makes understanding it easier. None of these drive reality.

Regarding Sweden, I'm not sure you understand the premise of their actions. They contend that other countries will get subsequent waves of virus, that public disobedience will increase and that overall others will see higher death rates. Others disagree. It is far too early to say if they are right or wrong.

What is more important ? that fewer people die this week or fewer people die overall ?

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

So in the near future with the talk of easing restrictions we could also be in a unique position.
Other countries like Singapore have had a second wave after initially doing very well.
What are peoples thoughts on easing restrictions so as not to have a second wave and thus back into lock down again?
Should we ease different restrictions in different states, so any mistakes are identified and not multiplied across the whole country for example.

A cautious system of stages starting with allowing people to visit family and friends in what are easy traceable movements would be a obvious inclusion.

It’s the random public interactions IMO we need to be cautious of so I’d rule out attending sports, sit down meals at cafe’s and restaurants, ect.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by guzzis3

But this isn't theoretical mathematics, it's data analysis. His fits are curve smoothing not curve generation. If the real data produces no new cases then cases are zero.

If your aim is to eradicate the virus entirely in australia (for example) you have to achieve that through real world action.

Modelling predicts what might happen. Data analysis examines what has happened, and the data presentation makes understanding it easier. None of these drive reality.

Regarding Sweden, I'm not sure you understand the premise of their actions. They contend that other countries will get subsequent waves of virus, that public disobedience will increase and that overall others will see higher death rates. Others disagree. It is far too early to say if they are right or wrong.

What is more important ? that fewer people die this week or fewer people die overall ?

What is more important is that we try to achieve both. The lockdowns have been aimed at reducing the infection rate so that the health care system can cope but yes, we do need a longer term strategy if we are to minimise the longer term mortality rate.

Originally Posted by cs123

Pretty interesting graphs Russ.

From a model/maths perspective what would we expect to see as the number of infections drop off like in AU and NZ.

From memory, I may be wrong... An exponential decay in maths terms will never cross the zero axis?? so at what stage could we ever say we are free from infection from a modelling perspective?

I'm kind of thinking from a practical perspective we cannot eliminate it as I think I heard a comment that you would need 2 incubation cycles with zero detected infections to have confidence it was gone... And I cannot see that happening

As pointed out this is historical data analysis and while the trend lines are worth watching they don't serve as a predictor of actual outcome just where the overall trend is heading.

On that basis the downward arcing trend lines are a good thing and the upward ones not so good.

Elimination is unlikely unless we are fortunate enough that it follows the original SARS pattern and goes away on its own. The more likely scenario is that relatively isolated countries like Australia and UnZud manage to reach a 28 day zero new case state at which point there are some tough decisions to be made at the Government level as to how we approach the new world order which is where my earlier crystal-balling came into play.

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

So in the near future with the talk of easing restrictions we could also be in a unique position.
Other countries like Singapore have had a second wave after initially doing very well.
What are peoples thoughts on easing restrictions so as not to have a second wave and thus back into lock down again?
Should we ease different restrictions in different states, so any mistakes are identified and not multiplied across the whole country for example.

I'm frankly against easing restrictions until we reach the 28-day zero case status mentioned above. If a particular State reaches that earlier than others then maybe that could be used as a test case but you'd still have to restrict cross border travel to ensure that you don't cross-contaminate.

It's not an easy call and I'd not like to be making it because you probably aren't going to please anyone.

I'm going to look at a different set of numbers - daily new cases per adult capita and see what that shows. Back shortly....

[cs123]

Originally Posted by guzzis3

But this isn't theoretical mathematics, it's data analysis. His fits are curve smoothing not curve generation. If the real data produces no new cases then cases are zero.

If your aim is to eradicate the virus entirely in australia (for example) you have to achieve that through real world action.

Modelling predicts what might happen. Data analysis examines what has happened, and the data presentation makes understanding it easier. None of these drive reality.

Regarding Sweden, I'm not sure you understand the premise of their actions. They contend that other countries will get subsequent waves of virus, that public disobedience will increase and that overall others will see higher death rates. Others disagree. It is far too early to say if they are right or wrong.

What is more important ? that fewer people die this week or fewer people die overall ?

Did I mention Sweden?

[russellw]

Two graphs - one for the countries on my list that have a peak daily new case rate below 10 cases per 100k population (Australia, Germany & Turkey) and those with a peak above 10.



Australia looks about what you'd expect with effective countermeasures to infection with a rise to a peak before a slight drop caused by the first set of restrictions which then went back up before the 2nd set of restrictions has led to the steady (if a little bumpy) fall in infection rates.

The German line isn't as successful and while the big bumps are a result of the lower weekend testing rates, their stated view of lowering restrictions from May 3rd might be a bit premature.

Turkey was a late starter with the first reported case about 10 days later than most countries but then they also waited a month before introducing restrictions only 11 days ago (12th April) and even that was only a weekend full lockdown. You can see that it did have a positive impact in the graph but it's probably a case of too little, too late.



A bit more of a mixed bag here.

Spain has had a couple of bites at restrictions, easing restrictions, tightening restrictions and you can see the spikes in the line caused by each change and at the moment it's heading in the wrong direction.

UK - despite having restrictions in place since 25th March and being in lockdown since early April, the signs aren't all that positive. Yes they are off their peak but have shown little improvement since implementing it.

Italy has made some good ground but they've been very restrictive (and enforced it) earlier than just about anywhere but their is anecdotal evidence that as the weather has warmed up, the adherence levels have dropped which might explain the recent upward trend. Either way, I suspect their planned May 3rd easing of restrictions might also be too soon.

Iran actually might be a good case study. You can see when they implemented their lockdown at the beginning of April and it's been trending in the right direction ever since. They significantly eased restrictions 5 days ago (20/4) so it will be interesting to see if the little kink at the end of the graph is a hint of worse to come.

France is another country that has had two bites at lockdown but which also isn't great at reporting timely data so it's hard to draw any real conclusions.

Cheers
Russ

[Cav]

Have you checked ya phone to see if you have this app installed?

[guzzis3]

Originally Posted by russellw

What is more important is that we try to achieve both. The lockdowns have been aimed at reducing the infection rate so that the health care system can cope but yes, we do need a longer term strategy if we are to minimise the longer term mortality rate.

I was trying to explain what Sweden was trying to achieve and how judging them now is incorrect. Although their cases are higher than norway's there HCS never got anywhere close to stressed.

Our strategy as you say was to specifically avoid an overloaded HCS in the first wave, which we have done.

The whole basis of the Swedish approach is based on psychology. They contend that in the subsequent outbreaks our (and others) compliance will fall so short that our overall infections, hospitalisations and deaths will overtake theirs.

cs123: I was not replying to you in that part of my post, but I can see I should have clarified that. I was responding to the post above mine. The chap in the video was putting one point of view. We don't know yet which strategy will turn out best.

There has been media reports and speculation in other places that the infection rate is many orders of magnitude bigger than we think but the excess is asymptomatic and untested. This is based on a few random studies in california and new york. Because we have a relatively high % rate of testing I reckon if you plot daily test numbers vs positives you'd find that as numbers go up detections go up at a much smaller rate, indicating little unknown infections, but if they trend closer together then maybe there is something to it. That has implications for the rate of deaths and hospitalisations, they would fall dramatically. Comparing jurisdictions won't yield that data imo.