(10-05-2021, 06:22 AM)LP link Wrote:[member=26]madbluboy[/member]‍ we have to assume protestors won't have themselves tested like the general public, so seven is a lot!

That is probably seven seriously ill, not seven mildly ill or asymptomatic!

So then you extrapolate in the other direction to usual, if serious illness remains at about 15% of cases that means there is about another 46 infected circulating!

At R[sub]0[/sub] = 8.5 they can become more than 3300 in just two cycles of infection!
46 x 8.5 x 8.5 = ~3323 the approximate formula is xR[sub]0[/sub][sup]n[/sup] where [sup]n[/sup] is the number of cycles and x is the starting case count.

(10-05-2021, 08:43 AM)madbluboy date Wrote:You don't have to and shouldn't assume anything.

(10-05-2021, 08:41 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:Almost 1800 people got covid yesterday, over 99% of them had nothing to do with protests.

More chance of getting the disease from your local Coles or Woolies than walking around the city holding a sign.

(10-05-2021, 08:41 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:Almost 1800 people got covid yesterday, over 99% of them had nothing to do with protests.

More chance of getting the disease from your local Coles or Woolies than walking around the city holding a sign.

(10-05-2021, 08:41 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:Almost 1800 people got covid yesterday, over 99% of them had nothing to do with protests.

More chance of getting the disease from your local Coles or Woolies than walking around the city holding a sign.

(10-05-2021, 12:14 PM)DJC link Wrote:I have to ask, where did your 99% figure come from?  I don't think it's based on any of the scientific modelling. 

There's more chance of getting COVID by getting together with folk in someone's home.  The chances of getting COVID by shopping in a supermarket while wearing a mask and social distancing are pretty low but checking in with the QR code means that you'll be tracked if you're exposed. 

The chances of getting COVID by taking part in protest/riot and not wearing a mask and/or social distancing may not be high but, because no-one knows who was there and the participants are unlikely to be tested, we won't know whether it was a super-spreader event until folk are in ICU or are found dead at home. 

(10-05-2021, 12:32 PM)shawny link Wrote:This is true provided all the points you raise occur yet in the real world they don’t. People on all levels relax and get comfortable when a lockdown goes on and on and on and on. It’s human nature like it or not.

Go to cafe for a coffee and social distancing never happens. Bunnings is pretty bad too.  I see a big percentage without masks or with them on their chin and see heaps walk in straight past the QR check in. Never seen one stopped as long as you show your Bunnings card you’re in.

And try social distancing when they have one cashier open. Doesn’t happen mate.

It’s simplistic to think that supermarkets, Bunnings building sites cause low levels of spread because of tracking masks and social distancing. 

(10-05-2021, 12:54 PM)DJC link Wrote:It's simplistic to think that your observations trump the best scientific minds .... but that's why we're in a pickle; too many folk think that reading something online is research 

(10-05-2021, 03:05 PM)shawny link Wrote:Not sure I said anywhere my observations were superior to the real experts but ok.

I made the point that the worlds longest lockdown is not done the job out great man said it will and was a fail. Similar to his first fail where we lost 800 lives while the rest of country lost under 200 combined over the same period!

And if you think it only failed because of the spreading from a few open air protests and GF parties in a city with over 6 million residents well i just don’t buy that. Not saying I’m right just my thoughts on it tell me there is more to the numbers rocketing then that.