CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

Isn't that a factor of herd immunity?

Less people who can get it means less people will get it.

R[sub]0[/sub] is the raw number with respect to natural immunity. If you put a hundred thousand people who had never been exposed to the virus into The G and dusted them with virus. It generally stabilises at some value like Influenza. It often starts high, presumably because there are a large number of tests for small number of infected.

R[sub]e[/sub] would take into account herd immunity, if you put a hundred thousand into The G some of which had been exposed and developed an immune response, and dusted them again! It diminishes as more immunity is found in the community and more mitigation steps are taken.

If a 100% effective vaccine is invented, R[sub]e[/sub] would go to zero, but R[sub]0[/sub] would stay some value because it's primarily a measure of transmission. A vaccine doesn't stop you being infected by a virus, it stops the virus you get infected with from doing you too much harm by priming the body's own defence system. Think of R[sub]e[/sub] as the number we work towards for any given R[sub]0[/sub].

On websites and media there is lots of cross pollination between R[sub]0[/sub] and other figures like R[sub]e[/sub], some of it by accident some of it not! I'm sure I'm even guilty myself of generalising to the term R[sub]0[/sub], but once you see R[sub]e[/sub] then you need to become more careful about the discussion because it is becoming specific to a frame of reference.

There was a good program on ABC national that put all this into lay terms a couple of months back. Much better at explaining it than myself, if I find it I'll post a link. When I sit listening to colleagues discuss this, as it has become the lunchtime topic of rigor, the jargon from the technical specialists is almost not navigable but they use it for brevity.

[flyboy77]

It's pretty clear Dopey and his gang dropped the ball on testing and tracing for a time....no surprises there.

Now that our resident Norman Swan has gone some way to explaining the meaning of Ro and the effective rate, Re, what does it all mean?

First, indeed, Re is a subset of the Ro number - taking into account the level of susceptibility in the population - and, as we've seen in the States, we aren't necessarily one homogeneous population. Which also goes a large way to offering an explanation as to why herd immunity appears to be reached at much lower population infection rates than originally estimated.

But back on point. What is clear is that, by definition, the effective rate, Re, is a leading indicator of where the bug is going - getting it under 1.0 is the goal. If the rate of secondary infection is less than 1 to 1, it must peter out.

What stupefies me is that when they chose to reimpose Stage 3 restrictions over Melbourne, the Re had been trending consistently south toward zero (so why do it?) and there is NOTHING (as evidenced by the slope ie the rate of change of the Re line) to suggest the NPI measures (lock down, masks etc.) hastened speed of decline.

And even to be exceedingly generous, let's ignore the Stage 3 stuff.

The actual Re (and the modelled Re too) fell below 1.0 well over a week before our Chairman went for these INSANE Stage 4 measures!

Justification?

None.

[ElwoodBlues1]

A Virologist on the ABC last night suggested that the CoVid19 virus in structure is weakening to what it was back at the start.
Growths rate in the lab is still the same but it isnt attacking good cells the way it was and that is a good chance it will become weaker and turn on itself and thats how the virus will be eradicated maybe even before a decent vaccine is available.
There are reports of re-infection in people even months later so the antibodies either dont remain or their are new/changed strains which isnt going to make finding a vaccine any easier.

[kruddler]

@Fly....
The reason for going to stage 4 was not because it was running away, but because the decline was going too slowly that it would extend stage 3 for longer than required.

Stage 4 was planned so that stage 3 would be required for less time than had stage 4 not been implemented at all.

So that leads us to the other question? Why no decline since masks and stage 4??

At a guess....its still too soon to tell.
At another guess....stage 4 was not a huge step up compated from stage 2 -> stage 3.
And a final guess.....people simply are not buying into it anymore. The backlash over this has been far in excess to anything i predicted. The anti-maskers, anti-government, COVID conspirators etc are growing in numbers and its ruining it for everyone.

So....how much of this is Dans fault? 
SFA

[kruddler]

[member=153]LP[/member]....
So why is it typical for R0 to drop? Surely its a constant?

[flyboy77]

A Virologist on the ABC last night suggested that the CoVid19 virus in structure is weakening to what it was back at the start.
Growths rate in the lab is still the same but it isnt attacking good cells the way it was and that is a good chance it will become weaker and turn on itself and thats how the virus will be eradicated maybe even before a decent vaccine is available.
There are reports of re-infection in people even months later so the antibodies either dont remain or their are new/changed strains which isnt going to make finding a vaccine any easier.

Yes EB, one guy in HK who tested positive twice to two different strains, but 2nd time around he was entirely asymptomatic! So, isn't that what matters? The immune system has done what it should.

Recent article on asymptomatic transmission - it's been way over played and flies in the face of all known history of virus transmissability. https://www.resmedjournal.com/article/S0...9/fulltext

You do realise the false positive rate for this current PCR test used here is circa 2.5%, likely higher?

2.5% of 30,000 tests (which was about our daily maximum testing numbers)?

Highest daily number of cases in the recent outbreak?   

[Thryleon]

Wrong in one critical aspect Thry. And I'll try and post the chart (a jpg)! Any hints?

Saying the numbers were 'out of control' is simply emotional rhetoric.

The actual (and modelled) effective reproduction rate (DHHS data) had already peaked and was heading south before even Stage 3 restrictions were reintroduced.

And, in fact, that number was comfortably below the 'magic' 1.0 mark (around 27 July) WELL BEFORE Stage 4 restrictions. Let alone allowing any lag time for 'effect'.

Fact. And essentially confirmed by third party modelling.

So, the only reason for doing it was political.

As to the efficacy of lockdowns and other NPIs - the latest study certainly makes one's eyebrows rise!

https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-a...-suggests/

With all due respect FB, nothing you have stated here actually discusses any point I was making so you are disagreeing with what point that I have stated?

FWIW, I dont speak from public numbers either.  I speak from my anecdotal experience of what I am seeing at the health network I work at.

I.e.  6 weeks ago, they were actually reverting back to normal at the health network I work at.  Our covid cases being admitted were low, and elective surgery was back on the table.  So much so, that the dedicated covid ward had been halved. 

Meanwhile, It was only last week, that one of our hospitals went live with a "clean and dirty" zone in their emergency department (an indictment on whoever is running the show there) but I think they were funnelling a lot of patients elsewhere until the numbers jumped in presentations at all sites.

The data at state, national, international level can paint whatever picture people want it to, but I want to point something out.

Most of the time, statistics are a lagging indicator.

What our management and Chief Medical Officer has been stating, is that the jump in numbers of positive cases don't lead to an increase of hospitalisation with anything but a 10 day lag time, and everyone started feeling very uncomfortable the minute we got to 100 positive cases per day and the discomfort wasnt seen in the network I work at for at least another fortnight.

Even now, there is a greater number of COVID positive patients at our hospital than there was even 1 month ago.  Why else do you think we are hearing about Peninsula health having 600 staff on furlough now?

The biggest problem?

We are a population of 5 million people (roughly across the city).  Our current total of positive cases is roughly 18714.  Our current Active cases is at 3300 odd.  Our deaths are sitting at 485, and our hospitals are under considerable strain with respect to their staffing already.  We have a very small sample number of what this virus can and cannot do, and I am not even speaking about that.

We can go with the open slather approach, let COVID run rampant, have most of our hospitals unable to be staffed, and then have stroke patients, dialysis patients, cancer patients, etc go into hospital for a "standard" health problem, and then have complications from their admission by contracting Covid whilst they are in there.

Its a very short sighted based on public viewpoint, to turn around and quote numbers, without seeing how this can quickly run away from us, and that is entirely the point of masks and lockdowns.  Its not necessarily there to stop the spread.  They actually prevent the behaviour that will cause the spread.  I.e. masks are uncomfortable, so less people put themselves in situations where they must wear one, therefore the mask works because it deters a behaviour that would otherwise cause people to spread the virus around.

Even our testing numbers dont tell a story.  We have incidents of people being tested 4 times, walking away happy as larry after a few weeks developing symptoms and coming back with a positive result shocked.  The reality?  They got sick somewhere after their last test.  Therefore take the millions of tests performed, quarter the number, and you are closer to the number of people actually tested to achieve a positive result.

Do the stats you quote show any of the above data?

[flyboy77]

@Fly....
The reason for going to stage 4 was not because it was running away, but because the decline was going too slowly that it would extend stage 3 for longer than required.

Stage 4 was planned so that stage 3 would be required for less time than had stage 4 not been implemented at all.

So that leads us to the other question? Why no decline since masks and stage 4??

At a guess....its still too soon to tell.
At another guess....stage 4 was not a huge step up compated from stage 2 -> stage 3.
And a final guess.....people simply are not buying into it anymore. The backlash over this has been far in excess to anything i predicted. The anti-maskers, anti-government, COVID conspirators etc are growing in numbers and its ruining it for everyone.

So....how much of this is Dans fault? 
SFA

But again, the gradient did not increase post Stage 3 lock down, even after allowing a lag.

And before masks.

Dan's fault? 100%.

Let's be frank, if the government was a corporate, and Dopey Dan the CEO, he would have been removed by the Board months ago.

He has presided over the greatest public health disaster in Australian history.

A staggering cost of 100s of lives (already, more into the future from suicide, DV, increased crime) and a massive economic cost to boot.

Need I go on?

[flyboy77]

With all due respect FB, nothing you have stated here actually discusses any point I was making so you are disagreeing with what point that I have stated?

FWIW, I dont speak from public numbers either.  I speak from my anecdotal experience of what I am seeing at the health network I work at.

I.e.  6 weeks ago, they were actually reverting back to normal at the health network I work at.  Our covid cases being admitted were low, and elective surgery was back on the table.  So much so, that the dedicated covid ward had been halved. 

Meanwhile, It was only last week, that one of our hospitals went live with a "clean and dirty" zone in their emergency department (an indictment on whoever is running the show there) but I think they were funnelling a lot of patients elsewhere until the numbers jumped in presentations at all sites.

The data at state, national, international level can paint whatever picture people want it to, but I want to point something out.

Most of the time, statistics are a lagging indicator.

What our management and Chief Medical Officer has been stating, is that the jump in numbers of positive cases don't lead to an increase of hospitalisation with anything but a 10 day lag time, and everyone started feeling very uncomfortable the minute we got to 100 positive cases per day and the discomfort wasnt seen in the network I work at for at least another fortnight.

Even now, there is a greater number of COVID positive patients at our hospital than there was even 1 month ago.  Why else do you think we are hearing about Peninsula health having 600 staff on furlough now?

The biggest problem?

We are a population of 5 million people (roughly across the city).  Our current total of positive cases is roughly 18714.  Our current Active cases is at 3300 odd.  Our deaths are sitting at 485, and our hospitals are under considerable strain with respect to their staffing already.  We have a very small sample number of what this virus can and cannot do, and I am not even speaking about that.

We can go with the open slather approach, let COVID run rampant, have most of our hospitals unable to be staffed, and then have stroke patients, dialysis patients, cancer patients, etc go into hospital for a "standard" health problem, and then have complications from their admission by contracting Covid whilst they are in there.

Its a very short sighted based on public viewpoint, to turn around and quote numbers, without seeing how this can quickly run away from us, and that is entirely the point of masks and lockdowns.  Its not necessarily there to stop the spread.  They actually prevent the behaviour that will cause the spread.  I.e. masks are uncomfortable, so less people put themselves in situations where they must wear one, therefore the mask works because it deters a behaviour that would otherwise cause people to spread the virus around.

Even our testing numbers dont tell a story.  We have incidents of people being tested 4 times, walking away happy as larry after a few weeks developing symptoms and coming back with a positive result shocked.  The reality?  They got sick somewhere after their last test.  Therefore take the millions of tests performed, quarter the number, and you are closer to the number of people actually tested to achieve a positive result.

Do the stats you quote show any of the above data?

I suggested you were 'wrong' based on the out of control numbers comment.

It wasn't out of control, the cases were always going to come once the testing was cranked up.

And sure I get the lag between test/positive case and hospitalisation.

Remember, once you've tested positive, you're immediately pulled off the grid.

And I get the perceived intent of signalling.

But the data in the chart (DHHS data) simply doesn't reveal any effect from either lock down or the mask mandate. Certainly, not enough to justify their implementation when you factor in the fall out on the other side!

It's not short sighted to rely on the data. It's what has to be relied on.  Everything else is pie in the sky speculation.

And there's too much at stake to speculate I would have thought.

Sorry Thry, but your 'it would run away' but for.... claim, simply is not supported by the data. Virus do what viruses do....and again,
Outside of the homes, and we all knew what would happen based on Europe and the US if the bug got into the homes, but outside that subset, deaths have been all but zero. We can address the died with or of another day?

You may have read about the crazy outbreak of cases in Spain in recent days - i think 5000+ cases in a day.

But look at the deaths (and yes, i appreciate you'll say wait for the lag to have effect) - barely a blip!

And that is reflected in many overseas jurisdictions too.

There simply is no solid evidence to support lock downs or masks (for otherwise healthy folk).

Social distancing - yeah, I get that. Ditto hand washing.

The rest is politics.

[kruddler]

But again, the gradient did not increase post Stage 3 lock down, even after allowing a lag.

And before masks.

Dan's fault? 100%.

Let's be frank, if the government was a corporate, and Dopey Dan the CEO, he would have been removed by the Board months ago.

He has presided over the greatest public health disaster in Australian history.

A staggering cost of 100s of lives (already, more into the future from suicide, DV, increased crime) and a massive economic cost to boot.

Need I go on?

When you are talking about the gradient increasing, surely you mean decreasing?

The gradient has decreased since stage 3, masks and with lag, stage 4 too. Perhaps not as much as you'd hope, but i said that had to do with the differences between stage 3 and 4 being minimal.

Stage 2->Stage 3 took 1 million cars off the road.
Stage 3->Stage 4 took 250k off the road.

We can not expect to see the same drop off between stages because the expected result is not the same. Its not a linear correlation.

As for the 100's of lives Dan has 'caused' from suicide and what not.....long bow there. We could do nothing like the US and cost PLENTY more than that via Covid.

If you want to accuse Dan of anything its being overly cautious.
Given the alternative, i think its acceptable.