CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

The reactions and actions are asymmetric, but it's not due to any conspiracy or complicit behaviour.

The sanctions develop in days because detection lags infection, so things turn bad in just 48 or 72 hrs as infections grow exponentially and detection can catch up in 3 or 4 days. Further when we read 100 new cases today, due to the fact we only detect a portion of cases the scientists are thinking 300 or 400 other new cases hide somewhere in the community.

The rate of infection is unrelated to the duration of illness.

Heading the other way at the end of a cluster of infection, it then takes 2 or 3 weeks for sanctions to be unwound due to the need to prove any observed drop in numbers isn't just a bounce or some latency in the figures.

[madbluboy]

127,000 people able to go back to work.
No curfew
Schools back (when its not school holidays)

That's a fair change isn't it.

Not really.

[mateinone]

Hi mio.

Long time.  I largely agree with a lot of what you've written.  Can I ask why you have opted for 7 or 10 days vs 14?

Its hard to disagree with what you've written.  I think we ran out of the first lockdown too fast and paid for it.  We eased 3 times in 3 weeks with 7 days as the target, and it went backwards.

[member=105]Thryleon[/member]

You asked me this a while ago, I will share something I posted on my facebook page
It is pretty long-winded (about the norm for me  :-[ ) and it is just an example of how the longer average timelines mean it takes longer to determine your outcomes, but also leaves you behind the curve in relation to making relative decisions (imo)

[img width=1100]https://scontent.fmel7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/120217738_10159055656953760_1181839184017882066_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Rwqd4Ui-I44AX9ohk_x&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel7-1.fna&oh=3525eb62750e9fd89e9b0971c61299c9&oe=5F95D410[/img]

Why lead time and average days in the stats matter..
So I have banged on an on again about the number of days that are being used for the averaging and the number of days needed to determine if the steps are working (to be sure you are not releasing restrictions to early or tightening them too late).
I have been particularly vocal around the 14 days averaging and around the 28 days that was deemed necessary (now reduced to 21 days).
I have tried to do up a little graph that shows this. What this particular graph is showing is decisions made, 7 day average loads, 14 day average loads as well as as where we were at 16 days after a decision and 21 days after a decision.
I was going to add in 28 days after a decision, but decided to leave that out, because it is quite clearly obvious by the data shown above that 28 days is absolutely not a useful piece of data to respond to a virus such as this.
So the first part
7 days vs 14 days.
The problem as shown with this data is that using 14 day averages means your data is always behind the curve, it shows it on the ascending and the descending phase, which means it is difficult to make decisions in a timely manner. On the way down, that might mean keeping restrictions for longer than is required, on the ascending phase it will likely mean that by the time your decisions are made, they need to be much stronger and for longer than what was previously required, we know when this virus cuts loose that every day matters.
With regards to the 7 day averages, I have stated previously that around 14/15-18 days are required to see if the previous steps have been successful, but this is just to conclusively state this, in reality you can already often see these trends forming over the previous days, but the 7 day average show it around this time.
With the 14 day averages as you can see below, 21 is not completely unreasonable, but in reality it should be visible a few days before this.
The other thing with these elongated averages as it makes it difficult to determine if previous steps have impacted the spread.
Take for example if you use a 14 day average after the stage 3 restrictions with mandatory masks were introduced. There is a leveling at around day 16 and a clear drop at day 20, the problem is that this day 20 is also day 10 after the level for restrictions were imposed, is there enough information to draw a clear conclusion that the masks had a serious impact on the virus? Well you can make a case, using that data, but there are questions.
With the 7 day average, we can see a clear turning at around day 13 in this graph and by a few days later (days 15/16) it is conclusive.
Of course these cannot be attributed to the level 4 lockdowns, as they were only introduced 3 days before the worm began turning.
What is also significant is that whilst it is reasonable to make a case that you can see the impact of the level 4 restrictions (you would have expected more of a leveling out), it is also fair to say that the biggest impact was seen when the level 3 restrictions were put in place, which indicates that it is not unreasonable to at least propose that level 3 restrictions with masks is all that is required to manage the situation in the current environment.
Now in any case, 21 days is "acceptable" as a method for monitoring this during the descending phase (clearly 28 days is not), but it does still seem like overkill. People can say, well what is an extra say 3 or 5 or 6 days, well if it is say 5 days now, 5 days the next level and 5 again for the last, it is an extra 2 weeks, so it is still significant, but nothing like the significance of the original dates published.
Anyway, I hope the graph is clear, it's sole intention really is to show the impact of the different timelines on decision making.

[LP]

What is also significant is that whilst it is reasonable to make a case that you can see the impact of the level 4 restrictions (you would have expected more of a leveling out), it is also fair to say that the biggest impact was seen when the level 3 restrictions were put in place, which indicates that it is not unreasonable to at least propose that level 3 restrictions with masks is all that is required to manage the situation in the current environment.

It's great info [member=195]mateinone[/member]‍ , a representation of the impact between getting an infection and having a detection.

Metrologists always state you can't control what you can't measure, and it has never been more true than in relation to COVID!

We can consider even further in relation to this data, that different COVID tests report results in different time frames, some are 48hrs while others in 5 - 7 days.

Many on here will know having been COVID tested, that a lot of the data at test sites is collected on paperbased forms, these have to go through data entry before they appear in any analysis, a process that can take longer than some tests!

As for the discussing the effect of Stage 3 versus Stage 4. I had always thought if the Norbits had adhere to Stage 3 we would never have needed Stage 4, the Stage 3 restrictions were enough. But we had the defiant minority of Norbits. I suspect Stage 4 came in primarily because of that handful of isolation and quarantine breakers, they(The Dept of Health.) needed a way to control a very vocal minority of Karens and Coreys.

FWIW, I'm glad much heavier fines now exist, and I hope they go hand in hand with much heavier penalties for not paying them!

[Thryleon]

Thats fair @MIO, great analysis, and like you I tend to be long winded (I blame my Greek heritage for this, as its genetic in my family and general cultural.  You are often vying for the spotlight and dont relinquish it when you get it).

I paid attention to what their modelling was stating yesterday.  Most of the rest of the information they discuss is very specific, detailed and usually to do with blame and finger pointing.  For me, I dont find that stuff useful, but others might.  In any case, I was interested specifically at the modelling.

They tend to talk like they make decisions at the top over night.  Which I find interesting. 

The deputy CHO (Allan?) mentioned about the probable outcomes, based on what the modelling (two types) shows.  Generally they point to percentages, and I noted on one occasion, they made mention of if they implement X restrictions on this date, vs this date, the likelihood of resurgence of infection becomes X percentage.  On sunday they mentioned specifically the step we took to lift curfew and restrictions of meeting in public etc etc etc and it became a different likelihood based on date, which is why they have settled on longer rather than shorter to implement the next stage.

I couldnt help and a few things struck me.  1.  Why they didnt look at this last time we unlocked.  2.  The modelling might actually be faulty as it likelihood is that it contains assumptions.  3.  They didnt relax things earlier because the modelling showed a 41% probability of resurgence if they took the measures they have taken today 2 weeks ago.  4.  Why didnt they tell us the probability of resurgence if they follow through with the 23rd as proposed?  The answer might be that the data is delayed and they dont know, but given we are talking probabilities, you can hide behind that anyway.  Probabilities are not actualities, and low probablities of success can still be successful as any chance is better/worse than none. 

What that tells me, is if they have modelled incorrectly, that explains the lag time you are pointing at, and then you have to consider something.  Interpreting those models is probably quite difficult for most people, and also requires a few assumptions to be made.

Thing is, using share price analysis, we can see that models and trends are lagging indicators. 

I think that goes some way to explaining the perceived lack of action.  Even if the modelling analysis was completely up to date, they would have to use current data which is already a few days old and needs them to have a really good grasp on where the surges will come from, and what likelihood of spread we are going to see.  By the time the models are run, and the data is extracted, and then analysed, its likely a few days behind actuals, and therefore already out of date.  Id say the same were true on the way back down which is why we are ahead of schedule on the way out of lockdown.

Thing is, you still have to assume that that is the case to be correct.  If you dont assume, you end up with the exact behaviour the government has shown when choosing to implement things, and why we were both late to apply stage 3, and also applied stage 4 even though the indicators would likely have shown what you did and that it wasnt necessarily required.

What I keep hanging my hat on, is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  No one stuffs up on purpose, and that irrespective of what we all think, the lock downs are not a draconian measure solely implemented to cause everyone distress and get them into a communist regime.  They are there to try and simply pull numbers down.  Until the government proves thats not the case, then we have no other real choice but to share that noble aim.

[mateinone]

Thing is, you still have to assume that that is the case to be correct.  If you don't assume, you end up with the exact behaviour the government has shown when choosing to implement things, and why we were both late to apply stage 3, and also applied stage 4 even though the indicators would likely have shown what you did and that it wasn't necessarily required.

What I keep hanging my hat on, is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  No one stuffs up on purpose, and that irrespective of what we all think, the lock downs are not a draconian measure solely implemented to cause everyone distress and get them into a communist regime.  They are there to try and simply pull numbers down.  Until the government proves that's not the case, then we have no other real choice but to share that noble aim.

The first paragraph here I agree with, I reasonably confident that stage 4 could have been avoided if stage 3 was implemented in a timely manner (and in fact stage 2).

The 2nd, well I agree with this, that the government's only real aim is to get over this nightmare, but I also think it is trying to cover tracks also and because of the poor decisions and responses made during this 2nd wave, the fallout is that Victorian's are not only paying for it with their health (specifically with covid infections), but also with their livelihoods due to the duration of the lockdown.

If the government was more on top of this virus throughout the course of this wave, it is hard to not draw a conclusion that they really have little idea of appropriate levels of sanctions. I feel like they were slow to react, their modelling was poor all along and continues to have issues now and as you have mentioned, I also think this government reacts in the moment. How this long in, the government does not seem to have robust contingencies already  built in that allow it to make decisions immediately upon triggers being met is beyond me. I as staggered that Dan said he was up late Saturday night finalizing Sunday's announcement.
That didn't show me how "hard he is working" (though I am very sure he is), it showed me they don't have a great grasp on this.

Of course the numbers have come down and will continue to and this strategy does work, but currently it is a one trick pony.

Anyway, hopefully this nightmare is over soon for all and there is (as the newest addition to English language) Covid Normal soon.

[Thryleon]

One final point.  I am still gobsmacked, that we dont have a standardised national approach, and Scott Morrison and company are very absent from the running of the nation.

I would have thought that the steps to contain corona virus was a national concern, and sending an email about ADF support was likely a very half arsed measure to document what should have been a directive for the state to implement and one that clearly defined what was the expectation in the quarantine hotels.

Before anyone jumps on me for this, at our hospital accreditation is to do with quality, standards and models of care.  I would think quarantine would have similar checkpoints for everyone to hit, irrespective of public vs private security, whether or not things are done X, Y and Z, and the fact we dont have sound quarantine procedures for someone carrying an infectious disease during a pandemic is ridiculous.

Its just one more step along the way where our politicians have been found wanting.  Dan and co are not absolved in what I am saying here either.  Its just one more step along the way where I feel our national government has let us down.  If anything it speaks for how disconnected our government is from our state.

[LP]

Anyway, hopefully this nightmare is over soon for all and there is (as the newest addition to English language) Covid Normal soon.

SARS-CoV-2 or COVID will wear the label for this, maybe even the Chinese in much the same way the Spanish wore the label for the big Influenza outbreak of the 1920s.

Reality is, there have been a large number of vocal infectious diseases experts warning of this outbreak for almost 4 decades, and they were widely ignored by governments and bureaucracies, Trump and Abbott even cut their research budgets!

The real culprits are the people who have done almost nothing for decades, they have the same crap attitude towards the virus threat that they do towards climate change! That is, they can keep their money in their wallet now and it'll be somebody else's problem later, except this COVID one turned up a bit earlier than the deniers expected!

[PaulP]

SARS-CoV-2 or COVID will wear the label for this, maybe even the Chinese in much the same way the Spanish wore the label for the big Influenza outbreak of the 1920s.

Reality is, there have been a large number of vocal infectious diseases experts warning of this outbreak for almost 4 decades, and they were widely ignored by governments and bureaucracies, Trump and Abbott even cut their research budgets!

The real culprits are the people who have done almost nothing for decades, they have the same crap attitude towards the virus threat that they do towards climate change! That is, they can keep their money in their wallet now and it'll be somebody else's problem later, except this COVID one turned up a bit earlier than the deniers expected!

It's a perfect echo chamber. The populace will decry spending money on anything whose effects are unlikely or not immediately detectable as a waste of money, and governments have no interest in policies that the people won't like.

[LP]

It's a perfect echo chamber. The populace will decry spending money on anything whose effects are unlikely or not immediately detectable as a waste of money, and governments have no interest in policies that the people won't like.

You can see the pressure is mounting on Frydenberg to cut the economic repatriation package, the Hard Right are piling on the pressure to keep government intervention as small as possible and aligned to the Liberal ideology, primarily this must be via a smaller government spend.

"Let the market decide............" ........... who lives or dies, and the dead don't complain or vote!

Economists, perhaps or certainly some with a socialist bent, are already warning of the detrimental effects of being "Too Cheap" but I suspect that cry is already "Too Late"! What is Billion$ now was Million$ in the 1920s, the same mistakes are being made, history repeats. Their may be a few still alive born in that 1920s era, the money the authorities did not spend back then buys someone a luxury car now!

Those in society with little foresight, the charity / miracle seekers, are going to be burnt badly so prepare your front door for some heavy knocking!