CV and mad panic behaviour

[kruddler]

I heard today (and it is in the road map) that they won't removed restrictions even if they hit targets before the dates mentioned as time is a factor, well I would like to know exactly what sort of factor he means here. His timeline of 14 days is already more than in reasonably required to understand where this virus is at and what the future holds of the coming 2-4 weeks, so what exactly is time above this 14 day period? Either the number is a save number to ease restrictions or it is not.

At a guess why time is a factor...
If you are told you can open your resteraunt tomorrow. Can you?
Have you got stock?
Have you got your staff ready?
Have you cleaned your restaurant? (One point has been mentioned that a lot of places have started growing mould over lockdown. That will take time to sort out)
Is there even any stock that you can get? Farmers need to get their act together, trucked to where it needs to get too....are their workers there to take the delivery?

You get my point.

Thats just a guess, and using restaurants as an example.

[Thryleon]

I have been tracking this virus here and globally since  March and I can tell you this.
There was absolutely no way that Dan and his team should have failed to realise what was going to happen.
They were using poor measurements for a start.
I haven't posted here for a long time and I have littered my FB with stat after stat about this virus, to the stage where it is all I ever post about, so I don't want to do the same thing here

But I have serious questions in the way the government has handled this and also how they refuse to provide any meaningful answers when questioned on it.

I heard today (and it is in the road map) that they won't removed restrictions even if they hit targets before the dates mentioned as time is a factor, well I would like to know exactly what sort of factor he means here. His timeline of 14 days is already more than in reasonably required to understand where this virus is at and what the future holds of the coming 2-4 weeks, so what exactly is time above this 14 day period? Either the number is a save number to ease restrictions or it is not.

I am very firmly in the camp that believes we need restrictions and right now need the lockdown. I thought it back in March, I thought it in June etc, so I believe that we should be in the lockdown we are in, but the pathway out... This is a huge crock and not only that, but I think there are severe failings in the modelling used and certainly it sits a fair way outside my own modelling and other modelling I have seen.

But.. on Dan...
If we have to be in stage 4 with 50 cases a day over 14 days (and I think 7 - 10 is more appropriate when measuring) when going down, then surely at around 50 cases per day over the averaging period (and in this case 14 is almost criminally unresponsive when a virus is ascending), then I would like to know why the government didn't act.. and I don't buy that they didn't want to risk the rage of the people, because it was highly predictable where the numbers were going to end up.

Here are just a simple table of stats (and it is even worse when you look at 7 day averages)

Average New Cases per day over previous 14 days.
Jul 04:  50.29
Jul 10: 108.79
Jul 14: 154.36
Jul 17: 200.86
Jul 21: 266.79
July 23 - Mandatory Masks - Melbourne & Mitcham Shire
Jul 25: 307.57
Jul 29: 366.50
Aug 01: 408.50
Aug 02 Stage 4 Melbourne lockdown.

So let's say Dan didn't thinkn we needed harsh lockdowns at 50.. or 100 or 150.. I mean the reality is, they had plenty of time to introduce them and the people of Melbourne are paying a huge price for this.
The impact on the mental health (forget suicides as a figure, look at the people who are developing other mental health issues that could take months or years to recover from)
The impact on those not being tested for possible terminal illnesses etc
The impact on the economy
The impact on students

And now the impact where the community is being punished for longer than it should be, because Dan didn't act.
If Dan had implemented these policies even once we hit 200, the lockdown would not have lasted longer than 6 weeks.
If he implemented at 100, then many hundreds of lives would have been saved.
Even if he implemented stage 3 restrictions sooner, all evidence statistically showed that the numbers were significantly reduced in stage 3, then he would have been able to accurately model our way out of this virus.
By not doing that, he is gun shy and it is insane.
Mandatory masks and stage 3 restrictions should be implemented already by the end of this month.
On October 1, at least with my forecasts suggest that the numbers at that time will be at a level that might be a little too high for stage 2 restrictions, but should be comfortably manageable for stage 3 (with mandatory masks).
In late September or early October, Metro Melbourne should be between 5-15 average cases a day (7 day averaging period) and it is really hard to justify why they can't be in a similar situation to region Victoria, with the requirements of masks still.

Just 2 last things.
1) People are sick of being blamed, but there is almost certainly a reason why the age demographics have the 20-29 age bracket as having the most infections, because they really are more likely to be breaking the rules and so more likely to be spreading it. So there is some truth in the public needing to wear part of the blame for the current situation
2) What are the triggers that will move Victoria back into heaving restrictions once they are eased? Will Dan Andrews fiddle whilst Victoria burns again, or will there be clearly defined cases numbers that are triggered to reintroduce restrictions and lockdowns?


Anyway in the meantime, I hope everyone is staying safe, sticking to the plan and working to help everyone get out of the  lockdowns, then I hope Dan Andrews actually acts in a transparent and logical way and starts to give you all back at least a semblance of your lives in early October.

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.

[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.

G'day Thry.
I come to the 7-10 day timeframe because it was the timeframe that allowed me most consistently predict trends in an accurate manner, whilst also keeping the data relevant.
I have put every countries daily data into a database, along with their population sizes etc and I ran models using  3-12 days trends, I found 7 was pretty much my sweet spot, of course the change even in the 7 day trend doesn't become apparent until around 14 or so days after a change to restrictions has been made and this is due to incubation periods, testing and reporting times etc.

14 days fails on the way up and the way down, on the way up, it does not come close to providing you with data in a timely manner (just as a small example we hit 50 cases over 7 days as an average a full 4 days before we hit that same average over 14 days). The problem is you are always making decisions long after you should have trended the data.
On the way down, it is the opposite effect. Knowing that we already know the data 10 days after a date (or approximately the data) off 7 days previous data, it makes no sense to "hang on" to data that is so far out of date.
For example the data across the previous 7 days is showing about a 20% drop compared to the last 14.

So on the way up and on the way down, it doesn't keep pace with the changes in the spread of the virus well enough for my liking and at times can really misrepresent the situation, but most dramatically, this is in the ascendancy

Obviously I am not an epidemiologist, but I just treated these stats the way I always treated stats and looked at this purely from a numbers perspective.

[dodge]

I see former Carlton board member Marcus Clarke QC is representing some looney cafe owner who is trying to get Dan's cerfew overturned in the Vic Supreme Court. Good luck Marcus, you'll need it.

Political stunt? She is trying for Liberal pre-selection...

[Gointocarlton]

Political stunt? She is trying for Liberal pre-selection...

There you go

[Thryleon]

G'day Thry.
I come to the 7-10 day timeframe because it was the timeframe that allowed me most consistently predict trends in an accurate manner, whilst also keeping the data relevant.
I have put every countries daily data into a database, along with their population sizes etc and I ran models using  3-12 days trends, I found 7 was pretty much my sweet spot, of course the change even in the 7 day trend doesn't become apparent until around 14 or so days after a change to restrictions has been made and this is due to incubation periods, testing and reporting times etc.

14 days fails on the way up and the way down, on the way up, it does not come close to providing you with data in a timely manner (just as a small example we hit 50 cases over 7 days as an average a full 4 days before we hit that same average over 14 days). The problem is you are always making decisions long after you should have trended the data.
On the way down, it is the opposite effect. Knowing that we already know the data 10 days after a date (or approximately the data) off 7 days previous data, it makes no sense to "hang on" to data that is so far out of date.
For example the data across the previous 7 days is showing about a 20% drop compared to the last 14.

So on the way up and on the way down, it doesn't keep pace with the changes in the spread of the virus well enough for my liking and at times can really misrepresent the situation, but most dramatically, this is in the ascendancy

Obviously I am not an epidemiologist, but I just treated these stats the way I always treated stats and looked at this purely from a numbers perspective.

Thats fair enough.

The only thing I can really hang my hat on, is that sometimes we just dont have the same access to information that these guys tend to.

Ive noted we are on average 3 days behind, simply based on what they are doing, and then what happens.  It may not be accurated, but I seem to think that the decisions we see today are discussions had a few days ago, and the recent easing of restrictions in regional Victoria speak for that I think.

My only guess is that its a big hulking machine full of inefficiencies and quite likely a lot of indecision with respect to why and how we do things, and one of the things that we dont have to consider is trying to get a population of people to actually go along with the recommendations.

The one thing I think we can all agree on, is that the current state of play didnt come with a play book, and for the most part, there has been a lot of reasonable decision making, with a few bone head decisions along the way.  Thing is, when they go wrong they go really wrong.  A lot our general public take it quite personally when Dad says that there are people doing the wrong thing.  They shouldnt.  The people doing the wrong thing, are those that are simply going about their business like there is nothing going on.

I know of someone who has symptoms and is refusing to get tested.  They are a hayfever sufferer, but it just comes across as selfish to me.  All they are going to recommend after testing is to isolate if positive, and if negative give you the all clear.  The reasoning:  Too many false negatives and positives.  Its akin to sticking your head in the sand.

Makes me really angry.  Whether or not you believe there is a pandemic, it's a logical fallousy to potentially get said virus and then walk around with scant regard because you dont want to, when there will be no real consequence either way because you want to thumb your nose at "the system". 

[LP]

The reason HCQ isn't proven to work is that the retrospective studies ignore why people are on HCQ in the first place.

It is the retrospective nature of the study that is the problem, most of the people in the study are identified from a list of survivors after the fact. They are generally already on HCQ because they are being treated for arthritis or rheumatic diseases, and they are also on a bunch of other drugs at the same time. You could easily look for a coincident illness that cures COVID and find arthritis is the miracle cure, or it could mean people who are already on HCQ are more attentive to their own health and as such act sooner when infected by COVID.

Picking HCQ out of that mix is as a retrospective data analysis is a study analysis flaw known as "The Theory Dependence of Observations". That is if a study is started and designed with a specific theory, idea or hypothesis in mind, in other words an assumption, that is exactly what you find.

Worse still, in some cases the incentive to publish such a finding can be lucrative, so you find some of the people publishing these retrospective theories are not even experts but paid commentators in unaligned or loosely aligned disciplines. The tell for the experienced is that when you delve into the papers, if they are genuine papers, you find it's a repeat of the same discredited data, given a new wrapper and re-gifted!

To do a genuine study of HCQ, you have to take a large number of people like the vaccine trial, thousands of people some infected, some who were infected and some who have never been infected, all of them with an unknown current state of health or infection, give them HCQ then study the outcome as some of that population get COVID infections / reinfections naturally. It's a study that takes many many months or even years to complete, just like the vaccine trials. It is happening as I type, but the results are months and months away, and any claims to knowing a specific outcome are just dice throws by the willingly uninformed.

[Thryleon]

The reason HCQ isn't proven to work is that the retrospective studies ignore why people are on HCQ in the first place.

It is the retrospective nature of the study that is the problem, most of the people in the study are identified from a list of survivors after the fact. They are generally already on HCQ because they are being treated for arthritis or rheumatic diseases, and they are also on a bunch of other drugs at the same time. You could easily look for a coincident illness that cures COVID and find arthritis is the miracle cure, or it could mean people who are already on HCQ are more attentive to their own health and as such act sooner when infected by COVID.

Picking HCQ out of that mix is as a retrospective data analysis is a study analysis flaw known as "The Theory Dependence of Observations". That is if a study is started and designed with a specific theory, idea or hypothesis in mind, in other words an assumption, that is exactly what you find.

Worse still, in some cases the incentive to publish such a finding can be lucrative, so you find some of the people publishing these retrospective theories are not even experts but paid commentators in unaligned or loosely aligned disciplines. The tell for the experienced is that when you delve into the papers, if they are genuine papers, you find it's a repeat of the same discredited data, given a new wrapper and re-gifted!

To do a genuine study of HCQ, you have to take a large number of people like the vaccine trial, thousands of people some infected, some who were infected and some who have never been infected, all of them with an unknown current state of health or infection, give them HCQ then study the outcome as some of that population get COVID infections / reinfections naturally. It's a study that takes many many months or even years to complete, just like the vaccine trials. It is happening as I type, but the results are months and months away, and any claims to knowing a specific outcome are just dice throws by the willingly uninformed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine

Reading through that tells me a lot about its viability.  Its neither a long term solution, nor a preventative, but something that will assist with healing once you are infected.  Thats fine but its not a reason of itself to disregard what we think is a bit more dangerous than the flu.

The whole point of the exercise we are currently undertaking is prevention is better than cure.  Ironically, the people most in the for HCQ are in the camp of cure is better than prevention because the data they quote come from an anti vax stand point.  Admittedly, I am in no hurry for any CV19 vaccine, but what I can understand is the following arguments:

1.  Its fundamentally a philosophical difference, with flaky data to support the opinion that it will be a magic bullet to explain why COVID isnt that big a deal.

2.  IF we let COVID out to do its thing, the people who support HCQ might find that its viability reduces the more we have to go down that road, and like you state, no real clinical study points to it being useful.

3. Based on Wiki (note, source is not biased, it simply tells you about things) states that the side effects and long term effects of using HCQ might yield worse results than getting CV19 anyway.

Attempting to put the breaks on an infectious disease spreading makes a lot of sense.  The way I see this at the moment, is that we have a bit of a seasaw going on.  The lockdowns are fine, but we cant stay in them forever and hide from the virus.  Once we get things down to a level where our health systems can cope with minute rises in infection and obtain the best outcomes possible for all those being treated without coming under undue strain, and still being able to deal with the regular flow of patients, we need to find a way to achieve a semblance of normality without all the lock downs IMHO. 

Its just not sustainable economically or socially.  Look at the impact its having on food supplies with a shortage of rice come christmas.  Thats not alarming in itself, but a lot of the systems that produce the things that keep our society going are able to be put on hold temporarily, but not indefinately.  To a degree that means "re-imagining" things to prevent the infection risks in these industries to enable a new normal to be found.

People need to get used to the idea that things are never going back to the way they were.

When it comes down to it, COVID is looking like a fairly mundane pandemic and I for one am thankful for that, but that doesnt mean we wont face another one, and with each new one that occurs we are one step closer to a new "black death" that will cause a lot of issues, and we really need to understand how bad this is quickly because the biggest issue with the current approach is that people are losing faith in the ability of those running the show to make good decisions and thats when things start becoming very dangerous particularly if the next pandemic is a doozy and happens quickly.  That also means, we need to start planning for a future state where a pandemic doesnt mean lock downs and a massive change to how we do things which will cause social and economic chaos.  The death of the big city is just the beginning of this.

[LP]

Attempting to put the breaks on an infectious disease spreading makes a lot of sense.  The way I see this at the moment, is that we have a bit of a seasaw going on.  The lockdowns are fine, but we cant stay in them forever and hide from the virus.  Once we get things down to a level where our health systems can cope with minute rises in infection and obtain the best outcomes possible for all those being treated without coming under undue strain, and still being able to deal with the regular flow of patients, we need to find a way to achieve a semblance of normality without all the lock downs IMHO. 

Its just not sustainable economically or socially.  Look at the impact its having on food supplies with a shortage of rice come christmas.  Thats not alarming in itself, but a lot of the systems that produce the things that keep our society going are able to be put on hold temporarily, but not indefinately.  To a degree that means "re-imagining" things to prevent the infection risks in these industries to enable a new normal to be found.

Absolutely agree [member=105]Thryleon[/member]‍

The problem I have, and why I rally against the rubbish being spread about COVID, cures and conspiracies, is that those acts are what will make the situation unmanageable.

There is some irony in having cranks claim the lockdown doesn't work, lockdown does more damage and claiming political or bureaucratic mismanagement, when it is the cranks that are the primary source of disquiet, disruption and damage. Sure there may be things that could have been done better, in every endeavour that is true which is why studying history is so valuable, but decisions can't be truly definitive because the cranks make for a shifting landscape more than the virus, they actively work against the control and cure!

There are many parallels for HCQ, political and social conspiracies in the Spanish Flu pandemic, snake oils and distractions sold by both cranks and officials, all offering learning that is currently ignored by many for the sake of short term social or political gain.

If we all went along quietly and complied to the lockdown, it would have been over weeks and weeks ago as they would have quickly regained control! It is the Karens and Coreys that are the cause of the sustained lockdown, they are not the cure for it!

[madbluboy]

Narre Warren/Fountain gate is apparently the new covid hotspot with 9 active cases lol. Dictator Dan needs to go.