Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: CV and mad panic behaviour (Read 434634 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 14 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1530 –
Sorry but I hate Sky, but anyway..
But I don't know why Sweden is being compared to NYC and UK in regards to when they leveled out to zero deaths, but certainly if you compare it to say Norway and Finland (I would have thought more appropriate comparisons) they took much longer to level out and their peak deaths were considerably higher.

If Australia had 230,000+ cases and 14,000 deaths, but we didn't have the lockdown, are you actually suggesting this is preferable?
I may be misreading you, but if you are suggesting there should not have been a lockdown that is a corresponding response based on population
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1531 –
What was the point of getting rid of the curfew if you can't go anywhere?

2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1533 –
Quote from: kruddler on
Late night shopping/food runs.

No longer need ubereats etc

Yeah I agree, it was exactly about that..
Not getting a huge fine because you run out of milk in the middle of the night and want a coffee or smoke etc.
This may not seem like a significant change, but removal of the curfew does still bring significant upside.

Not that I agree with the restrictions on allowing a very small number of guests, I would have thought this was a reasonable option, but ... the answer that even with small numbers there is no masks being worn and it can still easily transmit is reasonable.

Overall, I thought today's announcements lacked in a few areas, but it did also deliver in a few areas. I am extremely happy to see the arbitrary date of 4 weeks removed, the answer on the golf course and tennis courts seems pretty average (though golf cannot easily be played in 2 hours (for 9 holes) if a course is busy, which they would be.

More positives than negatives out of today's press conference
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1534 –
You’re never going to please everyone.

I find it astonishing that people really needed to be out after 9pm with f all open anyway - we have two kids and so weren’t only organising having dinner sorted or milk in the fridge for ourselves but our kids too.  But anyway it just shows everyone will whine about something, and then when that changes they whine about something else.

Wasn’t the point of the curfew to restrict movement and give the police an easier time of being able to keep track of people doing the right thing - ie 5km radius, not visiting other households etc?

If the worst thing happening in your life atm is not being able to fish or play golf, you’re doing ok. Hang in there, we’re almost at the end  O:-)

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1535 –
So,  easing restrictions means  essentially tomorrow is going to be just like today I. E.  No change.
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1536 –
Im not sure what everyone was expecting.   I know my mother in law in textiles manufacturing and certain other industries are returning to work tomorrow and they haven't been working for 8 weeks.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1537 –
Quote from: Professer E on
So,  easing restrictions means  essentially tomorrow is going to be just like today I. E.  No change.

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.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1538 –
I agree with you Kruddler and in any case I am not completely for just opening everything up.
There are some things that I think are probably a little tighter than they need to be, but getting some people back to work, giving back a little freedom and at the same time keeping a tight line on the virus seems a pretty decent compromise.

I think the 5 number is a bit of an issue and as someone just pointed out to me, it means two parents and their child cannot meet up with 2 other parents and their child for exercise/playing in the park... that does seem quite ridiculous when kids and their parents can all go to the pool.

Also whilst 21 days still seems a bit longer than is actually needed to be able to read the impacts of previous changes (between about 15-18 days is enough), I can at least understand the decision making being based on the numbers, so it is acceptable, whereas the 28 days was absolutely not.
I would have also preferred to see something along the lines of the 5km limit replaced with within the same postcode or withing 5km of your home, I think against this would be a little more reasonable.

But overall as I said earlier, I think there is more good than bad in today's new personally
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1539 –
Quote from: mateinone on
I agree with you Kruddler and in any case I am not completely for just opening everything up.
There are some things that I think are probably a little tighter than they need to be, but getting some people back to work, giving back a little freedom and at the same time keeping a tight line on the virus seems a pretty decent compromise.

I think the 5 number is a bit of an issue and as someone just pointed out to me, it means two parents and their child cannot meet up with 2 other parents and their child for exercise/playing in the park... that does seem quite ridiculous when kids and their parents can all go to the pool.

Also whilst 21 days still seems a bit longer than is actually needed to be able to read the impacts of previous changes (between about 15-18 days is enough), I can at least understand the decision making being based on the numbers, so it is acceptable, whereas the 28 days was absolutely not.
I would have also preferred to see something along the lines of the 5km limit replaced with within the same postcode or withing 5km of your home, I think against this would be a little more reasonable.

But overall as I said earlier, I think there is more good than bad in today's new personally

re the number of days....there is never going to be major changes midweek, so its either 14 or 21 days.

Going back to the mathematics vs logistics argument ;)

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1540 –
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.
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1542 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
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.


@Thryleon

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)



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.
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1543 –
Quote from: mateinone on
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 @mateinone‍ , 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!
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1544 –

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.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson