Skip to main content
Topic: CV and mad panic behaviour (Read 24993 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1365
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a date (or approximately the data) off 7 days previous data, it makes no sense to "hang on" to data that is so far out of date.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". 
Come on you Blue FLAGGERS!!

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1366
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.
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1367
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.

Come on you Blue FLAGGERS!!

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

 

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1368
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 @Thryleon

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!
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1369
Narre Warren/Fountain gate is apparently the new covid hotspot with 9 active cases lol. Dictator Dan needs to go.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1370
Narre Warren/Fountain gate is apparently the new covid hotspot with 9 active cases lol. Dictator Dan needs to go.

He allowed infected people to socialise in fountain gate did he?

Sack HIM!

 ::)

Now, i don't want to tar everyone with the same brush, but Nazza Wazza is far from the most law abiding area and its highly likely that this is due to people, again, not following the rules.

If these 9 people have come in contact with 2 others each and those others came into contact with 2 others etc.

This time next week there will be 576 cases from that 'hotspot' you are currently mocking. In 1 week!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1371
The good people of Narre Warren, Hoppers Crossing or Toorak where one of the original "clusters" started are not at fault for this virus.

Blaming the 0.001% of the population for his own governmnent's shortfalls is despicable.

We can't stay in lockdown forever.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1372
The good people of Narre Warren, Hoppers Crossing or Toorak where one of the original "clusters" started are not at fault for this virus.

Blaming the 0.001% of the population for his own governmnent's shortfalls is despicable.

We can't stay in lockdown forever.

Pretty sure Dan Andrews isn't responsible for the virus either.

If that area was one of the original clusters, it should've died down months ago. Why is it still continuiung? Must be Dans fault.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1373
Dictator Dan was too busy stopping people like my widowed mother from seeing her grandkids that he lost focus on his main task of making sure people who actually had the virus were quarantined. Now hundreds of people have died because of his failures.

2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1374
Dictator Dan was too busy stopping people like my widowed mother from seeing her grandkids that he lost focus on his main task of making sure people who actually had the virus were quarantined. Now hundreds of people have died because of his failures.

While it is really unfortunate people have died, the fact it is only hundreds is due to lockdowns.

You wanna talk about a Dictator, look at Dictator Donald.
That is what you get from ineptness.

Take the emotion out of it, Dan Andrews has done better than 99% of the world in dealing with this.....despite a very vocal minority refusing to do as their told.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1375
Pretty sure Dan Andrews isn't responsible for the virus either.

If that area was one of the original clusters, it should've died down months ago. Why is it still continuiung? Must be Dans fault.

Irrelevant.

Every case since June is sourced out of the hotel quarantine disaster (and the ongoing contact tracing shambles).

Were the individuals doing the wrong thing? Darn right.

Does any of that absolve Dan (and Mikakos + DHHS folk) from taking responsibility for the greatest public health failure in Australian history?

That's simply the way the game plays out.

Heads must roll and the bigger the f... up, the bigger the scalp(s).

There is no bigger (a f... up) than this one - and Dopey knows it (that's why he insists on rambling at us day in day out).

He seeks absolution.

No chance.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1376
2 wrongs don't make a right.

Sacking Dan is wrong.

Any contrary argument is rife with emotion and short on logic.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1377
Okay Kruddler just like the Hawks winning flags while we win spoons it must just be just bad luck we are the covid capital of Australia.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1378
Okay Kruddler just like the Hawks winning flags while we win spoons it must just be just bad luck we are the covid capital of Australia.
Again, emotion and no logic.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #1379

Every case since June is sourced out of the hotel quarantine disaster (and the ongoing contact tracing shambles).

EOS, case closed, clear your desk and don't come Monday.
2017 - 16th
2018 - Wooden Spoon
2019 - 16th
2020 - dare to dream?
2021 - Pi$$ or get off the pot