Re: CV and mad panic behaviour Reply #1365 – September 16, 2020, 09:39:59 AM Quote from: mateinone on September 15, 2020, 11:03:21 PMG'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a date (or approximately the data) off 7 days previous data, it makes no sense to "hang on" to data that is so far out of date.For example the data across the previous 7 days is showing about a 20% drop compared to the last 14.So on the way up and on the way down, it doesn't keep pace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".