Carlton Supporters Club

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a date (or approximately the data) off 7 days previous data, it makes no sense to "hang on" to data that is so far out of date.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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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