The corona virus COVID-19

 
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
Vic numbers today once again show how much the headline numbers are overstated due to double counting or whatever it is that causes these re-classification

"Victoria has recorded 51 new cases of coronavirus since yesterday, with the total number of cases now at 19,728.
The overall total has increased by 40 due to 11 cases being reclassified"

Sponsored advertisement

  Carnot Minister for Railways

False positives perhaps?
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
'"Victoria has recorded 51 new cases of coronavirus since yesterday, with the total number of cases now at 19,728.
The overall total has increased by 40 due to 11 cases being reclassified"'


What does this reclassification thing really mean? Does it mean 'not previously reported'?

My understanding, from comments made by Sutton the other day, is that, using BG's figures above, that there were, in fact, 40 new COVID-19 cases in the last 24 hours to which 11 old/previously unreported cases were added to fiddle the daily figure so that when all this is over the daily figures will perhaps eventually add up to the total cases.

IF (?????) my understanding is correct, surely this is only a way of prolonging the current lockdown and the agony it causes by artificially inflating the daily figure that we so desperately need to reduce. Why not report the new daily/previous 24 hours cases honestly and include the reclassified numbers in the historic grand total if necessary but don't mislead people on the daily figures? All unless there is some other ulterior motive, of course.

Not saying that I am right; I don't know, so perhaps some of you will tell me (politely, I hope) where I have gone wrong.

Example:
The 1800 arrival at Spencer Street today from 'wherever' arrived 5 minutes late at 1805 but is deemed/reported as 3 hours and 5 minutes late as it was 2 hours (reclassified) late last Tuesday and 1 hour late on Monday (reclassified).
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
False positives perhaps?
Carnot
Perhaps. The explanation that I have seen that makes the most sense is that it is second positive tests of existing cases being classed as new and then removed.

But as I posted the other day some days it is over 20% of the total

And as I wondered then does this happen in other places or is this a DHHS issue
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

..............................................................................................

my understanding is correct, surely this is only a way of prolonging the current lockdown and the agony it causes by artificially inflating the daily figure that we so desperately need to reduce. Why not report the new daily/previous 24 hours cases honestly and include the reclassified numbers in the historic grand total if necessary but don't mislead people on the daily figures? All unless there is some other ulterior motive, of course.

............................................................................................................
YM-Mundrabilla

The figures quoted above are for Victoria, whereas there are separate milestones for Melbourne and Regional Victoria. The daily media releases (available to all news outlets) from the Department of Health and Human Services give the 14-day daily new-cases rolling average for each, which today are 70.1 and 4.5 respectively. If you put the daily new case figures on a spreadsheet it would appear that allowance has been made for reclassified cases as the spreadsheet figures are slightly higher.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
..............................................................................................

my understanding is correct, surely this is only a way of prolonging the current lockdown and the agony it causes by artificially inflating the daily figure that we so desperately need to reduce. Why not report the new daily/previous 24 hours cases honestly and include the reclassified numbers in the historic grand total if necessary but don't mislead people on the daily figures? All unless there is some other ulterior motive, of course.

............................................................................................................

The figures quoted above are for Victoria, whereas there are separate milestones for Melbourne and Regional Victoria. The daily media releases (available to all news outlets) from the Department of Health and Human Services give the 14-day daily new-cases rolling average for each, which today are 70.1 and 4.5 respectively. If you put the daily new case figures on a spreadsheet it would appear that allowance has been made for reclassified cases as the spreadsheet figures are slightly higher.
kitchgp
Thanks Kitchgp.
So Wednesday's new cases were, in fact, 51 but the total cases was increased by only 40 to account for 11 previously recorded incorrectly. I must have misheard/misunderstood what Sutton said.
I would use my ear trumpet in future but its mainspring is broken. Smile
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

At a more ideological level, I am deeply concerned about this precedent: I just am not comfortable with the idea that a Government can confine me to my house because it believes it knows more about my safety and needs than I do...but hey thats another discussion.
Because it's all about you isn't it? This is for the safety and wellbeing of all Australians, not just you!
Graham4405
Correct. In a western liberal democracy the rights of the individual should be prized above the rights of the collective.

If you don't like it, you should move further "east". And I should move further "west"...

I firmly believe that your health and safety is NOT my responsibility.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

BTW the experts in Spring Street only signed a contract last week with IBM to provide health tracking and contact tracing software to the DHHS.

Currently the DHHS is writing things down on paper, whiteboards and post-it notes and using some Excel spreadsheets.

But if your information above is true (and i have no reason to doubt it) then that might explain why this keeps happening.
BrentonGolding

Yep and now this information from my IBM contacts has filtered through to the media. Nothing was in place within the DHHS to get contact tracing in order until a week or so ago. They basically said around June "Victoria has beaten this...no need to do bugger all."

It is becoming clear that the lock-down is the result of ministers not trusting their own departments.

Yes Minister springs to mind, but Sir Humphrey is now "woke" and gives long meaningless speeches about diversity and rainbows of opportunity.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Norda Fittazroy
I firmly believe that your health and safety is NOT my responsibility.
"Mr. Lane
Without entering into a debate which would be space-consuming and unlikely to reach a result, I'll just say that I disagree with your sentiment.
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
I firmly believe that your health and safety is NOT my responsibility.
Without entering into a debate which would be space-consuming and unlikely to reach a result, I'll just say that I disagree with your sentiment.
Valvegear
Very diplomatic YOUNG Valvegear, a Gold Star to you. Bugger that, make it 80!
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Very diplomatic YOUNG Valvegear, a Gold Star to you. Bugger that, make it 80!
"BrentonGolding"
Thanks! . . . very skilfully worded!
  KRviator Moderator

Location: Up the front
So, I got to wondering about how much this is costing us and did some digging. I found a few figures and the number's are genuinely scary...As at yesterday, for COVID:
- The median age of all cases is 37 years (range: 0 to 106 years).
- The median age of deaths is 86 years (range: 30 to 106 years).
- Source

The ABS says in 2018 (Last year of avail data)
- Median age at death was 78.9 years for males and 84.8 years for females.
- Source

The statistical value of an Aussie person is now set at $4.9M AUD or $213,000 for each "lost year". Source.

If you assume (I know, I know), the "average" age at death in Australia is (78.9+84.8)/2 = 81.85, then there is zero value to be "saved" in the "statistical value of life" calculations, as those who died with COVID have already passed the "notional date of death" that would be used in that application. From the available data, it looks to me that those dying from COVID are, by and large, those who would die from anything if they were to catch it, influenza, pneumonia, even a common cold.

Yet the Australian economy is $100 Billion in arrears and it's still going up at an astronomical rate, to what end?!?

Even if we applied the average 0.06% fatality rate to our population, that is still "only" 15,300 deaths in Australia, as a whole. That 15,300*4.9M = $74.9 Billion - Less than they've spent on "JobKeeper" so far!! Evil or Very Mad
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
So, I got to wondering about how much this is costing us and did some digging. I found a few figures and the number's are genuinely scary...As at yesterday, for COVID:
- The median age of all cases is 37 years (range: 0 to 106 years).
- The median age of deaths is 86 years (range: 30 to 106 years).
- Source

The ABS says in 2018 (Last year of avail data)
- Median age at death was 78.9 years for males and 84.8 years for females.
- Source

The statistical value of an Aussie person is now set at $4.9M AUD or $213,000 for each "lost year". Source.

If you assume (I know, I know), the "average" age at death in Australia is (78.9+84.8)/2 = 81.85, then there is zero value to be "saved" in the "statistical value of life" calculations, as those who died with COVID have already passed the "notional date of death" that would be used in that application. From the available data, it looks to me that those dying from COVID are, by and large, those who would die from anything if they were to catch it, influenza, pneumonia, even a common cold.

Yet the Australian economy is $100 Billion in arrears and it's still going up at an astronomical rate, to what end?!?

Even if we applied the average 0.06% fatality rate to our population, that is still "only" 15,300 deaths in Australia, as a whole. That 15,300*4.9M = $74.9 Billion - Less than they've spent on "JobKeeper" so far!! Evil or Very Mad
KRviator
This just does not apply to Australia, all countries around the globe are feeling the financial strain because of this, look at the U.S, places like Miami/Florida/Port Canaveral,  which are all massive cruise areas, these areas have been completely decimated by the virus, Millions of dollars down the drain every single day. that is but one aspect, but I could mention 100's more.
  KRviator Moderator

Location: Up the front
What part doesn't apply to us here?

Multiple countries worldwide, the US/UK/Brazil are averaging COVID fatality rates of 0.06% of their population, and they have vastly different health systems, socio-economic status and COVID responses, yet they are all around 0.06%.

If we had just let it rip, once the health system was prepared to cope with the case load - which it has been for months - firstly we wouldn't be having this discussion, and secondly, while the number ofdeaths in Australia would be relatively high, it would actually be less than the deaths caused by lung cancer over a 2-year period - and that is mostly caused by voluntary tobacco smoking that the Governments are happy to let continue!
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

I firmly believe that your health and safety is NOT my responsibility.
Without entering into a debate which would be space-consuming and unlikely to reach a result, I'll just say that I disagree with your sentiment.
Valvegear
I was a bit drunk when I posted that and though I am a libertarian, this belief isn't as firm as my post suggested.

Sorry chaps, just a drunk starting trouble. In fact prior to this lock-down I hadn't had a drink for 18 months. Will stop again as soon as its over.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

I think Israilfan put the "just" in the wrong sequence.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
What part doesn't apply to us here?

Multiple countries worldwide, the US/UK/Brazil are averaging COVID fatality rates of 0.06% of their population, and they have vastly different health systems, socio-economic status and COVID responses, yet they are all around 0.06%.

If we had just let it rip, once the health system was prepared to cope with the case load - which it has been for months - firstly we wouldn't be having this discussion, and secondly, while the number ofdeaths in Australia would be relatively high, it would actually be less than the deaths caused by lung cancer over a 2-year period - and that is mostly caused by voluntary tobacco smoking that the Governments are happy to let continue!
KRviator
What I am getting at is, the whole world is suffering economic hardships because of the virus, it's not just Australia, that's what i meant to say.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
In regards to herd immunity for Coronavirus out here, this was posted on Facebook by a friend of mine, it is from a doctor in Sydney-

One of the more sincere questions I get asked by people grappling with the CoVID-19 pandemic is: “if the mortality rate is so low, why don’t we just aim for herd immunity. Surely that would be better than locking us all down?”

Herd immunity is the concept that if enough people are immune to a particular disease, either through naturally acquired immunity or vaccination, that the spread of the disease in the community is arrested, hence protecting vulnerable individuals like the elderly, babies, pregnant women and those with chronic health conditions.

The percentage of people that need to be immune to a disease in order to establish herd immunity in the community varies depending on the disease reproductive number. For CoVID-19 the percentage estimated to achieve herd immunity would be 60% of the population.

The current case mortality rate of CoVID in Australia is around 1.7%. Worldwide case mortality is double this at 3.6%. But for the sake of simplicity let’s use the Australian case mortality rate.

If 60% of the community needs to catch COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity, that means that 14.4 million Australians need to be infected. No problem.

But.....

1.7% will die of the disease. That’s 244,800 dead Australians.

But hey, 98.3% will survive, right?

But international figures show 14% of patients require hospitalisation due to extreme symptoms and complications. That’s 1.96 million Australians that will need admission to hospital.

We only have 62,000 beds available Australia-wide. So what happens to the 1.9 million Australians who need beds but can’t get the medical care to pull through?

But forget them...what’s important is that the really sick Australians get a bed, right?

International figures show that 2% of infected patients require intensive care support. That would mean that 280,000 Australians will require ICU admission.

We have 2378 ICU beds. What happens to the 276,000 critically unwell patients that cannot get an ICU bed?

Aiming for herd immunity in Australia would hence result in:

14.4 million infected Australians.

1.9 million severely infected Australians unable to get a hospital bed.

276,000 critically infected Australians unable to get an ICU bed.

Oh, and the 244,800 Australians that are going to die because ‘it’s only a 1.7% mortality rate’.

But, hey, at least we’ll establish herd immunity, right?

Except for that fact that all evidence points to waning immunity following infection, with antibodies waning after 3 months.

Herd immunity is not an option. Stay home, and stay sensible.

EDIT:

From Elaine Stevenson, Australian Infectious Disease Epidemiologist, who contacted me and is aghast by the Swedish approach:

“Herd immunity is a concept which only applies to vaccine preventable diseases as a measure of program efficacy.

It does not apply to the situation that we are currently in vis a vis COVID-19

We do not have enough follow up on the virus to be anything other than extremely cautious”.



I have no clue whether this is right or wrong, but this is a point of view from the good doctor.
  Madjikthise Deputy Commissioner

Thing is, would the mortality rate stay at 1.7% with more infections, or would it catch up to the worldwide average of 3.6%?
You'd need to adjust your figures.
  KRviator Moderator

Location: Up the front
i'd say the good doctor is talking out his asre...The fatality rate is nowhere near 1.3% that is about 20x higher than the actual rate, for the top 20 countries.

Data for the top 20 countries ranked by case number. Forumla is "Deaths / Population * 100"
USA - 0.059%
India - 0.006%
Brazil - 0.061%
Russia - 0.013%
Peru - 0.092%
Colombia - 0.044%
Mexico - 0.054%
South Africa - 0.026%
Spain - 0.064%
Argentina - 0.024%
Chile - 0.062%
Iran - 0.027%
UK - 0.061%
France - 0.047%
Bangladesh - 0.003%
Saudi Arabia - 0.012%
Pakistan - 0.003%
Turkey - 0.008%
Italy - 0.059%
Iraq - 0.019%

AVERAGE: 0.0372

And Sweden (at #26) comes in at 0.058 %

Now Data from top 20 countries ranked by deaths, same forumla:
USA - 0.059
Brazil - 0.061
India - 0.006
Mexico - 0.054
UK - 0.061
Italy - 0.059
France - 0.047
Peru - 0.092
Spain - 0.064
Iran - 0.027
Colombia - 0.044
Russia - 0.013
South Africa - 0.026
Chile - 0.062
Argentina - 0.024
Ecuador - 0.061
Belgium - 0.085
Germany - 0.011
Canada - 0.024
Indonesia - 0.003

AVERAGE : 0.04415
  KRviator Moderator

Location: Up the front
So, plugging either of those figures into our population reveals a total COVID fatality rate of 9,486-11,258 across the entire Australian population.

If you go by Sweden's figure of 0.058% it is still "only" 14,790 fatalities. Given that lung cancer killed 8,684 people last year, mostly through voluntary smoking and the Government did SFA to stop those deaths I'm all for opening the borders and getting on with life.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
So, plugging either of those figures into our population reveals a total COVID fatality rate of 9,486-11,258 across the entire Australian population.

If you go by Sweden's figure of 0.058% it is still "only" 14,790 fatalities. Given that lung cancer killed 8,684 people last year, mostly through voluntary smoking and the Government did SFA to stop those deaths I'm all for opening the borders and getting on with life.
KRviator
It's an interesting debate this whole thing, did the Govt overreact big time, were the lockdowns necessary, was Coronavirus as deadly as people said it was, I don't suppose we will know the answers properly for a long while yet, at least until the pandemic plays itself out, which it will do in time.
  Madjikthise Deputy Commissioner

i'd say the good doctor is talking out his asre...The fatality rate is nowhere near 1.3% that is about 20x higher than the actual rate, for the top 20 countries.

Data for the top 20 countries ranked by case number. Forumla is "Deaths / Population * 100"
USA - 0.059%
India - 0.006%
Brazil - 0.061%
Russia - 0.013%
Peru - 0.092%
Colombia - 0.044%
Mexico - 0.054%
South Africa - 0.026%
Spain - 0.064%
Argentina - 0.024%
Chile - 0.062%
Iran - 0.027%
UK - 0.061%
France - 0.047%
Bangladesh - 0.003%
Saudi Arabia - 0.012%
Pakistan - 0.003%
Turkey - 0.008%
Italy - 0.059%
Iraq - 0.019%

AVERAGE: 0.0372

And Sweden (at #26) comes in at 0.058 %

Now Data from top 20 countries ranked by deaths, same forumla:
USA - 0.059
Brazil - 0.061
India - 0.006
Mexico - 0.054
UK - 0.061
Italy - 0.059
France - 0.047
Peru - 0.092
Spain - 0.064
Iran - 0.027
Colombia - 0.044
Russia - 0.013
South Africa - 0.026
Chile - 0.062
Argentina - 0.024
Ecuador - 0.061
Belgium - 0.085
Germany - 0.011
Canada - 0.024
Indonesia - 0.003

AVERAGE : 0.04415
KRviator
Death as a percentage of population? How is that meaningful, you don't know how many will be infected.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
What part doesn't apply to us here?

Multiple countries worldwide, the US/UK/Brazil are averaging COVID fatality rates of 0.06% of their population, and they have vastly different health systems, socio-economic status and COVID responses, yet they are all around 0.06%.

If we had just let it rip, once the health system was prepared to cope with the case load - which it has been for months - firstly we wouldn't be having this discussion, and secondly, while the number ofdeaths in Australia would be relatively high, it would actually be less than the deaths caused by lung cancer over a 2-year period - and that is mostly caused by voluntary tobacco smoking that the Governments are happy to let continue!
KRviator
I think exactly the same way - we followed the advice of the World Health Organisation and completely ruined our economy (well Victoria has totally ruined theirs).

Why? What did we gain?
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Not everyone followed the advices though.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: