-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
If you let them get away with it they'll keep doing it.
Just don't post about a stupid protest on Facebook or get your essential worker paperwork wrong.........................
My advice is to be careful about believing all you hear about contact tracing Ridley, especially that Victoria is bad and NSW is good. Contact tracing is primarily a matter of resources versus workload and whilst there is no doubt that Victoria got behind because of an inability to keep up when infections were very high I have little doubt that faced with the same workload NSW would have as well.
The hardest part of contact tracing is when it is a healthcare worker because every possible staff contact has to be tested and then furloughed so every movement and every contact has to be traced and that means you need people who understand hospital data systems and that is a finite resource.
Victoria is by no means perfect but no state is. One of the biggest issues is the refusal of some to disclose their movements and contacts and I do know that was one of the big issues in the early part of the hotel quarantine problems. Some infected individuals were very uncooperative.
As I understand it one of the tasks the Army has in Victoria is the in person follow up to the contact tracing phone calls, so they are attempting to force the issue with these people.
I think the problem we have is selfish people who are not abiding with what law abiding citizens are doing, and just going about their business whilst infected. When then questioned to avoid any sort of retrospective fine they are lying or refusing to answer CT questions. This added to the distrust that is spread online via mistruths that claim that the enemy is the state and people are then avoiding even basic questions like where have you been and who have you been in contact with. This basic amount of information is all that needs to be provided, but when a significant amount of people do it (10%) than that is way too many. I think this % has got better from the start of the outbreak but people should be doing the right thing and communicating this to authorities. The quicker we all get the numbers down, the quicker we can all get back to some sense of normality.
Others have addressed the issues state by state and what the Vic government are trying to do. Bear in mind they may be hamstrung by federal requirements around this that stop them forcing people to provide information.
I highly doubt that this is purely just a VIC issue, just a much bigger issue here due to the scale of the outbreak, and therefore politics then gets involved and makes it an even bigger issue.
As SinTiger said it is a numbers game. Easier to track 12 new cases per day than 700.
The quicker you can get the infected people to stop interacting and self isolate the better chance you have of containing the infection growth and also have an open economy
The quicker you can get the infected people to stop interacting and self isolate the better chance you have of containing the infection growth and also have an open economy
If so that is good but they need to force the issue and stop pussyfooting around with arseholes who won't comply. We seem to have it all arse about; the penalties for withholding contact data and not self isolating when positive are less than for someone cocking up their essential worker paperwork.
FFS.
Cheers Sin appreciate your insight.
I understand it is harder to contact trace with greater numbers but it should also be noted that NSW had significantly greater numbers than Victoria in the first wave. There is no doubt they have handled it better.
But my biggest issue is with the lack of proper enforcement in Victoria; this has been a major contributor to the second wave. I appreciate the authorities are working hard to get this under control but we are coming from further back than Kiwi in the 83 Melb Cup. And we don't have Kiwi's turn of foot.
Whilst I get this is difficult I reckon VIC has been more than unlucky.
At end March/start Apr NSW had been subject to case numbers of over 100 for 2 weeks straight. Some days over 200 new cases. On Apr 3rd they had 106 cases. By Apr 6th they were under 50 and have not been beyond that since then. Without Stage 4 restrictions or compulsory masks. All I keep reading is how difficult it is to manage once you get beyond a certain number of new cases. But is that just excuse making?
How did they manage it so well and so quickly without the restrictions we have here?
At end March/start Apr NSW had been subject to case numbers of over 100 for 2 weeks straight. Some days over 200 new cases. On Apr 3rd they had 106 cases. By Apr 6th they were under 50 and have not been beyond that since then. Without Stage 4 restrictions or compulsory masks. All I keep reading is how difficult it is to manage once you get beyond a certain number of new cases. But is that just excuse making?
How did they manage it so well and so quickly without the restrictions we have here?
From afar, I fear that the mounting pressure and petulance for a large section of the population will force Dan's decision to open early. For all the good intentions he has, and work *smile* hard, he is also a politician that wants to be re-elected.
He's in a no win situation though. Open up and no further outbreak, he'll be accused of holding on too log and he could have loosened up a lot earlier. Open up and another flare up. he'll be called incompetent and again unable to manage the outbreak.
His only saving grace is that the Libs in Vic would have to be the most incompetent opposition in the country
He's in a no win situation though. Open up and no further outbreak, he'll be accused of holding on too log and he could have loosened up a lot earlier. Open up and another flare up. he'll be called incompetent and again unable to manage the outbreak.
His only saving grace is that the Libs in Vic would have to be the most incompetent opposition in the country
I really do hate it when people are so obsessed with their individualism that they refuse things like contact tracing after testing positive. If they want freedom, they must accept responsibility, 2 sides of the same coin. We have become such an individualistic society and this is one of the effects.
Another thing which drives me crazy is the sort of faux concern for peoples' wellbeing from the likes of the Business Council. The quote from their boss was "It is about that sense of hope versus despair". Yet the despair of those casually employed and depressed because they can only find precarious work is fine because that helps their bottom line.
The number today was much better and hopefully we are heading towards a low average:
What does confuse me is their quoting of a 14 day average of 95.5. No idea where they are getting this from.
I update the daily infection numbers each day to calculate the centred 5 day average and the trailing 7 day average. What this means is that I go to the DHHS site (presumably where they get their numbers from too) and go back to the start of July and make adjustments as the DHHS numbers are adjusted. Doing this only makes small changes to the daily new infection number and to the averages, but these do accumulate. Just as an example, the original daily infection number for 4 August was over 700, 703 from memory. But this has been adjusted a number of times and is now 687. I suspect they are taking the headline figure each day and not adjusting it as the DHHS revises their figures - if so, this is poor. They must also be doing a trailing not centred average as a centred average would only be possible up to a week in the past for a 14 day average.
From the new daily infection numbers, as revised, the 14 day trailing average I get, on their figures, is:
5 September: 97.79
6 September: 92.96
I can try and add this to the graph, need to find a good colour so we don't have everything merge, but this seems to be the number they are relying on. Good to see the shorter term averages as well as this shows the trend quicker.
DS
Another thing which drives me crazy is the sort of faux concern for peoples' wellbeing from the likes of the Business Council. The quote from their boss was "It is about that sense of hope versus despair". Yet the despair of those casually employed and depressed because they can only find precarious work is fine because that helps their bottom line.
The number today was much better and hopefully we are heading towards a low average:
What does confuse me is their quoting of a 14 day average of 95.5. No idea where they are getting this from.
I update the daily infection numbers each day to calculate the centred 5 day average and the trailing 7 day average. What this means is that I go to the DHHS site (presumably where they get their numbers from too) and go back to the start of July and make adjustments as the DHHS numbers are adjusted. Doing this only makes small changes to the daily new infection number and to the averages, but these do accumulate. Just as an example, the original daily infection number for 4 August was over 700, 703 from memory. But this has been adjusted a number of times and is now 687. I suspect they are taking the headline figure each day and not adjusting it as the DHHS revises their figures - if so, this is poor. They must also be doing a trailing not centred average as a centred average would only be possible up to a week in the past for a 14 day average.
From the new daily infection numbers, as revised, the 14 day trailing average I get, on their figures, is:
5 September: 97.79
6 September: 92.96
I can try and add this to the graph, need to find a good colour so we don't have everything merge, but this seems to be the number they are relying on. Good to see the shorter term averages as well as this shows the trend quicker.
DS
To some extent that is why the roadmap is so conservative, so slow.
It gives the Victorian government wriggle room. If the numbers come down quicker they can relax the restrictions earlier. Thus they have a plan, which is widely promoted, which gives them the possibility of relaxing restrictions early (over-delivering) with small risk of under-delivering. Definitely a balancing act but I would think the probability of relaxing restrictions early is much higher than the probability of having to extend restrictions. A political and epidemiological calculation and balancing act.
DS
I hope he doesn't cave, pointless caving in now as they have shown they cannot manage even a small amount of case numbers.
NSW has averaged around 15 cases a days for over 2 months, can we trust the Vic government to be able to manage a similar case load?
As you suggest they are unlikely to be punished at the ballot box as the Libs are a basket case.
I update the daily infection numbers each day to calculate the centred 5 day average and the trailing 7 day average.
[/QUOTE]
Good work thanks David. Could you please explain the difference between an average and a trailing average? Does the trailing average use the figures from the previous 7 days and excludes today's figure?
And why do you use the trailing average for 7 days and regular average for 5 days?
Cheers.
[/QUOTE]
Good work thanks David. Could you please explain the difference between an average and a trailing average? Does the trailing average use the figures from the previous 7 days and excludes today's figure?
And why do you use the trailing average for 7 days and regular average for 5 days?
Cheers.
To answer Ridley's questions:
Easiest to answer with an example:
7 Day trailing average for 6 September is an average of 31 August to 6 September.
5 Day centred average for 6 September is an average of 4 September to 8 September
So, the trailing average lags because it only considers what has happened, it has the advantage that you have today's trailing average today. The centred average is in some ways more accurate as it averages days on both sides of the day in question, but, you have to wait a couple of days to get the number.
The days chosen and lengths have little logic! I started by doing a 7 day trailing average because it is a week and I get the number on the day. I added the 5 day average as a contrast and also made it centred to give more contrast. So, no real logic to these decisions. The good thing about 2 averages, differently calculated, is that you get 2 views of the situation: the 5 day centred average may be a couple of days behind but it responds much quicker to changes, so a quicker, but more volatile, view of the trend. The 7 day average is slower to react but a more reasonable period of time. A 14 day average, given the period people are infectious, is actually a good measure for this virus.
As with any stats you can make the numbers sing to your own tune, at least to some extent. If I wanted our numbers to look good I could plot them, per 1million persons, against those in the USA. If I want Australia to look bad, do the same in comparison to New Zealand. Can also cherry pick data. I started from the start of July because that is when the second wave in Victoria seemed to take off, and being the start of the month is convenient for organising how we see things.
The first time I used the centred average I just called it the 5 day average, for the simple reason that, for the life of me, the word centred wouldn't come into my brain!
DS
Easiest to answer with an example:
7 Day trailing average for 6 September is an average of 31 August to 6 September.
5 Day centred average for 6 September is an average of 4 September to 8 September
So, the trailing average lags because it only considers what has happened, it has the advantage that you have today's trailing average today. The centred average is in some ways more accurate as it averages days on both sides of the day in question, but, you have to wait a couple of days to get the number.
The days chosen and lengths have little logic! I started by doing a 7 day trailing average because it is a week and I get the number on the day. I added the 5 day average as a contrast and also made it centred to give more contrast. So, no real logic to these decisions. The good thing about 2 averages, differently calculated, is that you get 2 views of the situation: the 5 day centred average may be a couple of days behind but it responds much quicker to changes, so a quicker, but more volatile, view of the trend. The 7 day average is slower to react but a more reasonable period of time. A 14 day average, given the period people are infectious, is actually a good measure for this virus.
As with any stats you can make the numbers sing to your own tune, at least to some extent. If I wanted our numbers to look good I could plot them, per 1million persons, against those in the USA. If I want Australia to look bad, do the same in comparison to New Zealand. Can also cherry pick data. I started from the start of July because that is when the second wave in Victoria seemed to take off, and being the start of the month is convenient for organising how we see things.
The first time I used the centred average I just called it the 5 day average, for the simple reason that, for the life of me, the word centred wouldn't come into my brain!
DS
No worries, long time since I did stats, over 30 years! Good stats are explained properly so you can see what they mean and what other ways to calculate from data might be available.
DS
