Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 99, 100, 101 ... 250, 251, 252  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Morrigu Capricorn



Joined: 11 Aug 2001


PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:59 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmmm waiting to hear from Alex Hawke MP and happy clapper .................
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Jezza Taurus

2023 PREMIERS!


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:05 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tannin wrote:
It's a bit useless comparing the infection numbers for different states when they have different populations. Is NSW really that much worse than the other states?

Well, yes.

NT 117
Tas 160
WA 191
Qld 197
Vic 201
SA 246
ACT 253
NSW 353

(Number of infections per million)

NSW by far the worst; SA is bad, Vic, Qld and WA all in the middle of the pack, Tasmania and the Territory least affected.

These stats are somewhat useless without knowing how extensive testing is.

Tasmania has done the least testing per million, but those that have tested amount positive to nearly 3% which is the highest of any state.

State/territory = number of tests (per million) = % positive

SA = 32,863 tests (18,709) = 1.2%
NSW = 121,433 tests (14,958) = 2.1%
ACT = 5,354 tests (12,506) = 1.8%
Qld = 57,795 tests (11,298) = 1.6%
NT = 2,753 tests (11,209) = 1.0%
Vic = 56,000 tests (8,447) = 2.0%
WA = 18,197 tests (6,917) = 2.5%
Tas = 3,016 tests (5,632) = 2.9%

_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Jezza Taurus

2023 PREMIERS!


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:06 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Morrigu wrote:
Hmmmm waiting to hear from Alex Hawke MP and happy clapper .................

Apparently the rumour is false, but who knows.

https://twitter.com/samanthamaiden/status/1245998605254590467

_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Jezza Taurus

2023 PREMIERS!


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:15 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Latest numbers

Confirmed (Deaths) - Recoveries

USA = 312,420 (8,515) - 15,021
Spain = 130,759 (12,418) - 38,080
Italy = 124,884 (15,395) - 20,996
Germany = 97,381 (1,446) - 28,910
France = 89,953 (7,560) - 15,438
China = 81,669 (3,329) - 76,991
Iran = 58,226 (3,603) - 22,011
UK = 47,806 (4,932) - 135
Turkey = 23,934 (501) - 786
Switzerland = 21,100 (685) - 6,415
...........................................................
Australia = 5,693 (35) - 2,315

1,226,340 confirmed cases
66,576 deaths
258,723 recoveries

Australia:
- Confirmed cases = 5,693
---- New South Wales = 2,580
---- Victoria = 1,135
---- Queensland = 907
---- Western Australia = 453
---- South Australia = 409
---- ACT = 96
---- Tasmania = 86
---- NT = 27
- Deaths = 35
- Recoveries = 2,315
- Case fatality rate = 0.61%

Active Cases = 899,699
- USA = 288,884
- Italy = 88,493
- Spain = 80,261
- Germany = 67,025
- France = 66,955
- UK = 42,739
- Iran = 32,612
- Turkey = 22,647
- Netherlands = 15,835
- Belgium = 14,493
............................................
- Australia = 3,343

_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Jezza Taurus

2023 PREMIERS!


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:23 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

AUSTRALIA

Date = Confirmed Cases (New Cases) = Percentage of new cases

29/03/2020 = 3,985 (345) = 9%
30/03/2020 = 4,250 (265) = 7%
31/03/2020 = 4,561 (311) = 7%
1/04/2020 = 4,864 (303) = 7%
2/04/2020 = 5,136 (272) = 6%
3/04/2020 = 5,362 (226) = 4%
4/04/2020 = 5,552 (190) = 4%
5/04/2020 = 5,693 (141) = 3%

2,315 recovered, 35 deaths.

Cases doubling every 10 days.

494 cases of community transmission nationwide.

VICTORIA

Date = Confirmed Cases (New Cases) = Percentage of new cases

29/03/2020 = 769 (84) = 12%
30/03/2020 = 821 (52) = 7%
31/03/2020 = 917 (96) = 12%
1/04/2020 = 968 (51) = 6%
2/04/2020 = 1,036 (68] = 7%
3/04/2020 = 1,085 (49) = 5%
4/04/2020 = 1,115 (30) = 3%
5/04/2020 = 1,135 (20) = 2%

573 recovered, 8 deaths.

Cases doubling every 10 days in Victoria.

75 cases of community transmission in Victoria.

_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:37 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
K wrote:
Jezza wrote:
...
I've been producing similar numbers, P4S.

This is predicated on the notion that the death rate is 0.66%.

Yeah, I don't buy this death rate....

So, what do you say we should use as a working figure? You can't sensibly worry both that there are vast numbers of unidentified cases and that the death rate is higher than reported. Plainly, both propositions cannot be true.
...

In that context, it seems sensible to work with a 0.66% figure that is a little higher than our reporting shows - until a more refined analysis comes along.

It's all very well to question the data (as I continue to do) but the questioning itself needs to start from an intellectually viable position.

It is plainly a very nasty disease and it kills a small proportion of the people exposed to it. Not that long ago, though, some elements of the prepper fringe were suggesting a 7.3% death rate based on the reported Italian figures. I assume we can both agree that's ridiculous, irresponsible, stupid nonsense, born of a complete failure to comprehend anything at all about the data?

What are the end estimates that we (whoever "we" means) want and why?

If it's just the infection rate, then just avoid working with any infection fatality ratio.

If it's the infection fatality ratio, do we want the estimate now or are we patient? If we're patient, the sensible thing to do is wait until this is all over, possibly a few years, when we can make sense of it.

If we want the infection fatality ratio now, why? It's fine if we want it just out of curiosity, but does it steer what national (or global) policy should be, or how individuals should act? I'd say those should be more steered by the infection rate and totals, unless the mortality rate were extremely low (on the level of seasonal flu) or extremely high (on the level of ebola). The rate of admissions and rate of ICU use are probably more useful than the mortality rate.


If we really want the infection mortality ratio and now, then we should probably estimate other things first (at a country level) and use those to estimate it for the different countries.* There is no way that the death rate will be 0.66% (or any other number) uniformly in every region. There is no justification for using that number. It would be an accident if it turns out even to be the average global death rate. If that accident occurs, that would mean that there are many country or city rates that are far higher, but also many that are far lower.

Which brings me to your statement "You can't sensibly worry both that there are vast numbers of unidentified cases and that the death rate is higher than reported". Obviously there are vast number of unidentified cases, but it's not a matter of worrying about the death rate being higher than reported. It could be much lower in certain regions, possibly many regions. We don't know. It's too much linked with the health of the population and the state of their health system. This is why the US is in deep trouble. Their adult population is so unhealthy and their health system so inadequate that tragedy on an epic scale looms.


* What those other things are and how the heck they can be estimated are up in the air, but I can say something about that in future posts if you really want me to.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:11 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Queen's speech:

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1246875266334539777
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:20 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Jezza wrote:
Another good website to follow.

https://www.covidlive.com.au/

Thanks, Jezza - the State by State information has been quite sporadic.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:36 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

According to the ABC, Boris Johnson has just been admitted to hospital with COVID-19.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:30 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
"... This was the first time non-hospital deaths (in the community and in care homes) were included in the death figures."
...

A quick note on the difference between the figures published by the ONS and those that have been published thus far by NHS England and Public Health Wales:

The ONS death figures are based on the number of deaths registered in England and Wales where Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate as “deaths involving Covid-19”. The number includes all deaths, not just those in hospitals, although there is usually a delay of at least five days between a death occurring and registration.

The figures published by NHS England and Public Health Wales are for deaths only among hospital patients who have tested positive for Covid-19, but include deaths that have not yet been registered."[/i]

(Guardian)

[So the ONS number of deaths is 23.5% higher than the NHS's.]

For comparison, France:

"The health ministry data on Sunday showed that 357 people died from COVID-19 in hospitals ... taking the total toll in hospitals to 5889.

It said that 2189 people had died in nursing homes since March 1, taking France's total death toll to 8078.
...

Confirmed COVID-19 cases in France since the start of the epidemic rose by 2.7 per cent or 1873 to 70,478, the ministry said in daily update of the situation.

It added that some 22,361 confirmed or possible cases have been recorded in nursing homes, taking France's total confirmed or possible coronavirus cases to 92,839."


(Canberra Times)

[So French deaths hospital: nursing home = 73%: 27%;
and confirmed or possible cases hospital: nursing home = 76%: 24%.]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:41 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Jezza wrote:
Tannin wrote:
It's a bit useless comparing the infection numbers for different states when they have different populations. Is NSW really that much worse than the other states?

Well, yes.

NT 117
Tas 160
WA 191
Qld 197
Vic 201
SA 246
ACT 253
NSW 353

(Number of infections per million)

NSW by far the worst; SA is bad, Vic, Qld and WA all in the middle of the pack, Tasmania and the Territory least affected.

These stats are somewhat useless without knowing how extensive testing is.

Tasmania has done the least testing per million, but those that have tested amount positive to nearly 3% which is the highest of any state.

State/territory = number of tests (per million) = % positive

SA = 32,863 tests (18,709) = 1.2%
NSW = 121,433 tests (14,958) = 2.1%
ACT = 5,354 tests (12,506) = 1.8%
Qld = 57,795 tests (11,298) = 1.6%
NT = 2,753 tests (11,209) = 1.0%
Vic = 56,000 tests (8,447) = 2.0%
WA = 18,197 tests (6,917) = 2.5%
Tas = 3,016 tests (5,632) = 2.9%


Good info, Jezza.

I share your concern with Tasmania's substandard testing effort. However, there is more to the story insofar as Tasmania's case clusters, with one exception, are pretty well isolated and known. Essentially, there are four main concerns. All the early infections were international travellers, nearly all students who had got around the travel ban by flying into Australia via some third country rather than direct from China. (The officials were coy about saying this up front, but it wasn't hard to read between the lines.) They were concentrated in the Hobart and Launceston university campuses. Both places appear to have been well sorted now - at least there have been no new cases for a long time and I don't believe that officials would be so stupid as not to test the obvious at-risk individuals.

The third set is returning adult travellers, mostly off cruise ships. These are from all over the state, but again their spread appears to be well under control.

The last, and much more worrying group is the one associated with the North West Regional Hospital in Burnie. A number of workers there have been infected and no-one knows where from. Officials are tracking and testing in the area now. There was also an unknown-cause infection in Devonport a week or so ago.

So the North West is a continuing concern, but the rest of the state is looking safer than anywhere else in Australia. For this we can thank Tasmania's politicians of all parties. The Greens and Labor campaigned for quarantine and closure of the borders while there was still time. To his considerable credit, Liberal Premier Peter Gutwein listened and acted, with the results you can see. Burnie aside, there is no known community transmission and complete eradication of the virus in this state - accompanied by a resumption of normal business - is a very real possibility.

_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:52 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Coronavirus death toll: Americans are almost certainly dying of covid-19 but being left out of the official count

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/coronavirus-death-toll-americans-are-almost-certainly-dying-of-covid-19-but-being-left-out-of-the-official-count/2020/04/05/71d67982-747e-11ea-87da-77a8136c1a6d_story.html

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counts only deaths in which the presence of the coronavirus is confirmed in a laboratory test. “We know that it is an underestimation,” agency spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund said.

A widespread lack of access to testing in the early weeks of the U.S. outbreak means people with respiratory illnesses died without being counted, epidemiologists say. Even now, some people who die at home or in overburdened nursing homes are not being tested, according to funeral directors, medical examiners and nursing home representatives.

Postmortem testing by medical examiners varies widely across the country, and some officials say testing the dead is a misuse of scarce resources that could be used on the living. In addition, some people who have the virus test negative, experts say.
...

Scientists who analyze mortality statistics from influenza and other respiratory illnesses say it is too early to estimate how many fatalities have gone unrecorded. For a disease with common symptoms such as covid-19, they said, deaths with positive results almost certainly represent only a fraction of the total caused by the disease.
...

Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard, said there are probably some people dying with covid-19 who are not dying of covid-19. Such misattribution is a problem for any cause of death, he said, but it is a minor issue that is “swamped by the opposite problem: deaths that are caused by covid but never attributed, so the death count is underestimated.”
...

Widdowson, the former CDC scientist, was part of a team that estimated global deaths from the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic. The World Health Organization recorded only 18,631 people with laboratory-confirmed diagnoses dying of that disease. But the pandemic probably caused 15 times as many deaths, the CDC team concluded in 2012.
...

To estimate the total fatalities from a disease, scientists often look at “excess deaths” — the number of deaths over and above the average number during a particular period.

The most robust estimates require national statistics that in the United States can take two or three years to compile, according to Cécile Viboud, a National Institutes of Health scientist who co-authored the study estimating the U.S. undercount during the H1N1 flu.
...

Sally Aiken, the president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, wrote in a news release that “the public, in general, does not understand that there is not a uniform death investigation system in the United States. . . . So, a uniform response to COVID-19 by Medical Examiners will not occur.”
...

“You certainly are going to have numbers that aren’t being counted because deceased people aren’t being tested,” she said. “We need to test people who are still alive.”"
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:14 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

36 and 37: An 85 year old man (a contact of another case) and an 86 year old man (a resident of an aged care facility in Bankstown) passed away in NSW yesterday.

Last edited by Pies4shaw on Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:51 am
Post subject: Re: Coronavirus (COVID-19) PandemicReply with quote

Jezza wrote:
Over 1300 confirmed cases, mostly in China.

Are we seeing a repeat of the SARS outbreak of 2002-2003?


100 pages since this post on Jan 25th...

how many pages do you think we will get to?

damn

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:15 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ 101 and the disease miraculously vanishes?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 99, 100, 101 ... 250, 251, 252  Next
Page 100 of 252   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group