Jump to content
idlerboat

Corona virus statistics and reality

Recommended Posts

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/coronavirus/news/article.cfm?c_id=1504828&objectid=12322566

Check this article...

Note , the 14 of the 16 Northland infections are identified in this article as arriving back into NZ in March!!!... Some as late as March 24th.

 

FFS ... Ardern and Bloomfield are letting them come in, go home, and spread the disease under the guise of " self isolate"

They are part of the problem. Not all of the solution.

What happened to border controll? 

Also, look at the infection age graph on the  official Min of Health stats graph!

The majority of cases are young gen " me me me" Chloe Swarbrick" polluters ( air travel)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Black Panther said:

And he knows more about it than anyone on this thread

I would hope so but We will see...

The rate went up yesterday cause, as I have been saying, the testing went up.

Mark this thread in you diary...  And lets look back in 2 weeks. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today roughly 40 positive tests announced in NZ, 3700 tested yesterday so right around 1% positive.

New York (OK bad example but....) was 7245 positives from 18,659 tested or 39% positive.

New Zealand is using largely targeted testing, travel, contact, clusters and people presenting with symptoms to achieve  that 1% positive.

Why would more straight out random testing help in NZ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long can a person with the virus showing no signs or symptoms do so?

"FFS ... Ardern and Bloomfield are letting them come in, go home, and spread the disease under the guise of " self isolate"

They are part of the problem. Not all of the solution."

Wide generalization. Are you saying in those cases they police are not given the information, other authorities additionally are not tracking their movements or a close eye on them is not being kept, and if they step outside they would be pounced on.

 

Perhaps those sort of people and air nz crew on planes returning from O/S should have to wear a yellow band tied around their foreheads and a yellow band around shoulder to opposite waist on top of their clothing  and a yellow star painted on their homes roof tops untill 30 days have expired so people can report them should they leave their homes. All their needs satisfied by special delivery service. That would far cheaper than total random testing, thus saving resources and costs.😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, darkside said:

Today roughly 40 positive tests announced in NZ, 3700 tested yesterday so right around 1% positive.

New York (OK bad example but....) was 7245 positives from 18,659 tested or 39% positive.

New Zealand is using largely targeted testing, travel, contact, clusters and people presenting with symptoms to achieve  that 1% positive.

Why would more straight out random testing help in NZ?

 

It would in and around the surrounding communities where a person or persons tested positive.

Don't think they need to random test in and around communities say a 5 mile radius where no positives have ever recorded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, darkside said:

Today roughly 40 positive tests announced in NZ, 3700 tested yesterday so right around 1% positive.

New York (OK bad example but....) was 7245 positives from 18,659 tested or 39% positive.

New Zealand is using largely targeted testing, travel, contact, clusters and people presenting with symptoms to achieve  that 1% positive.

Why would more straight out random testing help in NZ?

 

Because it picks up non targeted areas.( The areas that have transmission within the community, people with low level symptoms not presenting, and people /carriers without symptoms that may be passing it on.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, darkside said:

Today roughly 40 positive tests announced in NZ, 3700 tested yesterday so right around 1% positive.

New York (OK bad example but....) was 7245 positives from 18,659 tested or 39% positive.

New Zealand is using largely targeted testing, travel, contact, clusters and people presenting with symptoms to achieve  that 1% positive.

Why would more straight out random testing help in NZ?

 

40 from 3700 today, 89 from 6000 yesterday, .... Yip the more test the more they find.

That's says they are not testing enough and thus there are more undiscovered cases going unattended.

I bet, If they did 60000 tommorow they would get 890ish cases.

They are using percentage data rather than cases to tests ratios ...

That's why the result are not true to the real situation.

I'm going to sit back now and watch this unfold. If the numbers / ratios are the same in one week and two weeks then they have f#cked up.

I hope I am wrong but.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're on the same page SNZ (scary thought!) and suspect it might just be that our writing styles differ the delivery.  I agree with your comment generally about the numbers, I don't agree with your extrapolation.  I've been reflecting on what Dr. Bloomfield had to say today and here's my take.

They are not going to embark on random testing for the Wuhan Coronavirus because the expert discussion on this was that they would need to test 100,000 to get an accurate picture of the country (100k/4.8M = 2%)

At a current capacity of 6k (say) that would take 17 days and by then the picture could well be different (look back 17 days - we had about 40 cases). 

So I suspect that the discussion would also have been that the number of daily tests that might be available for random testing is so small that the data would have no practical use. 

Additionally, Dr. Bloomfield suggested that they're pretty happy with the 1 - 2 % "community transmission" in the current testing being more or less stagnant over the course of the last week or so and the overall new cases is not increasing as in other countries (and may have even peaked).  This suggests that the current lockdown measures are basically working and that staying in this lockdown mode should now see a reduction in the community spread if everybody just "stays the f**k at home".  If this is working then your extrapolation would overestimate the positive results - that's my theory anyway - flame away!

It is likely to be somewhat more complicated but on the assumption that the 100k number is valid then I can well appreciate that the methodolgy we are now following seems to be the most appropriate. 

Looking at Worldometer, it's interesting that S'pore moved to a similar lockdown strategy to us over the weekend, their number of tests per pop. is less than ours even though they've been at it weeks longer than we have.  And then Taiwan shut down much much earlier than anybody, have only 363 cases out of 37,219 tests, a similar number to us for a much much greater pop.   Sweden is another different case entirely and their numbers are beginning to shift considerably.

There are economic implications for the shutdown and it will be many years from now before anybody has a handle on how to determine a reasonable comparison let alone who comes out of it "better" (an esoteric metric in of itself)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...