[AMA] I'm a VIC-Based COVID-19 Modeller

p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 16:49

Hey Guys!

New restrictions for everyone in VIC today! I'm an academic at a major university based in VIC and have been involved in projects modelling the outbreak of COVID-19 as well as its social and economic impacts. By way of background, I have worked as an economist for my entire professional career, in government, private sector, teaching, and academic roles.

Ask me anything! I'll reply if I feel I'm qualified.

NB. This is not political and I won't comment on any overly political points. My focus is on understanding what the data says, disentangling what are facts from what is sensationalism, and thinking about the economic impacts of the pandemic.

Introduce Yourself COVID-19

closed Comments

            • Clear on 02/08/2020 - 21:37

              @spackbace: I have a Perth branch and have worked there over the years. I'd say Tassie is an improvement in beauty of the landscape, but not people ;)

              • spackbace on 02/08/2020 - 21:48
                +3

                @Clear: 😂

                Besides the handling of covid, good thing about WA right now is you can easily holiday within the state and see so much 🙂

                • Clear on 02/08/2020 - 21:49

                  @spackbace: Burning man in Kalgoorlie? All you have in WA is sand and dirt.

                  • spackbace on 02/08/2020 - 21:56

                    @Clear: You need to see more of the state then buddy 😉

                    Or don't, we don't need the infected over here 😛

                    • Clear on 02/08/2020 - 21:56

                      @spackbace: Tbh my trips usually involved fishing vessels.

            • [Deactivated] on 04/08/2020 - 14:49

              @spackbace: There is a Perth in tassie.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2020 - 17:29

    Thanks for doing this!
    Is NSW or for that matter other states really different from VIC?

    To me there is no big difference between the states. With cases rumbling along in NSW, I feel like its just a matter of time.

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 17:32
      +30

      No, there's no real difference in states. VIC was just unlucky. What it shows is that it only takes a few cases for things to get out of control quickly. NSW may well be unlucky at some point.

      We have data on social distancing, including traffic flow data. VIC was actually better than NSW in terms of distancing and isolation, on average, so there's no way that Victorian people can be blamed.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2020 - 17:33
        +1

        Yep. I remember hearing about VIC having better social distancing than NSW and all other states for that matter (maybe on the health report but I can't remember). Is that data publically available somewhere?

        • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 17:39
          +2

          Yep. I remember hearing about VIC having better social distancing than NSW and all other states for that matter (maybe on the health report but I can't remember). Is that data publically available somewhere?

          All the raw data we use is publicly available, with traffic data coming from Google. The data has to be cleaned and wrangled into a useable form (which I'm not responsible for!)

          • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2020 - 19:10

            @p1 ama: Any opinions or data as to differences in contract tracing between the states.

            Is there a reason why contract tracing seems to be mire successful in nsw?

      • Lord Fart Bucket on 03/08/2020 - 18:13

        VIC was just unlucky.

        I disagree there. If it is proven to come through the security guards at hotel quarantine, i would be very interested to see who chose that company and why.

        NSW used cops. That's not luck, that's wisdom.

        • belongsinforums on 03/08/2020 - 21:41
          -1

          Any mathematician will tell you that there is no such thing as luck.

          • p1 ama on 05/08/2020 - 01:00
            +6

            @belongsinforums:

            Any mathematician will tell you that there is no such thing as luck.

            Umm what? I have a degree in mathematics and a PhD in statistics (with applications in economics). I've quite literally spent all of my adult life studying luck…

            • belongsinforums on 05/08/2020 - 20:52

              @p1 ama: Sure. What is luck?

              • p1 ama on 05/08/2020 - 21:17

                @belongsinforums:

                Sure. What is luck?

                Luck is where your realised outcome exceeds your expected outcome.

                Let's suppose you play a game that costs $10 to play and you win $20 if a coin flip comes up as H. Your expected outcome is that you break even (i.e. 0.5 * 20 + 0.5 * 0 - 10 = $0).

                If you flip a H, then you are lucky as your realised outcome of $10 > your expected outcome of $0. If you flip a T, then you are unlucky as your realised outcome of -$10 < your expected outcome of $0.

        • Sad Dino on 04/08/2020 - 15:47

          I was under the impression that other states including NSW used private contractors too.

          Do you have a source that NSW only used cops?

  • ssquid on 02/08/2020 - 17:29

    Why were masks made mandatory in regional vic while at the same time businesses like dine-in restaurants, gyms and theatres (all of which allowed you to remove your mask) were allowed to keep operating?
    The premier claimed the modelling showed these types of businesses were not contributing to the spread of infection, but that's in direct conflict to what has been seen in Sydney (several restaurants at the centre of outbreaks) and QLD (the idiot girls who returned from VIC, went out for drinks and infected other bar patrons).

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 17:36
      +2

      Why were masks made mandatory in regional vic while at the same time businesses like dine-in restaurants, gyms and theatres (all of which allowed you to remove your mask) were allowed to keep operating?

      I don't know - I don't make policy.

      The premier claimed the modelling showed these types of businesses were not contributing to the spread of infection, but that's in direct conflict to what has been seen in Sydney (several restaurants at the centre of outbreaks) and QLD (the idiot girls who returned from VIC, went out for drinks and infected other bar patrons).

      Based on the data I've seen, Andrews is technically correct. The primary driver of infection in VIC is (1) workplaces, including aged care, and (2) household/family, particularly early on. Restaurants have been closed in metro Melbourne for quite some time. That being said, I definitely agree that restaurants are extremely likely to be the centre of an outbreak should one occur in NSW or QLD.

      • bongom on 02/08/2020 - 17:50

        I haven't seen any information understanding how transmission is occurring? i.e. Are restaurant toilets where customers are contaminated?

        • Nalar on 02/08/2020 - 17:59
          +5

          Qld's first community case in a while was a diner at the table next to an infected female.

  • ldq on 02/08/2020 - 17:47
    +6

    About 100 people die daily in Victoria, 80% of them old/very old, 80% of those are in aged care. Isn't this exactly the composition of the daily "coronavirus deaths"? Does this even qualify as excess mortality?
    How much of the current economic and social crisis is actually caused by coronavirus and how much by the government actions?

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 17:57
      +9

      Graph I just whipped up: https://imgur.com/a/MF9Yd0u (download to view better)

      Here's a graph of 2020 excess deaths vs the average from 2015 - 2019. Even in the worst hit countries, e.g. the US, deaths have already largely gone back to normal. In other words, no more Americans are dying today than this time in the last 4 years. So yes, I agree with your first point.

      How much of the current economic and social crisis is actually caused by coronavirus and how much by the government actions?

      It's hard to say without getting stuck into the pro-lockdown vs. anti-lockdown debate as it's become so horribly political. Overall, there are generally two reasons why we locked down. (1) China did, so everyone copied. (2) The outbreak was actually really bad in around the 10 - 12th week of 2020 (as you can see on that graph I produced). Why it's not as bad today, I have no idea. This might be a question for the scientists, but the truth is that the mortality has gone down significantly over time. It was estimated that your probability of survival back in April was around 1%. More recent estimates put it below 0.5%. So there is precedence for a harsh lockdown.

      • ldq on 02/08/2020 - 18:07
        +8

        This sounds political, but if the data clearly demonstrates there is no excess mortality, why are we in lockdown? How can they justify the devastation they are causing?

        • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2020 - 18:21
          +16

          This is no excess mortality with current lockdown measures.

          I think this what makes the data so hard to appreciate and also makes it hard to appreciate whether we should be having harder restrictions sooner. Because if what we do is successful then it will appear as though there is no problem and if we wait till there is a sign of a problem we know any action takes will take a few weeks to have an effect by which time things good get pretty bad.

          (Not saying that I have a good feel for it either. Sometimes I'm wondering whether we should be more relaxed with restrictions and other times whether we needed restrictions earlier etc.)

          • ldq on 02/08/2020 - 18:28
            -7

            @[Deactivated]: Don't consider Australia, check out the global numbers as illustrated by the OP above. There is no excess mortality anywhere in the world. The infections tripled/quadrupled since March/April, the deaths attributed to corona are below their April peaks. There is no correlation between the number of cases and the number of deaths.

            • mskeggs on 02/08/2020 - 20:25
              +6

              @ldq: That chart pretty clearly shows countries with early high numbers had excess mortality (Belgium, uk, Italy etc.). The current figures are produced after interventions like lock downs. So they show the variety of coping mechanisms around the world have all been effective in reducing the very high mortality rebates - as you would expect.

              Even places with current very high case number like the USA, still have many control measures in place - schools closed, many people working from home etc. There isn’t anywhere where no control measures are in place to give a nice counter factual on what happens after months of unimpeded virus spread.

              • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 20:27
                +2

                @mskeggs:

                There isn’t anywhere where no control measures are in place to give a nice counter factual on what happens after months of unimpeded virus spread.

                Precisely. What I will largely agree with though, is that "harsher" lockdown measures have diminishing returns, as would be expected.

                • trapper on 03/08/2020 - 13:03
                  +1

                  @p1 ama: Harsher lockdown only really pays off big if you can actually eliminate local transmission.

                  Then you get to back off restrictions almost completely and live normal life again like in WA.

              • ldq on 02/08/2020 - 20:51
                +1

                @mskeggs: OK, we've done supposedly the right thing back in April, and (thanks to that?) currently there is no excess mortality (anywhere in the world). So why is the government committing economic genocide?

                What bugs me most is the lack of debate and total absence of contrary opinion and independent thinking: any hints of that, or protest/resistance are vilified, ridiculed or most often simply ignored. All of the media is just just one giant propaganda mouthpiece. I was born in the Soviet Union and lived enough to remember, I can tell you that we are experiencing here a much more totalitarian society than the late USSR was.

                • mskeggs on 02/08/2020 - 22:14
                  +13

                  @ldq: Consider if they don’t put any restrictions in place, the economic harm will be similar, but the deaths higher.
                  Where there are lower restrictions, the economy is still tanking as people are scared and more are sick.

                  There is no option that does not harm the economy. The only solution we have seen anywhere is heavy restrictions to get to a reopened economy like NZ and China.

          • isthisreallife22 on 03/08/2020 - 19:50
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Maybe at risk groups are self-isolating and therefore less prone to be infected, whereas groups more casual about getting coronavirus tend to correlate strongly with the less at-risk demographic?

        • ankor on 03/08/2020 - 12:59

          0.5% of 30,000 ppl dying from covid19 sounds a lot better than 0.5% of 500,000 people dying from covid19?

          • LX on 05/08/2020 - 17:24
            +1

            @ankor: Also, ICU beds are available for those who require them at lower infection rates. Mortality rates would go up if you can’t give everyone the treatment that might otherwise have saved their life because too many people are flooding the system at once.

        • alienurbanite on 04/08/2020 - 12:50
          +1

          Jesus - Do you have a TV? (I think there's been a couple of OLED deals recently).

          The reason the numbers aren't bad is because we have locked down and taken significant measures to slow the spread.

          Our lockdown measures have improved other means of death including deaths from trauma, flu etc.

          If we just let things be and have no lockdowns, the rate of death would be the same as previous years and we will have additionally, thousands upon thousands of COVID deaths due to uncontrolled spread.

          Take a look at what's happening in other countries out there!!!!!

          • [Deactivated] on 04/08/2020 - 15:00
            +1

            @alienurbanite: It’s not a win - win Scenario. Lockdown and no transmission and people will say it was not necessary. Or open up and the virus goes berserk people will say why didn’t they do anything. Be damned if you do, be damned if you don’t.

      • Sickman on 02/08/2020 - 20:11
        +2

        Nice graph. I was wondering why some countries had flatter background graphs but then noticed the significant difference in scales between the graphs so obviously it is a scaling effect.
        It does shows rate of death is has gone down to pre covid levels. But those levels are with current covid restrictions measures being undertaken, public education of washing hands and social distancing, and significant increases in hospital respiratory treatment infrastructure. It does shows that the measures and increases in infrastructure is working to lower the death rate to pre covid levels.
        It would be good to see the same graph for Victoria (and other countries/states that have had significant outbreaks since original outbreak) with the current outbreak as we now have had time to prep the hospitals and public is now educated in ways to reduce rate of spread.

        • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 20:25
          +5

          It does shows rate of death is has gone down to pre covid levels. But those levels are with current covid restrictions measures being undertaken, public education of washing hands and social distancing, and significant increases in hospital respiratory treatment infrastructure. It does shows that the measures and increases in infrastructure is working to lower the death rate to pre covid levels.

          Precisely, plus more restrictions mean less deaths from things like traffic accidents, of course. Overall, I would say that it's hard to really understand much about what's going on. I think what it does tell us though is that there are likely a group of very vulnerable people who have a very high chance of dying and once that group has been hit, the remaining population can largely deal with it okay. That seems to be the overarching story.

          It would be good to see the same graph for Victoria (and other countries/states that have had significant outbreaks since original outbreak) with the current outbreak as we now have had time to prep the hospitals and public is now educated in ways to reduce rate of spread.

          It's hard because we don't have this sort of death data for Victoria unfortunately.

          • MessyG on 02/08/2020 - 22:14
            +2

            @p1 ama: Is it about how fast this virus overwhelms the hospital system too though? Plus aged care, there's a lot of beds in acute hospitals being used by nursing home patients who ordinarily wouldn't be there (they'd be managed in the facility). Upward growth of cases will only make that worse, and I don't mean ventilators or ICU beds, just standard acute hospital beds. How far away from that are we right now?

            • p1 ama on 04/08/2020 - 20:33
              +1

              @MessyG:

              Is it about how fast this virus overwhelms the hospital system too though?

              Yes, that's what it's about, but it seems that after the initial spike that we saw in Europe and New York, most other places around the world have figured out how to deal with it better from an operational/organisational perspective. It's great that we haven't seen that sort of overwhelming of hospitals here in Australia.

              Plus aged care, there's a lot of beds in acute hospitals being used by nursing home patients who ordinarily wouldn't be there (they'd be managed in the facility).

              Aged care is really difficult to deal with. One of the reasons why northern Italy and New York got hit so hard early on was because they kept COVID-19 positive elderly patients in aged care as opposed to (possibly) moving them to hospital or another place to isolate. New York, particularly, made this really grave mistake and, as a result, had many more deaths than they otherwise would have.

              Upward growth of cases will only make that worse, and I don't mean ventilators or ICU beds, just standard acute hospital beds. How far away from that are we right now?

              I don't know because this is more of an operational question than an economic question. The good news is that it seems that the average COVID-19 patient is younger in Victoria than in many of the worst hit places. This is good because young people are more likely to recover, are less likely to require hospitalisation, and even if they do, on average stay in hospital for much less time than elderly patients.

      • inherentchoice on 02/08/2020 - 23:34

        Even in the worst hit countries, e.g. the US, deaths have already largely gone back to normal.

        Wait, so mortality rates are now normal in USA even with new COVID-19 cases sky rocketing? How is that an argument to support restrictions?

        • p1 ama on 03/08/2020 - 02:55
          +8

          The US is in a different situation. They've already lost like 0.5% of their population. However as the deaths are not spread evenly, it's probably over 1% in places like NY.

          To put it bluntly, the most vulnerable have already died. Cases are exploding in the US, but primarily amongst young people. The rhetoric that "young people can die too" is technically true (as yes, they can die), but those 17-40 are over 10 times less likely to die than those 41-70 (or something like that, I don't remember exactly), so that's why cases are skyrocketing, but people are not dying.

          We're in a different position in Australia. Our most vulnerable have not died yet, so allowing it to spread will most likely kill the most vulnerable first, which is what we're already seeing.

          That being said, I don't think that what's happening in the US is as bad as the media here makes it appear. The deaths per capita are lower than countries hit the hardest like Belgium, Spain, Italy and the UK. Yes, it has very high case numbers, but it's also the third most populated country in the world.

          • inherentchoice on 03/08/2020 - 08:54
            +1

            @p1 ama:

            already lost like 0.5% of their population

            I think you're out by a factor of 10? 159,000 deaths / 328,200,000 people = 0.048%

            And for NY state also. 32,390 deaths / 19,450,000 people = 0.166%

          • PyroCoconut on 04/08/2020 - 07:35

            @p1 ama: Do you have data on perhaps individuals who have also had long lasting negative health consequences in addition to mortality rates.

            I understand mortality rates are a lot lower in younger people but I've heard several anecdotal stories of perfectly healthy, young people whose quality of life has deteriorated quite significantly due to lung damage etc.

            Would be curious to see what a similar graph with severe cases of impacted people would look. I do acknowledge that making comparisons would be harder as you might not have an equivalent baseline (i.e deaths)

        • abb on 04/08/2020 - 10:36

          Another possible factor is that it's now summer in the USA. Respiratory diseases can be worse when it's cold.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2020 - 23:59

        I think part of the reason for the excess deaths normalizing is that healthcare providers have a better idea how to manage and treat life threatening cases. They're not just chilling out, I think they are trying things out too.

    • TheMindsetTraveller on 02/08/2020 - 23:10
      +6

      @idq

      Sadly the small minority who try to argue a different yet reasonable point often get shut down very quickly; I am not saying the repliers here have but I have seen it especially on Facebook.

      Like your stats, the mortality rate in Australia has been roughly 0.007 per 1,000 people. That is, approximately 480 Australians unfortunately die each day from all causes. From Covid19 in eight months, we have a bit over 200 deaths with primarily those in the higher age bracket. Did those people actually die from Covid? or did they test positive to Covid but died primarily from another cause?

      I do question if the restrictions is worth it? But I will get neg votes by asking this purely because people will assume I do not believe in Covid19 which is not true - or that I do not practice good hygeine and social distancing etc again which is not true.

      • ldq on 02/08/2020 - 23:39
        -3

        Unfortunately the contrarian opinion has been hijacked or is being portrayed as dominated by wackos/conspiracists.
        Another media trick: most likely the cause of deaths attributed to corona is heart/lungs failure, but we are being blankly told that people die from corona. We are not being told that most of these people were very sick before, i.e. were already on the verge. They pretend that aged care is a land of eternal sunshine while in reality it is the death's waiting area contributing the bulk of the daily deaths. They promote cases of younger and seemingly healthy people having it in a bad way, but ignore that these cases are statistically negligible.
        This is a fearmongering campaign which creates the bizarre atmosphere well described by Andersen in his "The Emperor's New Clothes".

        • greatlamp on 03/08/2020 - 08:57
          +4

          Maybe you should look up how common cardiovascular conditions are in our population.

          Do some "research" instead of being fed "research" from conspiracy theorists blogs. These are very obvious talking points

      • greatlamp on 03/08/2020 - 08:52
        +5

        "did they test positive to Covid but died primarily from another cause?"

        You get treated like a ignorant conspiracy theorist because you use conspiracy theorist talking points.

        What does your comment even mean? Have you thought about it? That COVID deaths in people with comorbidities should be discounted for some reason?

        People without comorbidities do not generally die from respiratory infections. Do people die "from" the flu or "with" the flu. Do people die "from" diabetes or "with" diabetes?

        These questions show ignorance because anyone with any medical experience understands that the VAST MAJORITY of "healthy looking" patients over 50 have multiple health conditions. You don't have the experience to understand why your "questioning" is not relevant

        • TheMindsetTraveller on 03/08/2020 - 09:56
          -1

          @superannuation

          I am just a lay person with a lay point of view.

          Let's take my question/thought as ignorant and then 200+ people have died Covid19 in the past seven months.

          In the same 7 months over 100,000 Australians have died from other causes.

          Is it wrong to be comparing these statistics in your opinion?

          • kanmen on 03/08/2020 - 10:34
            +1

            @TheMindsetTraveller: Can you provide a source for your figure of 100,000?

            I believe it is wrong to compare given there are a wide range of determinants that impact both deaths from COVID-19 and deaths from other comorbidities that are not shared, as the OP of this post has explained above.

            Comorbidities around respiration issues are health issues that are created over many many years. COVID-19 is an infectious disease that's existed for less than a year and we're still struggling to figure out it's long term effect on the body much less find a cure.

            The issue I have with this discourse of asking whether these people actually died from COVID-19 is that you are implying those deaths would have occurred when they did whether or not that person contracted COVID-19.

      • trapper on 03/08/2020 - 13:16
        +1

        Well 200 deaths is much less than tens or hundreds of thousands… so you would imagine that any rational person would think it was worth it.

    • twjr on 04/08/2020 - 13:00
      +1

      As I've said above, you are making the assumption that the outcomes of infection are binary; death or recovery. As long term health impacts of the disease become better understood it is clear that there is a a significant minority of cases that result in long term health impacts.

  • this is us on 02/08/2020 - 17:51

    It's good that you also have a background in economy.

    Apart from all the issues that happened back in March, when thousands I sometimes have trouble accepting the idea of stage 4 lockdown when thousands of people are still arriving in Australia from overseas every day. Some might follow the instructions, but I don't believe that everyone who arrives in the country stays locked in for two weeks.

    I was checking Flightradar yesterday, and I can see commercial flights from the US, China, and the hubs in the Middle East coming to Australia, and flights from everywhere in the world going to the Middle East. I know there are restrictions in place here and everywhere, but I don't believe that checking temperature and testing antibodies are 100% sensitive methods to rule out COVID infection in every passenger. According to ABC, "At the moment, about four international flights, each with about 160 passengers, arrive into Brisbane International Airport each day". There are also international flights to the other states.

    My question… do you think we should have opted for the elimination and closed the borders (suspending the international flights) back in March? Would that be something feasible right now, or just too late?

    I don't have a solution, but my general disbelief is due to the lack of a plan "after stage 4" as we are probably not getting a vaccine this year. So, we might see a third wave, a fourth wave, a fifth wave… Every time restrictions are relaxed, case numbers will surge, and I don't believe people can remain in this situation (no work, no income - some getting jobkeeper, others not-, living in small apartments, not socialising, not going to the gym, not actually living…) for too long. The "solution" might not happen this year… it might not happen at all…

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 18:00
      +6

      Apart from all the issues that happened back in March, when thousands I sometimes have trouble accepting the idea of stage 4 lockdown when thousands of people are still arriving in Australia from overseas every day. Some might follow the instructions, but I don't believe that everyone who arrives in the country stays locked in for two weeks.

      Well they are being quarantined and it's supposedly managed by the government. I have no insider info.

      My question… do you think we should have opted for the elimination and closed the borders (suspending the international flights) back in March? Would that be something feasible right now, or just too late?

      You can't discuss policy in the past. Should you have picked the right numbers for yesterday's lottery? It's the same thing, we couldn't have known this was the end result. The data shows that returning travellers are not the main cause of the spread right now anyway.

      I don't have a solution, but my general disbelief is due to the lack of a plan "after stage 4" as we are probably not getting a vaccine this year.

      I'd say it's more than a 50/50 chance we'll have a vaccine by the end of the year.

  • Nalar on 02/08/2020 - 17:57

    Whats the percentage of the population that is following the rules vs not bothering? Can you predict the most likely type of person who would ignore stay at home orders or worse ignore that they are sick, have been tested, but still go visit people?

    Also, do you listen to Freakonomics podcast or is it like listening to work?

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 18:04
      +18

      Whats the percentage of the population that is following the rules vs not bothering?

      Overwhelmingly following the rules. I don't have data, but I'd suspect over 95%.

      Can you predict the most likely type of person who would ignore stay at home orders or worse ignore that they are sick, have been tested, but still go visit people?

      Best predictor is income. Likely because when you're poor, you have to go to work to survive. "Visiting people" is not really something that is prevalent, neither is driving 330km for a Big Mac. Those sorts of stories get traction in the media, but do not represent what the problem actually is. The main problem is that for most casualised workers, staying at home = no $$$, and no $$$ means no house and no food.

      Also, do you listen to Freakonomics podcast or is it like listening to work?

      I'm already familiar with most of their content, and I'd say it's more general interest than what I tend to like. If I taught an undergraduate micro class, I'd probably recommend it.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2020 - 18:29
        +9

        no $$$ means no house and no food

        this makes me sad.
        I feel the social isolation measures really make wealth/income inequities even worse.

      • trapper on 03/08/2020 - 13:20
        +3

        neither is driving 330km for a Big Mac.

        Does anyone else find it hard to believe that the police actually buy these stories? I sounds ridiculous because it is, the guy was obviously up to something else, probably illegal.

  • OzCheapo on 02/08/2020 - 17:59

    What do you anticipate the government will do in light of the current economic climate to rectify the budget deficit? Do you see an extreme strategy, a political strategy and the ideal strategy from an economic standpoint?

    By the way, thanks for doing this!

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 18:09

      I'm not a macroeconomist, but I would say that the mainstream of macro these days is New-Keynesian, so they'll tend to accept that budget deficits are a secondary issue to making sure we have the right fiscal and monetary policy to deal with the problem at hand.

      Either way, I suspect that stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending will probably be the most likely. Evidence from after the 1918 flu pandemic shows that the recovery was overwhelmingly swift, so I suspect we'll see a similar sort of thing going on here.

      • dasher86 on 02/08/2020 - 18:37

        war?

        • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 18:45
          +3

          War is highly inefficient - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNDcfzNDtjg

          Basically for every $1 you spend on war, the return on it is minuscule. You're better off building stuff.

          • dasher86 on 02/08/2020 - 18:53

            @p1 ama: =( - which is i guess what they did in WW1 and WW2 to be able to go to war?

            • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 19:03
              +2

              @dasher86: Except when you build things to go to war they usually blow up. When you build infrastructure, it actually lasts and provides your people with something useful.

              • dasher86 on 02/08/2020 - 21:47

                @p1 ama: I'm pretty sure that they created a concerted effort and many factories we put to use afterwards.

  • popsiee on 02/08/2020 - 18:02

    Any chance they are going to close the Post Office in Metro Melbourne and what % chance in the current environment do you think ?

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 18:09
      +2

      Have no insider info on what will happen to the post office.

    • Craze on 03/08/2020 - 20:28

      As announced today, post offices shall remain open :)

  • Digitalco on 02/08/2020 - 18:17

    What is your take on remote learning will it grow to next year?

  • locknuts on 02/08/2020 - 18:19

    How long after exposure to the virus is the testing effective? And following from that, will the mass testing around brisbane the last few days be effective given that it was only mid last week that the infected people were running around here?

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 18:22

      Should ask a doctor of microbiologist - I have no idea about this.

      • locknuts on 02/08/2020 - 18:41

        Oh I thought this data would factor into your modelling. At least the first part.

    • Triftyme on 04/08/2020 - 16:03
      +1

      Great thread. And thanks for doing this. So informative. From what i understand, the viral load is different for each infected individual. Even if they were infected at the same time. My educated guess is their immunity is responding to the virus differently. The virus in your body needs to reach a certain level before the PCR test will detect it, provided the sampling was done adequately. How many days it takes? Depends. But surprisingly, very little RNA is required. If you have symptoms, the test will definitely detect it. Background in genetics. If anyone has more knowledge to add to this, please do.

      • locknuts on 04/08/2020 - 16:55

        So it sounds like it could be detected fairly quickly even with a small viral load. I'm in QLD and am wondering if anyone exposed to the infected people running around Brisbane from the 21st of July to the 26th of July would have enough RNA in their system now to test positive. We have had 1 case, 1 case, 0 cases, 0 cases the last 4 days with an average of around 10000 tests per day. I am hoping this is and indication that we have dodged a bullet.

        • RecklessMonkeys on 04/08/2020 - 20:19

          Might get a better idea after the 9th, which is two weeks (approx incubation) after the 26th.

  • arkie0 on 02/08/2020 - 18:51
    +8

    What is COVID-19 Modelling and how is it different to regular modelling?

    I have a friend who is a regular model, if she wears masks and PPE can be become a COVID-19 model like you?

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 19:02
      +19

      You have to be ugly so that people know to avoid the coronavirus, different sort of talent you see

      • hashtagbargain on 03/08/2020 - 02:20
        +2

        lol op I’m loving your candid and highly educative responses. Great ama, well done.

  • MilkDrinker on 02/08/2020 - 19:03
    +1

    Is there any more info on infectivity vectors or media called superspreaders, ie professions/events that make it likely that you are to come into contact with more people than usual like posties, nurses, protests?

    Has modelling improved much on these since the start of COVID?

    Or would that be too much of a taboo topic in the modelling business since it may appear to place blame on certain people?

    ie Could going to ALDI saturday super sales events lead to a superspreading event

  • friedbanana on 02/08/2020 - 19:17
    +1

    Is there any data which correlates number of cases and the weather/season/temperature?

  • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2020 - 19:23
    -7

    Only the severely sick and elderly succumbing to corona
    Hospitals being told to report any and all deaths as corona related

    Am substantial academic myself

    [Deactivated] on 02/08/2020 - 19:23 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2020 - 20:17
      +3

      Hi Karen

      • belongsinforums on 03/08/2020 - 21:44

        when the dust settles I think any scandals like this will come to light

  • GourmetFoodie on 02/08/2020 - 20:04
    +2

    Thanks for your work mate. Great thread.

    What I don't understand is people saying it is casual working going to work while waiting for test results and/or after testing positive - because didn't the government announce at least 2-3 weeks ago that there would be financial support accessible for these people e.g. $300 immediate payment and then $1500 if you test positive? I thought these were decent amounts of money! Especially for a casual worker who is typically on the lower income spectrum.

    What is the data telling you right now about this? Is it still casual workers breaking the rules? What are the reasons e.g. are the financial supports in place just too low?

    Also what proportion of the rule breakers were religious groups? We heard a lot of complaints about religious gatherings. Does the data suggest this was true or media beatup?

    • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 20:43
      +18

      Thanks for your work mate. Great thread.

      Cheers!

      What I don't understand is people saying it is casual working going to work while waiting for test results and/or after testing positive - because didn't the government announce at least 2-3 weeks ago that there would be financial support accessible for these people e.g. $300 immediate payment and then $1500 if you test positive? I thought these were decent amounts of money! Especially for a casual worker who is typically on the lower income spectrum.

      Unfortunately it's just not that simple.

      What is the data telling you right now about this? Is it still casual workers breaking the rules? What are the reasons e.g. are the financial supports in place just too low?

      This is impossible to know because we don't collect this sort of individual level data, at least not in Australia. What the data does clearly show is that the outbreak has been worse in lower socio-economic areas. There are a lot of reasons for this, e.g. generally more individuals living in a single household, less ability to work from home, casualisation of the workforce…etc. So all we can say is that these are the sorts of characteristics which describe areas which have high outbreaks. It's very difficult to say whether any of these factors actually cause the outbreak (in a direct way).

      I would say that it's really complex. Far more complex than the story the media tells. Whilst silly things like that guy who drove 330km to get a Big Mac grab headlines, I would say that in the scheme of things, it's irrelevant. The problem is that we're going to have to have some really uncomfortable conversations. For some of us, staying at home means posting on Instagram and joking around about the "new normal", whilst for others, it quite literally means not being abe to put food on the table. That's what it comes down to.

      The only reason why a widespread lockdown is still supported is because the vast majority of people are still comfortable and unemployment is only 10%. When unemployment hits 20%, the tide will turn on public support for these sorts of harsh measures. As people become poorer and more desperate, you'll see protests and rioting like in the US, and eventually lockdown policies will no longer have broad support. That's the pattern we've already seen.

      My hunch (and this is my opinion only) is that if this continues long term, the only real way out is some sort of universal income policy where we tax everyone to pay everyone a living wage. Ultimately the issue is that we all benefit from not dying, but only a small group of people are bearing the brunt of the economic cost. That's just the simple truth at the moment. My personal position has always been that this is the only rational policy - if anyone supports a lockdown and not support for those who suffer the most, then they're just free-riding.

      Also what proportion of the rule breakers were religious groups? We heard a lot of complaints about religious gatherings. Does the data suggest this was true or media beatup?

      Again, no data on this.

      • GourmetFoodie on 02/08/2020 - 21:10
        +1

        Thanks for your long and thoughtful reply. Great food for thought. I hope we can get more answers because if the govt can justify policy measures better, they will get broader support e.g. i'm all for upping the financial supports in place if it will help slow the spread…even if it means I get taxed more long term - if i even have a job then lol.

        • GourmetFoodie on 02/08/2020 - 21:12

          P.S.
          How bad do you think the quarantine stuff-up and black lives matter protest impacted this second wave? E.g. root cause / moderate contribution / minor impact?

        • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 22:18
          +13

          I hope we can get more answers because if the govt can justify policy measures better, they will get broader support e.g. i'm all for upping the financial supports in place if it will help slow the spread…even if it means I get taxed more long term - if i even have a job then lol.

          It's something we need to do if we wish to avoid the situation in the US right now. On some level, COVID-19 is an economic issue as much as it is a health issue.

          It's easy to frame the issue as "people doing the right thing" and "people doing the wrong thing", but the question is why people do the wrong thing. It's easy to laugh and frame people as morons or idiots, but that doesn't solve the problem.

          An example of a current problem is in aged care. With the mass casualisation in the aged care workforce, many carers are forced to have multiple jobs to be able to feed themselves. They will work in a particular home on Tuesday, then another one on Wednesday. This is what the data shows is driving the spread. The issue is that these sorts of issues are difficult to discuss and are too complex to summarise in a quick soundbite.

          If you read or listen to the press releases every day, you'll hear a lot of references to "people doing the wrong thing", but no actual numbers or specific references. That's because "people doing the wrong thing" don't even come close to being able to explain the spread. The number of fines issued or people being caught doesn't even come close to explaining the cases that we see.

          How bad do you think the quarantine stuff-up and black lives matter protest impacted this second wave? E.g. root cause / moderate contribution / minor impact?

          Quarantine stuff-up is 100% the cause. Genomic analysis already shows this. Protest unlikely to have had any impact.

          Unfortunately the quarantine stuff-up has been made into a political point. It's obviously not Andrews' fault, but I do think he has been evasive. Just as unfortunate that the Andrews government spent millions on the judicial inquiry as opposed to using that money to help support the most vulnerable.

          • munodi on 05/08/2020 - 10:51

            @p1 ama: It obviously is his fault. It was carried out completely different to in the other states. Federal help was repeatedly offered.

          • GourmetFoodie on 05/08/2020 - 14:16
            +1

            @p1 ama: Sorry for my delayed thank you for your second response - crazzzzy few days as you know :)

            It was really helpful to get more of your thoughts. I still can't believe no one has been held accountable for the quarantine stuff up. I didn't know the genomic sequencing has proven that this was 100% the cause.

      • serpserpserp on 02/08/2020 - 21:39
        +1

        the only real way out is some sort of universal income policy where we tax everyone to pay everyone a living wage.

        This is an interesting point and you are probably right.

        I think the Vic Govt might be doing too much drip feeding in terms of payments for people who are disadvantaged and making it for very specific cases. They probably should have stepped in and funded the childcare piece when the Fed Gov took a step back. They probably need to supplement JobKeeper and potentially step in and front some money when that gets wound back in September.

        I don't mind being taxed more for a universal income if it will make everyone stay at home and social distance. However I just think people are also have massive ego and only think of themselves and when they get tired of being isolated they just break the rules. Even some of the oldies I know are fessing up to the odd "sneaky" drop around to see the grand kids for a few minutes or dropping in on friends. This is the kind of attitude that even all the economic support in the world can't stop.

        • p1 ama on 02/08/2020 - 22:22
          +6

          I think the Vic Govt might be doing too much drip feeding in terms of payments for people who are disadvantaged and making it for very specific cases. They probably should have stepped in and funded the childcare piece when the Fed Gov took a step back. They probably need to supplement JobKeeper and potentially step in and front some money when that gets wound back in September.

          I agree - I think there needs to be some massive shift in social policy if we want to maintain this sort of lockdown for any extended amount of time.

          I don't mind being taxed more for a universal income if it will make everyone stay at home and social distance. However I just think people are also have massive ego and only think of themselves and when they get tired of being isolated they just break the rules. Even some of the oldies I know are fessing up to the odd "sneaky" drop around to see the grand kids for a few minutes or dropping in on friends. This is the kind of attitude that even all the economic support in the world can't stop.

          That's true and not true at the same time. If some oldie is just dropping by to see the grandkids and that's all, then that's not really a major problem. Basically, this is being framed as an individual problem, but it's a societal problem. As I've alluded to before, the whole "doing the right thing" vs. "doing the wrong thing" is not the driver of outbreaks. The driver is that people are employed in particular industries, particularly those that have poor hygiene or require close contact with people and there is no way that we can change this without having some very difficult conversations.

          Here's a suggestion. Move all meatworkers into a hotel and isolate them from everybody else.

          The moment you say that, though, you will have people yelling discrimination from the rooftops. Again, politics is such that you cannot treat one group harshly, but treating everyone harshly is okay. That's why we're in the situation we're in, because we are not able to make these difficult decisions the way that countries like South Korea, Taiwan or Singapore have.

          As much as we want to focus on individuals "doing the wrong thing", that's just not the fundamental issue.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join