[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

spammingb on 04/08/2020 - 20:19

Interested in the statistics/data science aspect of what you do. What models do you use to forecast the spread of COVID/economic impact. Are you using R or Python? Are you working with any management consultancies or data science professionals in industry?
nekro on 04/08/2020 - 20:33

+1

Thanks OP - I've learnt alot by reading your posts and other posts in this thread.
RogerSyd on 04/08/2020 - 21:30

+1

Thanks OP for the excellent answers on this thread.. really informative
aussie bargain on 04/08/2020 - 21:52

Dan Andrews said that based on modelling, if Melb stayed as it was (Stage 3 + Masks), then things would come back in 6 months. Is this factually true based on the modelling and data or is it more a politically motivated comment?

We are now in stage 4 in Melbourne for the next 6 weeks. Assuming what Dan Andrews said is correct, how much time do we "save" based on the modelling (i.e. instead of 6 months, are we now looking at 3,4 months?)
- p1 ama on 05/08/2020 - 01:17
  
  +3
  
  Dan Andrews said that based on modelling, if Melb stayed as it was (Stage 3 + Masks), then things would come back in 6 months. Is this factually true based on the modelling and data or is it more a politically motivated comment?
  
  I highly doubt that there's strong evidence for this.
  
  Without getting too technical, when forecasting, there are basically two types of models - structural and reduced form. (1) Structural models try to replicate the world by using simulations with parameters calibrated to what we can measure in the real world. You then just simulate the world again and again and average out across thousands of simulations and you get a good distribution of where things are in 6 months time. (2) Reduced form models use past data (and other observable inputs) to predict the future by relying on patterns and trends.
  
  Given that this pandemic has only been going on for 6 months or so, I highly doubt any reduced form model can be used to predict what would happen in another 6 months, so if there existed any evidence to show that we'd be back to a low case number daily in 6 months, it'd be a structural model. Forecasting this way with structural models are fraught with issues, including reliability. The problem is we have a point estimate (6 months), not a confidence interval. In other words, "between 5 and 7 months" is very different to "between 1 and 11 months", despite both of them being (on average) 6 months.
  
  There's so much evidence to show that these sorts of structural models give super broad confidence intervals, so when I hear 6 months, I can't really imagine that there's any real weight to that.
  
  We are now in stage 4 in Melbourne for the next 6 weeks. Assuming what Dan Andrews said is correct, how much time do we "save" based on the modelling (i.e. instead of 6 months, are we now looking at 3,4 months?)
  
  Again, it's impossible to tell because we've only had Stage 4 lockdown for a day. There's two ways to answer this question, using past data (i.e. some reduced form model) - we just don't have data. Or use a structural model (i.e. just tune some parameters to make your simulated people interact less) - this will just give Andrews' estimates (subject to outlined caveats).
  - aussie bargain on 05/08/2020 - 20:27
    
    Thank you for doing this by the way.
    I can see the passion you have for the work and the simple and logical approach you take to things.
    
    Just curious, many academics I speak to are like yourself who like to present the facts. Is this just a common academic trait?
    
    Also, I think you could be fine in politics. Maybe we should just start an Ozbargain party to counter all those anti-vaxxer and anti-5g parties.
    
    Who could reject the allure of a "money saving" party? Lol
aussie bargain on 04/08/2020 - 22:01

A question that's more controversial: my understanding from your comments is basically that if we didnt have any lock downs (Sweden-like policy), then the most vulnurable (old people) would suffer the most as they are x times more likely to die compared to younger folks.

Assuming that letting old people is a non-issue politically and socially, then have we actually done modelling whether the non-lock down is better economically?

The reason I am asking is because there has been some suggestions that one of the biggest health costs relate to our aging populating. More mortality in the older population may actually mean that we have less old people, which theoretically reduce overall health cost on the tax system.
- p1 ama on 05/08/2020 - 01:25
  
  +3
  
  A question that's more controversial: my understanding from your comments is basically that if we didnt have any lock downs (Sweden-like policy), then the most vulnurable (old people) would suffer the most as they are x times more likely to die compared to younger folks.
  
  Yes, this is probably rather non-controversial, I think.
  
  Assuming that letting old people is a non-issue politically and socially, then have we actually done modelling whether the non-lock down is better economically?
  
  This is difficult to say, because there are economic costs to old people dying, so to just take that out of the equation is unrealistic. There will also be damage done from a decrease in consumer confidence, as well as people starting to live a more conservative life. A lot of it also depends on the world economy as well.
  
  In some sense, maybe the economic turmoil could have been eased if everyone everywhere agreed to just ignore it and carry on, but even that's not certain. That's not what the world decided to do.
- trapper on 05/08/2020 - 12:11
  
  +2
  
  Treating elderly Covid patients in the ICU for weeks does not come free either.
  
  Unless you were planning on leaving them to die in the streets…
  - aussie bargain on 05/08/2020 - 20:21
    
    You can then compare that cost vs the healthcare cost for that person from now until they die of natural causes.
    
    The big assumption there off course is that elderly are largely a net cost for the tax system.
TEER3X on 05/08/2020 - 08:09

Slightly OT, what is you're opinion of how the POTUS is handling the crisis over there? Could he have done any worse?
aboogee on 05/08/2020 - 12:43

can you share your sanitised model?
dont need any real data that may be confidential
would be keen to understand the impact of various scenarios…
astarman on 05/08/2020 - 13:48

How long do you tihnk Australia can go on with closed domestics and international borders?

Do you believe even with people deterred from testing, the amount of people going into hospitalisation and also ICU wont lie. so really you can predict how many are actually infected by the amount of people with serious conditions?
Joda on 05/08/2020 - 16:06

Thanks OP - really helpful info.

Do your models or any of the official Victorian COVID-19 models calculate COVID-19 population rates for Postcodes?

If so, where do you get your current Postcode population estimates from, or are the ABS 2016 Census Population figures used?
(Reason I ask relates to postcodes with rapid population growth and the impact on calculating population rates with old population numbers)
- Joda on 06/08/2020 - 11:45
  
  Do you know if the official COVID-19 models (or your models) factor in Season of the year?
syousef on 05/08/2020 - 16:31

@p1 ama

I doubt this will be received well but this thread shows me why medical disease experts, not economic experts, should be running the show. Economists will always solve economic problems first which is why you're so focused on the workplace to the exclusion of other avenues of transmission.

Your repeated insistence that people visiting their relatives doesn't matter and that it's only close contact at work that's statistically significant is irresponsible and unfounded. The problem is that if people allow themselves social contact they don't socialize with just one group and therefore become a vector for transmission between groups. Your advice is going to have people thinking they can "cheat" and it's ok because they're not what really matters. This is false and it's not just my opinion. It's widely regarded as correct and it's why the rules exist and the media has anything to beat up in the first place.

Here's a relatively naive simulation as demonstrated by a respected Youtube math vlogger, who is by his own admission not an expert, but it gets the main points across:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs
- dtc on 05/08/2020 - 17:21
  
  I think you might want to go back and read his comments again.
  - syousef on 05/08/2020 - 18:34
    
    -1
    
    I read them. He repeatedly stated that the media beat up over "idiots" wasn't relevant. It absolutely is. The outrage is justified, even if the media are selective about which incidents they beat up.
- p1 ama on 05/08/2020 - 19:29
  
  +9
  
  I doubt this will be received well but this thread shows me why medical disease experts, not economic experts, should be running the show.
  
  I've published papers in academic journals addressing the relationship between health and economic indicators, including how education, poverty and unemployment are the biggest risk factors for poor health. I've written extensively on how education and increased government support are some of the most efficient means of preventing expensive chronic disease.
  
  But sure, I know nothing about this area…
  
  Economists will always solve economic problems first which is why you're so focused on the workplace to the exclusion of other avenues of transmission.
  
  Your premise is erroneous because you're assuming two things that are fundamentally incorrect, namely that (1) COVID-19 is primarily a health crisis, and (2) that the health and economic aspects can fundamentally be separated.
  
  The reason why I say that COVID-19 is primarily an economic crisis is because the fact that it is a virus is largely irrelevant in terms of the economics. It doesn't matter whether everything shuts down because there's a virus going around, or because there's a natural disaster, or because there's a war or imminent threat of a terrorist attack…etc. This is one of the points I've mentioned repeatedly.
  
  Secondly, the assumption that health and economic aspects of a problem can be separated are also completely wrong. The biggest predictor of health outcomes are economic indicators. You cannot understand population health without a good understanding of economics.
  
  Your repeated insistence that people visiting their relatives doesn't matter and that it's only close contact at work that's statistically significant is irresponsible and unfounded.
  
  I never said that people visiting their relatives doesn't matter. I said that it's responsible for a minority of cases when compared to workplace transmission, which is currently the primary source of transmission in the community.
  
  In any case, we have already addressed the issue of people visiting their relatives. We have already disallowed this. We we have not addressed is workplace transmission and this is something that we should focus on.
  
  You misunderstand my point, which is that we need to not get up in arms about one aspect of transmission that we completely turn a blind eye to some extremely real problems. If you think that the entire current spread right now is because of people visiting their family, then you are wrong. That's not what the data says.
  
  Your advice is going to have people thinking they can "cheat" and it's ok because they're not what really matters. This is false and it's not just my opinion. It's widely regarded as correct and it's why the rules exist and the media has anything to beat up in the first place.
  
  This is why I hate politics. I'm not a politician, I'm an academic. I state the facts without regard for how they may or may not affect other people's behaviour.
  
  For example, if there has not been a shark attack at Beach A, then I will say there has not been a shark attack at Beach A. If someone takes that as Beach A is safe and decides to swim there and gets eaten by a shark, then that's on that person.
  
  Never have I made a recommendation for people to go out. I'm just saying that based on the proportion of cases that are being spread, the majority of them are from workplace transmission, with aged care and meatworks being the main sources.
  
  Here's a relatively naive simulation as demonstrated by a respected Youtube math vlogger, who is by his own admission not an expert, but it gets the main points across:
  
  I've seen the video, I agree with what he says. Places where large groups of people congregate need to be addressed. Where's that? Bingo, in workplaces where people from all over the city congregate. Not hard is it?
  
  Anyway, I'm not here to have moralistic arguments about how saying X can lead people to do Y. My point is to say that, as a society, we are focusing on the wrong thing. The main things we should be focusing on are:
  
  (1) How to ensure that those who test positive are quarantined and do not come into contact with others.
  
  (2) How to address the areas that currently have the highest density of people congregating - that is particular industries such as aged care and meatworks, amongst others.
  
  (3) How to use government support to align health and economic incentives such that people who are unwell and/or people who are working in high risk industries can take time off work and not be punished.
  
  If it makes you feel better to chastise idiots, go ahead. Just don't be surprised when there are more and more cases despite you yelling louder and louder.
  - syousef on 05/08/2020 - 21:31
    
    -2
    
    I've published papers in academic journals addressing the relationship between health and economic indicators
    
    You don't get it. We should organize our economy around the reality of a pandemic, not try to react to our pandemic based on the way we have already structured our economy.
    
    But sure, I know nothing about this area…
    
    Because you claim to be an expert I'm going to hold you to a MUCH higher standard and that is only right and proper. You said a number of things that are very problematic. LIke for instance…
    
    "I would say it's a good thing that young people are the ones who are getting it as opposed to old people."
    
    Oh yeah that's great. We don't know what the long term effects of this virus are or how common they are, but there is growing evidence that for some of those young people they're going to be living with lifelong deficits. Like the 50yo fit healthy cyclist GP who's now living with a heart scar that prevents him from exercising and can't drive or ride due to new onset epilepsy. Oh yeah that's very good.
    https://www.smh.com.au/national/seizures-and-battered-heart-…
    
    You also said "At the end of the day, we need essential workers whether they're supermarket clerks, doctors or teachers.". There is growing evidence that the virus is being spread in schools after all. So as they say one of these things is not like the others.
    
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/07/31/new…
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30251-0/fulltext
    
    You said
    
    . "Grandma pops over to see her grandkids because she hasn't seen them in weeks", reaction is "aww poor Granny, I feel so bad for her, she doesn't deserve a fine, she's just doing what's normal". On the other hand, "young guy visits his mate to have a drink", reaction is "idiot, moron, anti-science, fine him, throw him in jail, blasphemous"…etc.
    Anyway, the narrative is irrelevant in the scheme of things because that's not where the majority of the spread is occuring.
    
    You say you are an expert but what you have said above makes me question if you understand pandemic modelling within a population or even the logistic curve
    
    This is why I hate politics. I'm not a politician, I'm an academic. I state the facts without regard for how they may or may not affect other people's behaviour.
    
    Then get your facts RIGHT!!!!!
    
    A person who claims to be an expert, claims to be apolitical, but whose arguments do not hold up to any kind of scrutiny is in fact dangerous because you will mislead people. Everyone has their prejudices and political leanings so sorry but I don't for one minute buy that you're apolitical.
    
    You misunderstand my point, which is that we need to not get up in arms about one aspect of transmission that we completely turn a blind eye to some extremely real problems. If you think that the entire current spread right now is because of people visiting their family, then you are wrong. That's not what the data says.
    
    I misunderstand your point???? Where did I say that "the entire current spread right now is because of people visiting their family"? Got enough straw there for your straw man??
    
    A chain breaks at its weakest link, not its most convenient. You have to cover the workplace BUT FAMILY VISITS ARE ALSO IMPORTANT. Because if they're not the main point of transmission and you get lax on them, they will become the new main point of transmission. At no point did I say that aged care and meat works aren't problems that need addressing. But you most certainly are arguing that family visits aren't as important and you're dangerously wrong!
    
    Never have I made a recommendation for people to go out. I'm just saying that based on the proportion of cases that are being spread, the majority of them are from workplace transmission, with aged care and meatworks being the main sources.
    
    Ahem you called those cases where people went out and it wasn't for work "irrelevant'. The reason they aren't a major source of the spread in Australia is that we've had controls in place and because people who have broken those controls have faced public censure from friends and in the media. Calling those cases "irrelevant" and pointing to transmission in the workplace completely ignores the fact that we have still had a relatively low death rate compared to countries that did not put those measures in place.
    
    I'm not going to even address your irrelevant little rant about shark attacks. I'm not going to be lectured on logic from someone who clearly has no idea what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority is.
    
    main things we should be focusing on are:
    (1) How to ensure that those who test positive are quarantined and do not come into contact with others.
    
    It's not enough. By the time they are diagnosed it is often too late. Which is why we have restrictions at the border between places with low vs high transmission. What we need to do is set up a perimeter the moment we have the start of a cluster and limit it to that area. What we are doing instead is putting restrictions in place with a few days up to a week's notice. The virus won't wait a week..
    
    (2) How to address the areas that currently have the highest density of people congregating - that is particular industries such as aged care and meatworks, amongst others.
    
    No. Small groups of people can efficiently spread the virus if they mingle. Given you made this statement I'd bet good money you didn't watch the video I linked which models what happens with smaller groups. This is one reason leaving schools open is madness. The kids mingle and then mingle with the adults, who then visit family (so this is actually a HUGE deal).
    
    Australia missed a huge opportunity while we had schools doing remote learning. We could have developed a world class capability in online education. Instead we opened schools prematurely, literally overnight went from encouraging parents to make choice for their families to threatening parents with truancy action (in NSW), and using language that stated or implied online learning was always inferior and "not real". Absolute bonehead maneuver.
    
    (3) How to use government support to align health and economic incentives such that people who are unwell and/or people who are working in high risk industries can take time off work and not be punished.
    
    I actually agree on this one. There is definitely transmission in the workplace too. It's just that you seem obsessed only with workplace transmission.
    
    If it makes you feel better to chastise idiots, go ahead. Just don't be surprised when there are more and more cases despite you yelling louder and louder.
    
    It isn't about feeling better and it isn't about chastising idiots. It's about containment. Full containment. Not plugging large holes only to let water flow through and expand the little ones.That is why those idiots in the media defying health orders should be made an example of. Not to feel good, but to deter some of the others. Might feel good to rant and rave on social media but how good are they going to feel with no license or a short stint in prison? Some of the others won't copy if there is more of a price to their 5 minutes of fame.
    
    The fact is we know how to beat this thing - we did it with wave 1 and we might not have had a wave 2 if we'd just kept those restrictions up for a few more weeks (3-4 I suspect). VIC is finally moving in the direction of proper lockdowns. But now we're back to worse than wave 1. Let's see if the restrictions stay in place long enough to be effective this time.
    - wau2 on 05/08/2020 - 22:03
      
      @syousef
      Do you have an exec summary for your response?
      - syousef on 05/08/2020 - 22:06
        
        -2
        
        @wau2: Exec summary: He is dangerously wrong. Workplace transmission is important but isn't the only important vector, and if you get lax on the others they grow. Media reporting on people breaking the rules has its place. His understanding of pandemic modeling is disappointing given that he claims to be an expert.
    - p1 ama on 05/08/2020 - 22:55
      
      +6
      
      Okay, if you want to be argumentative, fine, but I'm not going to engage just for the sake of an argument. If you just want to post long self-aggrandising posts, then you can go ahead, but there's no point in me responding.
      
      If you want to engage in good faith. Great. Let's address the actual issue.
      
      You can see the numbers, you know the situation. You know what the current regulations are. What are the top 3 most important things to do from here?
      
      No need to justify just 1., 2., and 3.
      - syousef on 05/08/2020 - 23:11
        
        -2
        
        @p1 ama: You failed to address a single one of my points.
        
        You called my response argumentative. What was your first reply then? A love letter?
        
        But I'll play anyway:
        
        Top 3 things:
        
        Shut borders properly, effectively and immediately when numbers increase. No 1 week delays.
        Justification: Virus doesn't wait for you to get your act together.
        
        Go back to stage 4 in all areas experiencing outbreak, do what we did to bring our numbers down for wave 1, and stay at stage 4 until your numbers are 0 new cases outside of quarantine for 3-4 weeks.
        Justification: a. It worked before and we would likely not be in this mess if we had followed through. b. If we keep doing this in half steps we're going to have more damage to our the economy not less.
        
        Initiate proper, full and enthusiastic use of remote work and education where ever possible and put in place a plan that we would not be reluctant to use should anything like this ever happen again. Long term changes. (Note: I am not saying all work and education can be done this way but a lot can. Essential workers and workers whose jobs require that they work on site will always exist).
        Justification: If we are prepared to do things remotely we won't have to devastate our economies fully. We could be world leaders in this if we chose.
        
        p1 ama on 05/08/2020 - 23:15
        
        +3
        
        @syousef:
        
        Shut borders properly, effectively and immediately when numbers increase. No 1 week delays.
        
        I agree.
        
        Go back to stage 4 in all areas experiencing outbreak, do what we did to bring our numbers down for wave 1, and stay at stage 4 until your numbers are 0 new cases outside of quarantine for 3-4 weeks.
        
        We are already in Stage 4.
        
        Initiate proper, full and enthusiastic use of remote work and education where ever possible and put in place a plan that we would not be reluctant to use should anything like this ever happen again.
        
        I agree, but this is a long term strategy rather than something that we can do right now and this instant. I completely agree that we should be leveraging technology to push remote learning and working. This will reduce some of the biggest expenses in employing people (i.e. office real estate), will reduce costs associated with transport and commuting, reduce the burden of traffic, reduce congestion, be better for the environment…etc. Not to mention that it allows for more flexible working arrangements that might be more suitable for more people. I'm onboard.
        
        So it looks like we agree. It's good that you didn't say "chastising idiots" in your top 3, that's all I'm saying too, that it shouldn't be in our top 3 and that we should be thinking about more serious solutions.
        
        syousef on 06/08/2020 - 06:42
        
        -1
        
        @p1 ama:
        
        We are already in Stage 4.
        
        Unpopular opinion: NSW needs to do it too. Don't wait for it to get out of control.
        
        I agree, but this is a long term strategy rather than something that we can do right now and this instant. I completely agree that we should be leveraging technology to push remote learning and working
        
        Honestly I don't think we can afford to make this a long term strategy. I think we need to start shifting this right now. It may eventually need to be codified in law that businesses over a certain size have a disaster plan that includes remote working when it is practically possible. Same goes for learning institutions over a certain size.
        
        astarman on 06/08/2020 - 00:25
        
        @syousef:
        
        this is our first "stage 4". do you mean stage 3?
        
        i do recall reading some research paper regarding the development of children with in person / interactive learning and how crucial it is for them to have this human interaction. if there is a "stage 3" lockdown every 5 weeks for a state it would be quite detrimental for our "future" generation
        
        To OP - do you think we can follow a South Korea approach ? they seem to know what they are doing..
        
        syousef on 06/08/2020 - 06:37
        
        -1
        
        @astarman:
        
        this is our first "stage 4". do you mean stage 3?
        
        Regardless of how we label the stages, we had a nation-wide lockdown that was very similar to what is now being called stage 4 for the first wave, and it worked. We got our numbers down and they stayed down for a while.
        
        i do recall reading some research paper regarding the development of children with in person / interactive learning and how crucial it is for them to have this human interaction. if there is a "stage 3" lockdown every 5 weeks for a state it would be quite detrimental for our "future" generation
        
        You can have human interaction via technology. And no it's not the same as in person, especially for very young children. But it certainly can work for a few months. However it requires a very big change to the attitudes of our education policy makers. The teachers seem to have been very practical and flexible,.but edicts from up high about banning or hobbling platforms like Zoom, forcing kids into the classroom at a particular date, threatening parents with truancy enforcement, and stating online learning isn't "real" are not helpful and in fact are very damaging. While I'm not advocating a free-for-all we need high levels of flexibility and for teachers to have some autonomy in how they teach, what rules they set and what technology they lockdown.
        
        This is also why we need a proper lockdown and we need to stay the course, then keep the borders shut until we have a vaccine or the pandemic subsides. We don't want to do it many times. We want to do it once, and we want to stay the course till there are not new outbreaks, then we want effective border control to keep it out.
        
        astarman on 06/08/2020 - 11:56
        
        @syousef: What if we don't develop a vaccine ? What if it takes 3 to 5 years ?
        
        It's not as easy as creating the next iPhone.
        
        syousef on 06/08/2020 - 12:06
        
        @astarman:
        
        What if we don't develop a vaccine ? What if it takes 3 to 5 years ?
        
        That's a very real possibility, and it's not the scariest possibility. All the more reason to strive for a proper and full lockdown and border control.
        
        It may take more than 5 years but at some point it will have gone through a significant portion of the population the way we're mishandling this.
        
        Scarier possibilities. What if:
        - It mutates and gets more deadly, or more contagious?
        - These asymptomatic cases in children actually leave the kids with permanent deficits we'll be dealing with for several decades. e.g. heart/lung/brain/other organ damage that isn't obvious now.
        - We're hit with another pandemic immediately after or even during this one?
        
        astarman on 06/08/2020 - 13:29
        
        @syousef: do you believe borders should be closed until then?
        
        your scarier possibility i believe goes against disease mutation.
        in general, a more contagious virus survives and transmit as it is less deadly.
        
        regarding asymptomatic - is there actual statitstics on this
        or are majority of these "asymtomatic cases " actually presymptomatic - or are they people denying their symptoms, whether it was fatigue, a sore throat or even a blocked nose?
        
        there will always be a pandemic. so are you saying borders should never open to avoid such thing?
        
        aussie bargain on 06/08/2020 - 00:42
        
        @syousef: It seems that you just have a disagreement with op on the main issue of the spread and how it should be handled.
        
        Perhaps you can elaborate on what you think the main issue with vic is (unless you agree with op but disagrees with the fact that he is saying the rule breakers are a small proportion of the problem).
        
        You have outlined 3 responses, but one thing I am sensing from you as you seem to indicate that op is only looking at this from an economics perspective and should also look at it from an infectious disease perspective. Are you just in the camp that want eradication (when it is clear from the government, eg NSW premier that suppression may be our only option).
        
        I mean its quite clear how different economists and infectious disease expert will lean to, but given op's background his comments are okay to me.
        
        syousef on 06/08/2020 - 06:30
        
        +1
        
        @aussie bargain:
        
        Perhaps you can elaborate on what you think the main issue with vic is (unless you agree with op but disagrees with the fact that he is saying the rule breakers are a small proportion of the problem).
        
        Not an either/or. I disagree with the economic focus. The economy will be adversely affected as long as we have waves/major outbreaks so trying half-baked suppression tactics isn't going to save our economy in the long run in my opinion. But it will drive decisions that are bad from a medical/scientific standpoint as we try to balance both economy and the science.
        
        Are you just in the camp that want eradication (when it is clear from the government, eg NSW premier that suppression may be our only option).
        
        I think trying to have a little bit of pandemic is like trying to be a little bit pregnant. As long as there is community transmission, you won't be able to control this. It's really that simple. Sick people in quarantine is not an issue as long as it's handled correctly, and is necessary for border control. So does that meet your definition of eradication or not?
        
        I mean its quite clear how different economists and infectious disease expert will lean to, but given op's background his comments are okay to me.
        
        I'm not going to repeat what I'm not okay with. Please read above.
        
        wau2 on 06/08/2020 - 07:59
        
        @syousef: Yes it all works in hindsight. We didn’t have a stage 4 in the first wave, and it was suppressed (stage 2/3). Politics determined that the same process could work again and it went out of control.
        
        Our government is too slow to react, and too many bodies with opinions (unions, social groups etc). You do one thing there’s a big uproar. You do the opposite there’s another uproar.
        
        Example is Victoria (where I am in), when lockdowns were getting harsh, dan was labelled dictator dan for being harsh. He got destroyed when he lockdown the towers. Now we are are in stage 4 ppl are like should’ve done it earlier. You just can’t win in politics
        
        His trying his hardest to fix his mistake of hotel quarantine. Resigning now for him is basically wiping your hands and leaving. I do respect him as 99% of everyone would have given up and broken down by now with all the work/criticism. Pressure he has faced.
        
        syousef on 06/08/2020 - 12:00
        
        @wau2:
        
        Example is Victoria (where I am in), when lockdowns were getting harsh, dan was labelled dictator dan for being harsh. He got destroyed when he lockdown the towers. Now we are are in stage 4 ppl are like should’ve done it earlier. You just can’t win in politics
        
        Sorry but no. He got destroyed because the lockdown was a farce. Weren't these the same towers where inadequate and rotten food was being delivered, and parts of a meal that were inedible on their own? Weren't these the towers with the security guard fiasco with intimate relations, and where security guards and cleaners were hired in an adhoc way with little care for their well being (provide their own damn PPE), and little training?
        
        It is true that there will always be critics but take a look at how popular Jacinta is across the ocean despite a more draconian lockdown and tell me again how politicians can't win?
        
        wau2 on 06/08/2020 - 14:04
        
        -1
        
        @syousef: Cause she had the balls (pun) to do it straight up and stuff you to all those that complained. I respect that
        
        In relation to security guards, I would put the blame on the idiot. Like seriously anyone with a half mind would keep it in their pants in a hotel full of potentially infected people? Like really? Were they that desperate?
        
        syousef on 06/08/2020 - 14:15
        
        +1
        
        @wau2:
        
        In relation to security guards, I would put the blame on the idiot. Like seriously anyone with a half mind would keep it in their pants in a hotel full of potentially infected people? Like really? Were they that desperate?
        
        Hire people at minimum wage. Give them no pandemic training. Don't screen them. Then wonder why they behave badly?
        
        whooah1979 on 06/08/2020 - 14:38
        
        +1
        
        @syousef: Some people say that this is the end of the world. It's human nature to get laid be the end.
        
        ssquid on 06/08/2020 - 22:32
        
        @syousef:
        
        Weren't these the towers with the security guard fiasco with intimate relations, and where security guards and cleaners were hired in an adhoc way with little care for their well being (provide their own damn PPE), and little training?
        
        No, not at all. You're confusing the hotel quarantine of returned overseas travellers (where the "second wave" has been confirmed to have originated) with the lockdown of the public housing towers, which was enforced by police.
        
        aussie bargain on 06/08/2020 - 10:25
        
        +1
        
        @syousef: I can understand where you are coming from now and I respect your opinion.
        As with anything, people have the freedom to voice their opinions and OP seems to just have a different opinion on this compared to yours (as he probably may have with politicians and other modelers whenever he presented some sort of model with a certain analysis).
        
        At the end of the day, we can argue non stop but it's the politicians that make the decisions (as per what OP said). Let's just hope for the best with what is happening in Melbourne and hope that none of the states get more unlucky breaks.
        
        syousef on 06/08/2020 - 10:29
        
        @aussie bargain:
        
        At the end of the day, we can argue non stop but it's the politicians that make the decisions (as per what OP said). Let's just hope for the best with what is happening in Melbourne and hope that none of the states get more unlucky breaks.
        
        I suspect if we keep behaving the way we are, there is no possibility of avoiding that "unlucky break". Only a statistically certainty that trends towards 100% over time.
        
        aussie bargain on 06/08/2020 - 14:47
        
        @syousef: I think that's where probably some/many would disagree with you and @trapper.
        
        In my opinion, trying to fully eliminate the virus 100% is not a long term solution (and I don't know whether it is a viable short term option). History has shown how we manage viruses and it's basically an inoculation strategy (either through vaccination or infection).
        
        The current strategy on isolation works, but it's rooted on the idea that "there will be vaccine and it will hopefully be here soon, so let's make sure no one (or as few people) get infected for the time being".
        
        As a society, without a vaccine yet, we just need to make a decision on what we want to do and how we go about doing it. One of the reasons why the "herd immunity" approach is getting some support around the world is because some thinks that it's better to just open up the economy, let the infection spread and let people (mostly older) will die.
        
        They advocate that the cost of being shut down is much higher compared to the cost of a more "herd immunity" approach. Obviously, this is not the approach our government is taking. However, I don't know whether they are trying to pursue elimination (NSW Premier doesn't seem to think this is possible).
        
        Because I am not an economist or an epidemiologist, I can't say which is better so I hope our government makes the best decision (whatever that is). That is why they are in government.
        
        syousef on 06/08/2020 - 15:09
        
        @aussie bargain:
        
        The current strategy on isolation works, but it's rooted on the idea that "there will be vaccine and it will hopefully be here soon, so let's make sure no one (or as few people) get infected for the time being".
        
        Vaccines are not the only way plagues have been beaten.
        
        There are diseases that have been kept out of countries long term. There's no Rabies in Australia for example.
        
        And of you look at history plenty of plagues burnt themselves out too. Some through isolation measures.
        
        Here's a good starting point for you.
        https://www.livescience.com/worst-epidemics-and-pandemics-in…
        
        It's fine to have a non-expert opinion. I'm not an expert in these areas either. But you should endevour to at least learn a fair bit about the topic before drawing your conclusions.
        
        aussie bargain on 06/08/2020 - 17:00
        
        +1
        
        @syousef: I am not going to engage in your way of "I know better than you" (which seems to be your modus operandi). People can read and draw their own conclusion, but normally educated people don't go on their high horse.
        
        I do read quite a bit, so thank you for reminding that there are many common diseases in other parts of the world (e.g. Rabies, TBC) that Australia doesn't vaccinate anymore.
        
        Unfortunately, I am not a historian (you might be), so I don't know what vaccine(s) Australia doesn't do anymore. BCG is quite a likely one, but you're the expert right?
        
        For most of us common people, we just read the news and books that tell us that the next step (when it is safe to do so) when a particular disease is under control (i.e. no longer a threat) could be that you don't require vaccination.
        
        However, as we know, this is not the case with COVID, so please continue with your assertions.
        
        syousef on 06/08/2020 - 17:14
        
        @aussie bargain:
        
        I am not going to engage in your way of "I know better than you"
        
        ….etc
        
        I am not the expert but if i can casually debunk a statement you make you need to read more. In this case I did know more. That wasn't a value judgement of either you or me. That's just a fact.
        
        Your entire argument was based on the premise that the only way this pandemic can end is a vaccine which may never come. That simply is not correct. And as a result all your argument that followed was moot Even without a vaccine we need to do more than casually suppress this virus.
        
        You can hold any opinion you want, but not all opinions are equally valid.
        
        trapper on 06/08/2020 - 14:11
        
        +1
        
        @syousef:
        
        I think trying to have a little bit of pandemic is like trying to be a little bit pregnant. As long as there is community transmission, you won't be able to control this. It's really that simple.
        
        People really don't seem to get this.
        
        We need to eliminate the virus totally, it's not something that can simmer along at any kind of 'manageable' level.
firestint on 05/08/2020 - 22:19

Thank you for doing what you're doing and setting this up.

Taking into account the current situations and where we're right now, summary on economic recovery projections please by industry and the timeline?
Orico on 06/08/2020 - 08:31

I've been spamming all the Premiers with messages to do a hard lockdown from March.
- whooah1979 on 06/08/2020 - 09:01
  
  Do you WFH?
  - Orico on 06/08/2020 - 09:03
    
    Yeah mang but I absolutely loathe it. I find myself going to the office a lot because I work on hardware.
    - whooah1979 on 06/08/2020 - 09:09
      
      One of our friends work in the hospitality industry. They lost 90% of their revenue and had to let go of all their staff during the first lockdown.
      
      Lockdowns kills small business that can't WFH. These businesses support hundreds of not millions of Australians.
      - Orico on 06/08/2020 - 09:13
        
        @whooah1979:
        
        Lockdowns kills small business that can't WFH
        
        It's better than these sporadic lockdowns and changes in rules every month.
        Lockdowns also prevent tens of thousands from dying. I don't care if staff are let go if we can save thousands of lives.
        
        whooah1979 on 06/08/2020 - 09:18
        
        @Orico: They probably think the same way as you when they can't feed their families or pay their bills.
        
        Orico on 06/08/2020 - 09:22
        
        +2
        
        @whooah1979: Australians are a bunch of wingers. That's a bullshit statement. There's more than enough benefits from the government to get by. If they can't feed their families, they should ask how minorities who came from nothing survive in this country. You're not entitled to a mortgage.
        
        In foreign countries in Asia and middle-east, there's no Centrelink. People have to find their own food and make their own shelter.
        
        wau2 on 06/08/2020 - 09:30
        
        @Orico: I do agree some people in Australia are abit too entitled
        
        whooah1979 on 06/08/2020 - 10:02
        
        @Orico: https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/audio/temporary-skil…
        
        Those on sponsorship visas are ineligible for JobKeeper and JobSeeker and visa restrictions only allow them to work for the employer who sponsored them.
        
        https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-temporary-visa-holde…
        
        But the federal government has confirmed eligibility rules for the programs will remain unchanged, meaning an estimated 1.1 million temporary visa holders still won’t be able to access the support.
        
        In foreign countries in Asia and middle-east, there's no Centrelink. People have to find their own food and make their own shelter.
        
        These people came to Australia to offer their skills and hopefully make a better life for their families. They would've chosen Asia or the ME if they thought that would be a better option, which it isn't. Thank <insert higher being> for that.
        
        wau2 on 06/08/2020 - 09:26
        
        @Orico: The economy hit will affect people more than the actual disease. I do understand they are trying to balance the economy as well.
        No job = no money = no home /food = on the streets = stress = violence etc etc
        
        This goes all the way to the top for government as no jobs = no tax revenue = less money for support = no money to boost economy
        
        It’s a never ending cycle
        
        trapper on 06/08/2020 - 14:20
        
        -1
        
        @wau2:
        
        The economy hit will affect people more than the actual disease.
        
        There is no way around this. If we all just ignore the disease and open everything up there will be tens of thousands of new cases and hundreds dying every day. Hospitals will be overrun and businesses will be closed anyway when half their staff are infected.
        
        You think the economy will be in better shape then?
- Turd on 06/08/2020 - 14:00
  
  That's nice to know you tried.
b-t on 06/08/2020 - 14:54

How legit is this article?

Were you involved in modelling this? :)

Do you think we'll do better than the prediction?
- astarman on 06/08/2020 - 20:19
  
  "secret" is a nice way of finding it. if it was actually secret then that person leaking it gonna be under some serious trouble…
  isnt it wrong already because it predicted today wrong?
  
  dont you think a graph without its context is a little misleading? and models have to be constantly changed to account for daily new information….otherwise the prediction shouldve been 20000 with the Rf factor from a month ago?
Doyen on 06/08/2020 - 16:51

A lot of covid graphs put out are logarithmic on the frequency axis or don't eve show scale. How many people that you have spoken to understand this?
MementoMori on 07/08/2020 - 20:41

Thanks so much for doing this!

What is your estimate for total number of infected in Australia?

(as is all the people who currently have or have previously had it)

My rough estimate is 0.4% of 25,500,000 = 102,000 people (based on the 0.4% of positive tests on the 4M+ tests done so far).
- whooah1979 on 07/08/2020 - 21:27
  
  https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavir…
  
  20272 total cases
  7492 active cases (estimated)
  - MementoMori on 08/08/2020 - 21:31
    
    No no, they are the confirmed cases.
    
    I’ll talking about how many cases there are out there in the wild that we don’t know about.
    
    As in unconfirmed / undetected.
    - trapper on 08/08/2020 - 23:39
      
      -1
      
      They are mostly in your imagination by the sound of it.
      - MementoMori on 09/08/2020 - 14:17
        
        @trapper: Hey no need to be rude because you don’t understand what I mean
    - whooah1979 on 09/08/2020 - 01:23
      
      As in unconfirmed / undetected.
      
      It's all the confirmed cases plus 1.
      - MementoMori on 09/08/2020 - 14:07
        
        @whooah1979: ???
        
        The number of confirmed cases does not equal the number of infected.
        
        They could be thousands out there that have it and nobody knows.
        
        Does this make sense?
        
        whooah1979 on 09/08/2020 - 14:11
        
        @MementoMori: It could also be just one. Like you said "nobody knows".
        
        MementoMori on 09/08/2020 - 14:13
        
        @whooah1979: That’s why I’m asking what people think.
        
        You can use current data to estimate. We have lots of good data available now. 4M+ tests out of a population of 25M is a damn good sample size!
        
        1 is highly unlikely. 25M is also highly unlikely.
        
        My estimation and reasoning is above. Would love to hear yours.
        
        whooah1979 on 09/08/2020 - 14:19
        
        @MementoMori: My opinion is the amount of people that are infected is equal to the amount that will be published in tomorrow's update.
        
        https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavir…
        
        MementoMori on 09/08/2020 - 14:22
        
        -1
        
        @whooah1979: So another words you believe that everybody who is infected gets tested and confirmed as positive?
        
        That doesn’t make any sense to me.
        
        Personally, I had a bit of a weird mild cold in Jan/Feb, back before there even was a test. I could have already had it. How many more people like me would there be? 10s of thousands surely.
        
        trapper on 10/08/2020 - 00:00
        
        -1
        
        @MementoMori: This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of basic statistics that it's hard to know if you are serious or not.
        
        The test subjects are not randomly selected from the population, so the sample has no relevance to the population as a whole no matter what the size.
        
        We are testing people suspected to be infected, or known to have been exposed to an infected person - so your 0.4% applies only to that category of people.
        
        Your conclusion that an extra 80,000 infected are wandering around somehow undetected and unnoticed is just ridiculous. Apply some critical thinking - there would be tens of thousands hospitalised an extra thousand or so unexplained deaths, not to mention the infection spreading rapidly and completely out of control across the whole country.
- ssquid on 09/08/2020 - 03:04
  
  +1
  
  That's a silly assumption because someone experiencing symptoms is highly likely to get tested. So the proportion of total tests that return positive will be much higher than the total population that would test positive.
  - MementoMori on 09/08/2020 - 14:08
    
    -1
    
    It’s not a silly assumption at all when 99% of people experience no or mild symptoms.
    
    Many people who have it said that they didn’t feel anything, which means there must be many people who had it, never got tested and recover - including way back in Feb/Mar.
    - ssquid on 09/08/2020 - 16:38
      
      +1
      
      That is wildly inaccurate. Currently more than 1% of confirmed infections results in death, so you're saying people either have no/mild symptoms (your supposed 99%) or they die?
      - MementoMori on 09/08/2020 - 20:11
        
        -1
        
        @ssquid: No.
        
        My hypothesis is that there are many more infected than just the confirmed cases.
        
        To think that all infections = confirmed cases is incorrect.
        
        Infections are higher and could be 5x higher for all we know. My estimate and workings are above.
        
        So, it could be 99% of infected (not confirmed) are mild. I agree with you it wouldn’t be 99% of confirmed cases (although many of these deaths are dodgy - even by the own ABS classification of ‘potentially contributed’). Maybe it’s 95%? Or 90%. Do you have better information on morbidity?
        
        Hope that makes sense.
aussie bargain on 09/08/2020 - 07:02

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-city-divided-c…

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

closed Comments

New Forum Topics