A serious question.

[trekin]

[quote="Baronvonrort"]The first known case in Aus was detected only after they had knowledge of, and the tests to detect it. Can you, or any one else, unequivocally discount that, I or hundreds of other QLDER's who suffered the same symptoms back in Dec/Jan

I doubt the Kung Flu was here in Dec when the earliest recorded case was !st Dec in China.

The onset of symptoms start around 2 weeks after being infected.

I posted this before perhaps some don't read it perhaps some don't comprehend it.[quote]
So by your link the first case would have been infected in November 19, patient is contagious 2 days before showing symptoms, leaves plenty of time for this virus to spread to tourists coming to Aus from the Wuhan Provenance by the end of the month. Also enough time to infect workers at a factory that made coal wagons for Aurizon rail, which a Delegation of Chinese engineers, factory officials and Party minders handed over at the Jilalan workshops at the beginning of Jan, all of which, also, came from Wuhan.

[Baronvonrort]

Earliest cases were not in December... Whoever gave you that information must be a CCP loyal

Did you comprehend this bit from my link?

Does this link question the contradicting reports from China?

I don't know why I bother sometimes if people don't read my links or even worse fail to comprehend them then accuse me of being a CCP loyal when I have never given any indication of supporting the official story on this virus and how it started.

Is The Lancet a CCP group?

The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).
In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases,” they state.

Earlier reports from Chinese health authorities and the World Health Organization had said the first patient had onset of symptoms on 8 December 2019—and those reports simply said “most” cases had links to the seafood market, which was closed on 1 January.

The Lancet paper’s data also raise questions about the accuracy of the initial information China provided, Lucey says. At the beginning of the outbreak, the main official source of public information were notices from the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission. Its notices on 11 January started to refer to the 41 patients as the only confirmed cases and the count remained the same until 18 January. The notices did not state that the seafood market was the source, but they repeatedly noted that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission and that most cases linked to the market. Because the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission noted that diagnostic tests had confirmed these 41 cases by 10 January and officials presumably knew the case histories of each patient, “China must have realized the epidemic did not originate in that Wuhan Huanan seafood market,” Lucey tells ScienceInsider.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally#

[Baronvonrort]

So by your link the first case would have been infected in November 19, patient is contagious 2 days before showing symptoms, leaves plenty of time for this virus to spread to tourists coming to Aus from the Wuhan Provenance by the end of the month. Also enough time to infect workers at a factory that made coal wagons for Aurizon rail, which a Delegation of Chinese engineers, factory officials and Party minders handed over at the Jilalan workshops at the beginning of Jan, all of which, also, came from Wuhan.

Yes first case would have been infected around mid Nov in Wuhan area.

First recorded case in Australia-

January 25, 2020

A Chinese national visiting Melbourne has become the country’s first confirmed case of deadly coronavirus as the disease spreads across Australia, with four people infected by late yesterday.

A Chinese man in his 50s was Australia's first confirmed case of the deadly infection, after arriving in Melbourne on a flight from Guangzhou on January 19.

He is being treated at Monash Medical Centre in Clayton after arriving in Melbourne at 9am on January 19 on China Southern Airlines flight CZ321 from Guangzhou.

He displayed no symptoms on the flight to Melbourne, Ms Mikakos said.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/coronavirus-case-confirmed-in-victoria-20200125-p53unk.html

[Bill]

Here is the complete timeline of infections for QLD,

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-28/ ... d/12077602

[TassieTiger]

“I don't know why I bother sometimes if people don't read my links or even worse fail to comprehend them then accuse me of being a CCP loyal when I have never given any indication of supporting the official story on this virus and how it started.

Is The Lancet a CCP group?

Baron, I’ll ask one last time - using your death rate calculations your applying to CV, You’ve said, that you can only use concluded cases vs death - but AIDS doesn’t conclude without eventual death? SO, you then have to conclude that the disease AIDS has a 100% death rate? MS would be the same...as would many, many other diseases...
Maybe this is why ppl aren’t paying as much attention to your posts as you’d like...

[Baronvonrort]

Baron, I’ll ask one last time - using your death rate calculations your applying to CV, You’ve said, that you can only use concluded cases vs death - but AIDS doesn’t conclude without eventual death? SO, you then have to conclude that the disease AIDS has a 100% death rate? MS would be the same...as would many, many other diseases...
Maybe this is why ppl aren’t paying as much attention to your posts as you’d like...

It's not my death rate calculations what did the medical links I provided say about this?

I don't see the relevance with aids to this apart from I suspect HIV vaccine is why they were experimenting with corona virus

We can say the outcome for those with aids is a lot better today than it was 20 or even 30 years ago. why is that?

What was the expected outcome for those with aids 30 years ago?

Sorry for not replying earlier I have more interesting things to do.

[Baronvonrort]

Here is the complete timeline of infections for QLD,

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-28/ ... d/12077602

So unlikely the Kung Flu was there in Nov as claimed.

Be interesting to see where the big clusters are in Qld, if it was there earlier as claimed the numbers near Sarina would be interesting

[TassieTiger]

I seriously give up Baron...
In one thread your stating - not linking - you, personally are stating that The CV death rate is calculated via deaths vs closed cases “only” for this disease...99% of others, here and around the world disagree with you and you say that we are all dumb for not understanding your position.
I then - in an attempt to try and get you to see how stupid your calcs are - ask for a disease by disease comparison calculation and you dismiss it as irrelevant. Go back to uni man, where you can sit in your bubble and pretend that you know everything.

[Baronvonrort]

I seriously give up Baron...
In one thread your stating - not linking - you, personally are stating that The CV death rate is calculated via deaths vs closed cases “only” for this disease...99% of others, here and around the world disagree with you and you say that we are all dumb for not understanding your position.
I then - in an attempt to try and get you to see how stupid your calcs are - ask for a disease by disease comparison calculation and you dismiss it as irrelevant. Go back to uni man, where you can sit in your bubble and pretend that you know everything.

You didn't answer my questions on the outcome for people with aids 20-30 years ago and today so why is the outcome different for them over time? Did aids kill 100% of victims 30 years ago? 20 years ago? today? Is that the comparison you wanted?

It is calculated this way because there is a lag from onset of symptoms to becoming critical and death or recovery which takes a couple of weeks.

It's wrong to calculate this by infection numbers vs deaths because that assumes everyone will recover with no increase in deaths, do you see this serious flaw with this method?

Why did the Swiss medical link say it would be wrong by orders of magnitude to do it this way?

We don't know what the outcome will be for current open cases their fate will probably be known over the next month and looking at closed cases which have a result it doesn't look good for them.

Do you think we would be going through this unprecedented shutdown worldwide if it wasn't serious?

For the record I graduated from Uni as a mature age student nearly 20 years ago. I did science mathematics and mechanical engineering.

[Baronvonrort]

A serious question for Ziad, TT and others who think I am wrong.

If your method of calculating death rate with infections vs deaths give you a rate why are the observed results with closed cases (recovery or death) not corresponding with your flawed death rate or even close?

If you are correct and I am wrong then surely the results of closed cases would match your predicted death rate, can you explain why this is not happening?

What orders of magnitude is your (flawed) calculated death rate out by?

2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): estimating the case fatality rate – a word of caution

At present, it is tempting to estimate the case fatality rate by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases. The resulting number, however, does not represent the true case fatality rate and might be off by orders of magnitude.

Diagnosis of viral infection will precede recovery or death by days to weeks and the number of deaths should therefore be compared to the past case counts.

https://smw.ch/article/doi/smw.2020.20203

Please answer these questions.

[sungazer]

Tassie just give up face it the death rate from living is 100%.

[TassieTiger]

1st up - you’ve found something on the internet so your right? Sound familiar??

2nd Most ppl do not get retested yo clear their disease UNLESS they are on the serious or hospitalised list - there aren’t enough test kits to test mainstream once, let alone re test to confirm...it’s is so insane to me that you cannot see the flaws in your methods.
Please tell me your not studying something important.
The death or mortality rate can only be estimated with concrete figures and I’m in agreement with WHO etc who are basing estimates on infection rate vs deaths + corrective factor.

Re your aids question - again, like your previously applied flawed logic, it makes zero sense Re asking 10, 30 or what ever years. AIDS is a disease as is CV - and I’m asking you to apply the same logic to that disease AS you have with CV....utilising only fully recovered patients.

If you do - then you can only come up with a 100 % death rate...which shows how crazy it is, because it’s obviously not that. It’s pretty simple really and I’m amazed that you cannot see the flaws that many, many ppl have tried to show you...

[Baronvonrort]

1st up - you’ve found something on the internet so your right? Sound familiar??

2nd Most ppl do not get retested yo clear their disease UNLESS they are on the serious or hospitalised list - there aren’t enough test kits to test mainstream once, let alone re test to confirm...it’s is so insane to me that you cannot see the flaws in your methods.
Please tell me your not studying something important.
The death or mortality rate can only be estimated with concrete figures and I’m in agreement with WHO etc who are basing estimates on infection rate vs deaths + corrective factor.

Yes I did find 2 articles that are correct on the internet I am stunned by the amount of misinformation from those who should know better.

The amount of negative tests for Kung Flu shows many are getting tested when they suspect they might have it yet don't have it. If every test was positive then there might be a case in saying not enough tests.

The doctors will not close a case and say someone is recovered unless they have no signs of Kung Flu from testing or symptoms, if they die from this which is usually in an ICU where medical help is available they're recorded as dead.

When using a maths formula to predict something the observed results should match or be very close to what formula predicts or the formula is garbage, the numbers are not even close with observed results from closed cases doing it the flawed way which many insist is right. The numbers going in are correct yet the observed results are nowhere near actual observed results so the method is wrong.

In science if the hypothesis doesn't match the observed results it gets thrown in the garbage. In science if the maths used to calculate something doesn't match observed results it gets thrown in the garbage. The flawed method many insist is right produces garbage with this it should be thrown out.

You still haven't explained why the way you and many others believe is correct to calculate this death rate is way out and not even close with observed results from closed cases.

[TassieTiger]

Omfg.
“There’s no case for not enough tests”? Are you an outright fuggen idiot? Actually don’t answer that. You are aware of the criteria for testing - only stretches to those that have been in cont...you know what...forget it,
Ppl have tried and tried and tried to explain why relying on closed cases only, for your insanity calculations is wrong...but, hey - the old adage is right. Don’t argue on the IT....You believe what ever. Everyone else ? clearly idiots and you ? master of the world...lolz.
Ps bro - do you even shoot lol.
Fuggen Quack.

[poid]

Baron, I've explained to you why the numbers are how they are and even reconciled your figures to the estimated overall rate. I've also explained why this statement...

"Closed cases are the only accurate numbers we have at this time for outcome as those numbers are known"

...is incorrect because it only relates to a subset of cases, and not all cases, because the vast majority are mild and won't have a 'recovery' recorded at this point. See Chinese data - the number 'recovered' there is basically anyone who is not known to be sick or hasn't died after a period of time, and their death rate is ~4.4%. That's the closest we have to a complete data set at the moment, noting my previous caveat about Chinese data (you can't simply throw it out because it disagrees with your thesis, however!).

You'll see the same kind of numbers once it flows through other countries, "recoveries" will increase as people are assumed to have recovered who haven't died and the numbers will move towards the numbers I previously calculated. In the same way that the link you posted says you can't compare deaths to current cases, you can't compare deaths to current recoveries.

FYI I have done this stuff for a living, I was an actuary in the early part of my career and have worked in/around life insurance companies for a long time now.

At least there is enough good info in this thread for people to make up their own minds about calculating the numbers. That can only be a good thing, right?

[Baronvonrort]

Omfg.
“There’s no case for not enough tests”? Are you an outright fuggen idiot? Actually don’t answer that. You are aware of the criteria for testing - only stretches to those that have been in cont...you know what...forget it,
Ppl have tried and tried and tried to explain why relying on closed cases only, for your insanity calculations is wrong...but, hey - the old adage is right. Don’t argue on the IT....You believe what ever. Everyone else ? clearly idiots and you ? master of the world...lolz.
Ps bro - do you even shoot lol.
Fuggen Quack.

My doctor has been able to do these tests for quite some time, there is a note on the door asking those to call first inform them so they can prepare for their arrival don't just turn up.

If your method was correct for calculating death rate it would match or be very close the observed results from closed cases, it's way off and you can't explain why.

You even suggested a corrective factor to wriggle out of it yet no such factor exists with number of infections vs deaths.

Yes I do shoot.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Tassie, i think baron is not at university.... or if he is.. maybe he is doing gender studies or something like that.

Everyone's logic 1+ 2 = 3
Baron's logic 108 + 55 = 269


I am out of this discussion... my head hurts

[Bill]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lani ... 73-3099(20)30244-9/fulltext

please take the time to read this, 60 seconds to get an understanding of the CFR ie Case Fatality Rate. Its more applicable to Australia than anything from China

[Baronvonrort]

Baron, I've explained to you why the numbers are how they are and even reconciled your figures to the estimated overall rate. I've also explained why this statement...

"Closed cases are the only accurate numbers we have at this time for outcome as those numbers are known"

...is incorrect because it only relates to a subset of cases, and not all cases, because the vast majority are mild and won't have a 'recovery' recorded at this point. See Chinese data - the number 'recovered' there is basically anyone who is not known to be sick or hasn't died after a period of time, and their death rate is ~4.4%. That's the closest we have to a complete data set at the moment, noting my previous caveat about Chinese data (you can't simply throw it out because it disagrees with your thesis, however!).

You'll see the same kind of numbers once it flows through other countries, "recoveries" will increase as people are assumed to have recovered who haven't died and the numbers will move towards the numbers I previously calculated. In the same way that the link you posted says you can't compare deaths to current cases, you can't compare deaths to current recoveries.

FYI I have done this stuff for a living, I was an actuary in the early part of my career and have worked in/around life insurance companies for a long time now.

At least there is enough good info in this thread for people to make up their own minds about calculating the numbers. That can only be a good thing, right?

Closed cases are the correct way to calculate this the observed results match 100% with the maths used unlike the flawed method which is way off not even close with observed results.

When you calculate from number of infections vs deaths that is assuming there will be no more deaths do you see the flaw in that way of thinking when outcomes for open cases are unknown?

How many times do I have to point out I don't believe the Chinese numbers or even their official claim on the origins of this pandemic?

Yes the vast majority of cases are mild we could also say every serious case started out as a mild case. With this Kung Flu every case starts out as mild then people get worse, some recover others deteriorate further get put on Oxygen if that doesn't work they intubate them stick them on a ventilator where they usually stay until they die. This process takes a few weeks.

The numbers I see from other countries like UK, USA, Italy and Spain show an incredible death rate with closed cases

[Ziege]

f*** me, people are more concerned with if they can catch it or not, what % likelihood etc... As for surviving it, the media and government has been more than forward explaining who is at most risk, obviously some fall outside that classification but that can't be helped. Surely that's the end of the vitriolic Carry on?

[Die Judicii]

Yet another question.

Can anyone on here say that they have seen or know of any cases where someone has been tested positive,,,,,,,,,,, and the powers to be
are actually investigating where that person has been,,,, and who has had contact with them ?

[TassieTiger]

Tassie, i think baron is not at university.... or if he is.. maybe he is doing gender studies or something like that.

Everyone's logic 1+ 2 = 3
Baron's logic 108 + 55 = 269


I am out of this discussion... my head hurts

I’m out as well. The same flaws that baron is pointing out, is exactly the same reason why, you cannot solely rely on closed cases. My head was hurting 3 days ago but I thought I’d try - but I’m now passed 10 Panadol a day and can’t keep taken em.

To answer below Re who knows anyone. I know about 9 ppl right now - who have been told to self isolate, due to possible CV but they do not meet current testing criteria. 5 came in from Bali just one day before border closed, when Tas had single figure cases. Other 4 have very bad flu but their paths haven’t apparently crossed with a known infection - what ever that is - so they may / may not have CV.

[Ziege]

Heard some stuff by proxy but that was referring to someone being out in self isolation as a cautionary after returning from asia, no word if they tested positive or not

[trekin]

So unlikely the Kung Flu was there in Nov as claimed.

Be interesting to see where the big clusters are in Qld, if it was there earlier as claimed the numbers near Sarina would be interesting

Who's claiming it was here in Nov, I didn't. And yes, the numbers are interesting, there was in fact a cluster of people with an unknown virus in the Mackay/Sarina area, the Central Highlands, Bundaburg, and huge clutter on the Gold Coast. However, I doubt you are really that interested as this would not fit your narrative that this virus could not have been here before local doctors were warned about what symptoms they should watch out for, and the first test kits were made available.

[poid]

You know Baron you're right, next time I calc some mortality rates I'll use your logic and calculate it as the number of sick people who have died rather than the number in the population who have died. I'll be fired for being useless, but hey it'll scare the s**t out of people.

I'm out, there are other things to do.

[sungazer]

Baron even if we used your logic why not use a country that is very similar to Australia? South Korea is such a country they can be trusted they have a good health care system they do have a higher population density. Anyway with 9661 cases 5228 of them have been closed they have only had 158 people die. How about you run your stats on that. It is a good sample size.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Yet another question.

Can anyone on here say that they have seen or know of any cases where someone has been tested positive,,,,,,,,,,, and the powers to be
are actually investigating where that person has been,,,, and who has had contact with them ?

Hmm i know who is a relative a healthcare worker in US that got it about 2/3 weeks ago, spent the time at home.. was deemed a mild case.... Yes came positive for coronavirus. Not dead...but likely might die due to boredom.

[marksman]

Yet another question.

Can anyone on here say that they have seen or know of any cases where someone has been tested positive,,,,,,,,,,, and the powers to be
are actually investigating where that person has been,,,, and who has had contact with them ?

l know of two young people who came back from china and tested with it 5 weeks ago, the son inlaws brother and wife
one had it mildly, the other thought she was going to die through it, they are lucky and they know it
because of what they saw in china they self isolated without being told they had to until they were tested
she is of chinese descent and they both lived and worked there
they have had a very big effect on how anyone who knows them is treating this virus because of what they are saying is really happening in china

its a pretty hard ask knowing the population number and the so called confirmed cases, we know many people were not tested
there has been so much bullsh1t about it anyone who does not take it seriously is an idiot
and if you think because you are young or healthy you will be ok you are also an idiot

[sungazer]

Looking at the John Hopkins site there are a lot of countries that the daily rise has really leveled off and in quite a few cases it is decreasing. On the other hand countries that you think should be really hard hit with it are not showing very many cases.
This is just a hypothetical but I wonder if the virus has some sort of life time to it. Will it only be around for a limited time or will infections keep rising where they are allowed to. Are there environmental conditions in some countries that have impacted the spread of the virus?

[Baronvonrort]

Baron even if we used your logic why not use a country that is very similar to Australia? South Korea is such a country they can be trusted they have a good health care system they do have a higher population density. Anyway with 9661 cases 5228 of them have been closed they have only had 158 people die. How about you run your stats on that. It is a good sample size.

South Korea isn't very similar to Australia with this they have experience in dealing with SARS and MERS outbreaks in the past they also have an App which alerts you if you have been within 100m of a diagnosed case.

With SARS and MERS experience South Korea and Hong Kong were the first to take this Kung Flu seriously.

If we look at the way of calculating death rate from infections vs deaths it should accurately predict the amount of dead bodies we can expect to count in morgues with observed results.
Those who calculate it this way come up with 0.4 % death rate- https://www.google.com.au/search?ei=T6GCXqiTEcrgz7sP_-iqsAw&q=death+rate+coronavirus+0.4%25&oq=death+rate+coronavirus+0.4%25&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoHCAAQgwEQQzoECAAQQzoCCAA6BggAEAoQQzoFCAAQzQJQxGBYiXdg535oAHAAeACAAd8BiAGBCpIBBTAuNi4xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjo9o-PzMPoAhVK8HMBHX-0CsYQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

The Observed results we see from closed cases in Sth Korea and Hong Kong who are dealing with this better than most have the death rate at 3%.

3% is a lot higher than 0.4% by a huge magnitude it's not even close which shows the formula used to calculate death rate is wrong. If the mathematical prediction doesn't match with observed results the maths used is garbage.

The observed results with closed cases including dodgy numbers from China and Iran have current death rate at 19%

Denmark has 1 recovered with 77 deaths for a 99% death rate.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/denmark/

When this virus becomes extinct with no open cases then you can look at calculating it your way it cannot be done that way with a huge number of open cases where outcome is unknown.

This is the method that should be used-
"During an outbreak of a novel or emerging infectious agent such as SARS, one of the most important epidemiologic quantities to be determined is the case fatality ratio—the proportion of cases who eventually die from the disease. This ratio is often estimated by using aggregate numbers of cases and deaths at a single time point, such as those compiled daily by the World Health Organization during the course of the SARS epidemic (5). However, simple estimates of the case fatality ratio obtained from these reports can be misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a nonnegligible proportion of patients." https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/162/5/479/82647