Ziege wrote:
Earliest cases were not in December... Whoever gave you that information must be a CCP loyal
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#
trekin wrote: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.
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
“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?
TassieTiger wrote:
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...
Bill wrote:Here is the complete timeline of infections for QLD,
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-28/ ... d/12077602
TassieTiger wrote: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.
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
TassieTiger wrote: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.
TassieTiger wrote: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 wrote: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?
Ziad wrote: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
Baronvonrort wrote: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
Die Judicii wrote: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 ?
Die Judicii wrote: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 ?
sungazer wrote: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.