Coronavirus Information Charts.

[GeoffH]

Some of you will know I'm a fan of Doctor John Campbells Youtube videos about the virus and what's happening around the world.  I think he speaks honestly, clearly and simply and doesn't overcomplicate stuff (which I'm guilty of doing at times without meaning to).  He has used charts at various times from the web site Our World in Data and I thought that I'd post a few here which I believe show examples of what the virus is doing in various countries (including the Philippines, the USA, Great Britain Australia and a few others for comparison).  I'm not going to make comments about specific countries and what they're doing except to say 'look at the graphs'.

Edited May 1, 2020 by GeoffH

[Tommy T.]

7 hours ago, GeoffH said:

I'm not going to make comments about specific countries and what they're doing except to say 'look at the graphs'.

Thanks, Dr. Geoff! Good research. The graphs tell the tale really well. The progress in some countries appears very sharp and clear.

It gives me more hope than I had last week. It will extremely be interesting to look at the same graphs after the easing occurs...

Edited May 1, 2020 by Tommy T.

[Mike J]

I have a question for you Geoff.  In an earlier post I think it was you who said countries needed to get a transmission rate below 1.1.  How do they calculate the transmission rate?

[GeoffH]

1 hour ago, Mike J said:

I have a question for you Geoff.  In an earlier post I think it was you who said countries needed to get a transmission rate below 1.1.  How do they calculate the transmission rate?

 

There are two numbers one is the R number and the other very similar looking one is the R nought or R zero number written as R₀

The number that governments mostly talk about, and which they want to get below 1 is R nought (we don't need to worry about the other one for now).

 

Now... when R₀ > 1 the infection will be able to start spreading in a population, but not if R₀ < 1

 

I'll try to explain why without resorting to maths ok.

 

You can think of the R nought number as the average number of people that a single infected person will spread their infection to.

If the R nought is 1 then on average 1 other person will catch it, if the R nought is 2 then on average 2 other people will catch if, if the R nought is 4 then on average 4 other people will catch it and (and this is the important bit) if the R nought is 0.5 then for every 2 infected people only 1 new person will catch it and if the R nought is 0.1 then for every 10 infected people only 1 new person will catch it.  Most countries with the virus somewhat under control have R nought numbers between 0.7 and 1.  For an R nought number of 0.7 the for every 10 infected people there will only be 7 new cases (on average). 

What matters is if the R nought number is more than 1 then the number of new cases will keep growing but if the R nought number is less than 1 then the number of new cases will shrink (unlike my waistline!).

Governments want less sick people so they want less cases so they want to keep the R nought number less than 1.

 

If I didn't do a good job of explaining that then I apologize, just let me know which bits weren't clear and I'll try again.

[Mike J]

4 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

 

There are two numbers one is the R number and the other very similar looking one is the R nought or R zero number written as R₀

The number that governments mostly talk about, and which they want to get below 1 is R nought (we don't need to worry about the other one for now).

 

Now... when R₀ > 1 the infection will be able to start spreading in a population, but not if R₀ < 1

 

I'll try to explain why without resorting to maths ok.

 

You can think of the R nought number as the average number of people that a single infected person will spread their infection to.

If the R nought is 1 then on average 1 other person will catch it, if the R nought is 2 then on average 2 other people will catch if, if the R nought is 4 then on average 4 other people will catch it and (and this is the important bit) if the R nought is 0.5 then for every 2 infected people only 1 new person will catch it and if the R nought is 0.1 then for every 10 infected people only 1 new person will catch it.  Most countries with the virus somewhat under control have R nought numbers between 0.7 and 1.  For an R nought number of 0.7 the for every 10 infected people there will only be 7 new cases (on average). 

What matters is if the R nought number is more than 1 then the number of new cases will keep growing but if the R nought number is less than 1 then the number of new cases will shrink (unlike my waistline!).

Governments want less sick people so they want less cases so they want to keep the R nought number less than 1.

 

If I didn't do a good job of explaining that then I apologize, just let me know which bits weren't clear and I'll try again.

I had assumed that was what the number meant but what data numbers are used to get the number.  I seems hard to believe they could do accurate tracing of vectors to get the ratio when they are struggling just to do sufficient testing. 

[GeoffH]

1 hour ago, Mike J said:

I had assumed that was what the number meant but what data numbers are used to get the number.  I seems hard to believe they could do accurate tracing of vectors to get the ratio when they are struggling just to do sufficient testing. 

 

Lots of countries are doing randomized sample testing, New York City did it, the UK are doing it, South Korea did it and others.

I think it would depend upon the country, the R nought number in countries with the virus under reasonable control where they are doing large numbers of tests either randomized testing (like South Korea) or testing targeted (like Australia)...  I think those will be fairly accurate.  They're using similar methodology to what is used for polling elections but it's more reliable because the virus doesn't randomly change it's behaviour.

But lots of countries are doing very little testing and those numbers should be treated with more caution however it can also be estimated from confirmed daily case numbers (back calculated if you like).  Most first world countries use both methods.

 

At the end of the day the R nought number doesn't have to be exact, it's more an approximation of which way the infections in a country are heading than an exact indication of how fast and thats how it's generaly used.

Edited May 1, 2020 by GeoffH

[Mike J]

10 hours ago, GeoffH said:

 

Lots of countries are doing randomized sample testing, New York City did it, the UK are doing it, South Korea did it and others.

I think it would depend upon the country, the R nought number in countries with the virus under reasonable control where they are doing large numbers of tests either randomized testing (like South Korea) or testing targeted (like Australia)...  I think those will be fairly accurate.  They're using similar methodology to what is used for polling elections but it's more reliable because the virus doesn't randomly change it's behaviour.

But lots of countries are doing very little testing and those numbers should be treated with more caution however it can also be estimated from confirmed daily case numbers (back calculated if you like).  Most first world countries use both methods.

 

At the end of the day the R nought number doesn't have to be exact, it's more an approximation of which way the infections in a country are heading than an exact indication of how fast and thats how it's generaly used.

As you posted above I was beginning to suspect that the number was estimated rather than actually tracing sickness from person to person.  

Thanks for taking the taking the time and effort. 

 

[jimeve]

15 hours ago, Mike J said:

I have a question for you Geoff.  In an earlier post I think it was you who said countries needed to get a transmission rate below 1.1.  How do they calculate the transmission rate?

Maybe this will explain...... What is the 'R' value and why is it so important for the easing ...

[RBM]

I also find Doctor John Campbells videos very interesting for same reasons as Geoff.

Now for another look and perhaps a tad controversial is this one.  https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rnz.co.nz%2Faudio%2Fplayer%3Faudio_id%3D2018743210%26fbclid%3DIwAR1gw8HAYvC2cnfisNsDUtzzJKDOYPvZ9n17sbLehq00erd9x3_giI8hpzU&h=AT1E73SMdGC1iJpgLRDbS4h6_HNiy-ZFRZbRJZgsgeIU__X2Vq2k_3UbRb3trIu4y_3dTEDxlncxvIqaZqDIyQfFA9CupYC7T6UOrs1XkoLvCxZnXwl0MnPb8E5sPAlbT6XOgw

[Jollygoodfellow]

On 5/1/2020 at 7:11 PM, GeoffH said:

There are two numbers one is the R number and the other very similar looking one is the R nought or R zero number written as R₀

The number that governments mostly talk about, and which they want to get below 1 is R nought (we don't need to worry about the other one for now).

 

Now... when R₀ > 1 the infection will be able to start spreading in a population, but not if R₀ < 1

 

I'll try to explain why without resorting to maths ok.

Well, I know you tried, but I had to get someone else to explain to me more clearer.