I've just started reading through it. Again, the odd experience of reading thoughts previously articulated in here at length. As though this Forum really is a remarkable set.
Here's one chart that caught my eye:

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition



ORIGINAL: geofflambert
The NYT said a day ago that the US had tested 25,000 while New South Wales, Australia had tested 33,000. Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere and experiencing Summer, where the virus has gone "poof", not there.
ORIGINAL: Kull
![]()



ORIGINAL: Ian R
Hang on, the 'amount' is a fraction of infections - more deaths does not mean the rate of deaths has increased, if the spread of infection went up more.
Where is the overall calculation that includes both total known infections, and total known deaths?
The WHO site probably has one. We should look at that.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Why self-isolating at home may have a drastically different impact than desired.
Stressing that it cannot be business as usual, task force co-chair Lawrence Wong, the Minister for National Development, said that the aim was to have fewer people out and about, and a reduction in social gatherings and any activity that could be a potential social vector for the virus.
On how the safe distancing measures will be enforced, Mr Wong said this can be done in several ways.
For example, food and beverage outlets that are licensed will have to close some tables.
"So it is not an option, it is not advisory, it is mandatory," he said.
"We will start tomorrow and it will take some time to roll out fully but we will aim to do so as quickly as possible."
He added: "We do not want to see crowded venues, we do not want to see packed event halls. We should see more work from home, more takeaways.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Singers just ramped up its restrictions yesterday (3/20) and they are still much notably less stringent than those in most of the USA now. Allowing gatherings of 250 or less in comparison to here, where a sizeable percentage of the country is limited to small gatherings and/or shelter-in-home requirements. (I'm not commenting on whether any particular restriction is better or worse - just that there are in fact differences - and the possibility that shelter-in-home might have unintended consequences.)



ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
It took me about two hours to get that.
![]()

The medical workforce one is not a one-time test per person. These people are potentially in contact with infected patients and the aim is to prevent the medical staff from transferring the virus to other patients or their families. As I understand it, the tests do not detect the infection for the first week, so each medical worker should be tested once a week - ideally. I don't think we will ever get that many test kits available or get that disciplined in our efforts. Waiting for symptoms seems to be the norm.ORIGINAL: Zerberus_MatrixForum
Cost of testing is not a topic here, the slogan is "whatever it takes".
Nevertheless there is a change in testing strategy, especially in southern Germany (still not yet the whole country).
It's said, that the limited testing ressources are concentrated now on vulnerable groups, that means persons with symptoms and older than 65 or already chronical ill or medical workforce. It becomes harder from day to day to test area-wide. People should stay at home, when they have mild symptoms only.
South Korea seems to be no model anymore, because the situation is not comparable. There you had a managable group of infections caused by this crazy religious group, which you could contain and track down. Here, and of course in other european countries, you have a nationwide impact from travellers all over the country, coming back from winter holidays.
Another point is, that tests of people without any symptoms are not safe enough. The first 2 - 3 days after infection tests are often negative, so you have to test the same people 2 - 3 times.
Source for this information is Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ,that means a reputable nationwide paper (article has to be paid and is in german)
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/coronavirus-krise-wer-darf-sich-noch-testen-lassen-16688735.html?premium
WHO gets its figures from countries, which have differing standards for testing and reporting and might even suppress some data. We need data from a county that is doing a good job of tracking and counting without hiding anything. Italy is at that point now and as Canoerebel has been pointing out their stats are the best indicator of what we might face. The high death rate among Italy's males is a wrinkle that may not apply everywhere. We will have to watch what happens in other countries in their mortality stats.ORIGINAL: Ian R
ORIGINAL: alanschu
ORIGINAL: Ian R
What is your source for saying death rates were lower than they are now?
Referring to the changes in *new* deaths, it was in the link. The amount of new deaths per day continues to accelerate.
Hang on, the 'amount' is a fraction of infections - more deaths does not mean the rate of deaths has increased, if the spread of infection went up more.
Where is the overall calculation that includes both total known infections, and total known deaths?
The WHO site probably has one. We should look at that.