Thailand reports 72 new COVID-19 infections

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, polpott said:

The main vaccines have proved effective against the variants found thus far.

The South African variant, which vaccines have shown they are effective to that?

[polpott]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Actually I do understand what walk ins are, as stated, simply people walking in to hospital to get tested, its impossible to say why this is the case and to speculate that its one or the other is just that, speculation. Its not via track and trace however as that is under the proactive cases counts.

 

It could be any number of reasons why, they may have gone to a high risk area, they may have been advised to by the app, they may have symptoms. 

 

However the bottom line is they are out there, yesterday 43 of them walking around who had caught it from somebody else.

Wrong. proactive cases are found through random testing in hotspots. Walk ins are as I explained.

[polpott]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The South African variant, which vaccines have shown they are effective to that?

Pfizer.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, polpott said:

Pfizer.

You said the main vaccines, thats one? Pfizer is just slightly less effective, how about the others?

[polpott]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

You said the main vaccines, thats one? Pfizer is just slightly less effective, how about the others?

Moderna has yet to do a study. The AZ review was very limited and doesn't stand up to peer review.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, polpott said:

Moderna has yet to do a study. The AZ review was very limited and doesn't stand up to peer review.

I'm aware of that, moderna is also developing a booster tweak for the SA variant and UK variant. So when you said the main vaccines are effective you actually meant the Pfizer one.

[rabas]

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its not via track and trace however as that is under the proactive cases counts.

Tracing is not limited to one group or program. They have been tracing everything from the start.  They traced their first case on January 10, 2020. Its still on their websites. Why would they trace some and not others?

[polpott]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'm aware of that, moderna is also developing a booster tweak for the SA variant and UK variant. So when you said the main vaccines are effective you actually meant the Pfizer one.

The AZ vaccine is equally effective against the british variant.

[rabas]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'm aware of that, moderna is also developing a booster tweak for the SA variant and UK variant. So when you said the main vaccines are effective you actually meant the Pfizer one.

 

Like everything else in immunology, it's not a matter of yes or no, black or white, is a question of how much. How well does the vaccine do? How much was it reduced. How effective at preventing infections, etc.

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by rabas

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

The AZ vaccine is equally effective against the british variant.

I was pointing out the South African variant. Would you like to re read my post or would you like me to copy and paste it again?

[Susco]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

Last one to post, please turn out the lights. 

 

Looks like it's almost over.

 

 

Almost over with what? Testing you mean?

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Like everything else in immunology, it's not a matter of yes or no, black or white, is a question of how much. How well does the vaccine do? How much was it reduced. How effective at preventing infections, etc.

 

I'm blown away by just how complex it all is, I did wonder why those epidemiologists and immunologists spent all their time in University.

 

You should write your post as an introduction to the next scientific paper published on the new variants. 

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, rabas said:

Tracing is not limited to one group or program. They have been tracing everything from the start.  They traced their first case on January 10, 2020. Its still on their websites. Why would they trace some and not others?

I'm not saying they trace one and not others?

[Bkk Brian]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

Last one to post, please turn out the lights. 

 

Looks like it's almost over.

 

Bookmarked  ????

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, polpott said:

if hospital presentations continue cases will not fall to zero therefore testing will continue.

I think that's what I said. Testing will only happen with hospital presentations. Same as the first round. That's why the first round's numbers were nonsense.  

[dinsdale]

49 minutes ago, bolt said:

For me the serious stuff will start next winter,

will the country be open to tourists WITHOUT quarantine?

will it be tourists coming from certain countries that don’t need to quarantine?

Will it be vaccinated tourists

 

And then we could have a 3^rd wave in Europe with new variants putting everyone back to square one.

 

Next winter will be the real true test

We just had winter. Didn't last long.

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Here is the full story, tests, cases, and timeline in one graph.

 

The key to this graph is the sloped, dashed lines labelled 5%, 2%, 1%, etc. These lines are percent tested positive. As the outbreak began rising on Jan 26, percent positive tests rose from 1%, moving right up to 5%.  After the peak, percent positives quickly dropped to 1% before testing dropped. !

 

If the drop in cases was due to less testing then the graph must follow the red 5% line, where 5 in 100 of test population remain positive all the way to the bottom. This is not what happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry I'm not very good with fancy graphs. So is Thailand really good at testing the population or really bad? A fair question asking for a fair answer.

[dinsdale]

52 minutes ago, polpott said:

The main vaccines have proved effective against the variants found thus far.

How do you know? Please give us details. 

[FarFlungFalang]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Here is the full story, tests, cases, and timeline in one graph.

 

The key to this graph is the sloped, dashed lines labelled 5%, 2%, 1%, etc. These lines are percent tested positive. As the outbreak began rising on Jan 26, percent positive tests rose from 1%, moving right up to 5%.  After the peak, percent positives quickly dropped to 1% before testing dropped. !

 

If the drop in cases was due to less testing then the graph must follow the red 5% line, where 5 in 100 of test population remain positive all the way to the bottom. This is not what happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If that's the "full story" then I'm Santa Claus!

[Petey11]

3 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

If you look at the dates of the peaks in each of the graphs there's a 2 week difference.The number of tests peaks on the 12 Jan and the number of reported cases peaks on the 2nd of Feb.On Feb 2nd the number of tests had halved to about 2000 tests per day which would bump the positivity rate up by double.The lag between the two graphs might indicate it took 2 weeks to actually report the number of positive cases, but we wouldn't know because they are not exactly transparent.

I posed the question too before about how long between testing, officially recording and publishing, look at the UK PHE charts and you begin to see how complicated it is to understand, plus add in a possible delay of up to two weeks until an infection shows or is detectable.

[FarFlungFalang]

1 hour ago, polpott said:

I don't think you have any idea what "walk ins" are. Primarily people who have been in contact with someone who is a known positive and found via tracking and tracing which has proved very effective in Thailand. Unlike UK, USA etc. where it has been as much use as a chocolate teapot.

What you're describing is the proactive testing from contact tracing not hospital walk ins.I don't think you have any idea what walk ins are!

[FarFlungFalang]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

As the outbreak began rising on Jan 26, percent positive tests rose from 1%, moving right up to 5%.  After the peak, percent positives quickly dropped to 1% before testing dropped. !

 

If the drop in cases was due to less testing then the graph must follow the red 5% line, where 5 in 100 of test population remain positive all the way to the bottom. This is not what happened.

If you look at the graphs I posted you can clearly see testing peaked and then declined well before the reported cases peaked  so you can clearly see the number of cases started declining well after the decrease in testing without having to guess what happened on the graph you've posted.

Edited February 25, 2021 by FarFlungFalang

[FarFlungFalang]

I was just doing some more numbers and after 12 months without vaccines 94% of the UK didn't get infected with the Sars Cov 2 which is remarkably similar to the vaccine efficacy numbers and 91% didn't get infected in the USA without the vaccine.

[charmonman]

6 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Seems like testing numbers have been falling lately.

 

 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing#how-many-tests-are-performed-each-day

Of course, if they find fewer cases they administer fewer tests. This ain’t rocket science.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, FarFlungFalang said:

If you look at the graphs I posted you can clearly see testing peaked and then declined well before the reported cases peaked  so you can clearly see the number of cases started declining well after the decrease in testing without having to guess what happened on the graph you've posted.

The graph I posted is exactly the same data as the two graphs you posted combined into one. This way, the data is perfectly aligned and related. But note:

 

- The left axis is the number of tests per 1M.

- The right axis is the number of cases per 1M.

 

So each dot in the graph shows the no. of tests and cases on a given day. The dates are marked.  To follow events, start at the blue dot marked January 26 (when spike starts to rise) then follow the blue line. It first runs to the right, then cases peak (right), and then runs back to the left as cases drop.

 

Note as it runs left, cases are falling much faster than testing is falling.

 

If you aren't familiar with this kind of graph, and you drink beer, it becomes clear just before you finish the second beer. That's also the only time I can shoot a pool ball straight.

[Soikhaonoiken]

Why is there no mention of any walk in at hospitals any more, or don't the count in the figures, 

[FarFlungFalang]

7 hours ago, rabas said:

The graph I posted is exactly the same data as the two graphs you posted combined into one. This way, the data is perfectly aligned and related. But note:

 

- The left axis is the number of tests per 1M.

- The right axis is the number of cases per 1M.

 

So each dot in the graph shows the no. of tests and cases on a given day. The dates are marked.  To follow events, start at the blue dot marked January 26 (when spike starts to rise) then follow the blue line. It first runs to the right, then cases peak (right), and then runs back to the left as cases drop.

 

Note as it runs left, cases are falling much faster than testing is falling.

 

If you aren't familiar with this kind of graph, and you drink beer, it becomes clear just before you finish the second beer. That's also the only time I can shoot a pool ball straight.

Your graph has had too much to drink and has laid down and gone to sleep,if you got it to stand up it looks similar to the graphs I posted (sober?) only I think there is something skewed because of the dates of the cases and the tests.I did say there was 2 weeks difference when in fact it's 3 weeks difference.So on the 2nd Feb they had 934 cases and did about 2000 tests giving an infection rate of nearly 50% which would normally give cause for alarm.Even at the peak of testing they had a 7 day rolling average of about 4300 tests not the 10,000 they said they were aiming for so another little discrepancy in the information given.So you must admit that the info hasn't been as clear and transparent as it could have been. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by FarFlungFalang

[FarFlungFalang]

8 hours ago, charmonman said:

Of course, if they find fewer cases they administer fewer tests. This ain’t rocket science.

I agree of course if they do fewer tests they will find fewer cases it's just like rocket surgery.

[rabas]

3 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Your graph has had too much to drink and has laid down and gone to sleep,if you got it to stand up it looks similar to the graphs I posted (sober?) only I think there is something skewed because of the dates of the cases and the tests.I did say there was 2 weeks difference when in fact it's 3 weeks difference.So on the 2nd Feb they had 934 cases and did about 2000 tests giving an infection rate of nearly 50% which would normally give cause for alarm.Even at the peak of testing they had a 7 day rolling average of about 4300 tests not the 10,000 they said they were aiming for so another little discrepancy in the information given.So you must admit that the info hasn't been as clear and transparent as it could have been. 

"2nd Feb they had 934 cases and did about 2000 tests giving an infection rate of nearly 50% which"

 

Your numbers are off by at least a factor of 10. There were about 21000 tests that day.

 

(check your graph)

 

[FarFlungFalang]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

"2nd Feb they had 934 cases and did about 2000 tests giving an infection rate of nearly 50% which"

 

Your numbers are off by at least a factor of 10. There were about 21000 tests that day.

 

(check your graph)

 

Yeah my bad I took it as a weekly number reading the 7day rolling average wrong.I obviously have reached my second schooner so my eyes aren't aligned yet!

Edited February 26, 2021 by FarFlungFalang