Analysis of “Active Cases” and How Infection Occurs

On 6 June 2020, there were 460 recorded “Active” COVID cases in Australia, including 60 new cases recorded in the first six days of June. Note: the alternative reference source shows 450 active cases, split into states and territories, but I shall run with 460.

Australia has not yet conducted any general populace antibody testing which would give us some idea of the number of people who have contracted the virus but show no symptoms (Asymptomatic people). We have only tested people who are medically referred or who have presented themselves for testing because they are displaying symptoms. From 20th June, some "hot spot" suburbs in Melbourne have been targeted for testing, but this is not "general populace" testing.

Overseas studies have shown that the number of people who have or had the virus could be significantly more than the “official” count. The multiplier for these cases has varied greatly between test locations or regions, but there seems consensus around a factor of 10 times.

That means instead of 460 “active cases”, we could perhaps have another 4,600, equivalent to one person in every 5,000 of our population.

On 11^th June, NSW shifted 104 cases out of “Active” on the basis that they were more than six weeks old and had not been reflected in either “Recoveries” or “Deaths”. Another 149 cases in the same category were taken out of "active", the next day - no information is able to explain why it was not all done at the same time. On 25th June, the made a further dramatic cut to to eliminate all "unknown outcome" cases which are more than four weeks old, taking their tally of open cases down from 98 to just 5. On the surface the adjustments make sense, but they have not added them to “Recoveries”, they just made the whole 340+ cases disappear. We don’t know why they wouldn’t check them out to a final conclusion, and we don’t know what other jurisdictions have done about the issue of unknown conclusion of cases.

In terms of community infection, I think that the known cases should not be a serious community risk because they should, of course, already be isolated and under supervision.Sadly, we are learning every day that such is not the case.

How are new cases transmitted? One of the additional 4,600 contagious people must break Social Distancing rules. But, in the manner of “it takes two to tango”, there must, at the same time, also be a breach by an uninfected person within close proximity to the infected person.

Additionally, the contagious person must either cough, sneeze, spit, or breathe heavily in a manner where the expunged virus impregnated droplets are able to enter the uninfected person’s body through their eyes, ears, nose, or mouth, or open wound or sore.

Virus impregnated droplets lying on a surface must also be transmitted into the eyes, ears, nose, mouth danger areas within the survival period of the virus pathogens, which varies between surfaces, but is shorter lived in an outdoor environment than indoors.

If none of this happens, there cannot be any transmission of the virus.

So, how did we get our 60 new cases between 1st and 6th June?

The national statistics show the new cases sorted by cause of contamination. The previously mentioned 60 cases between 1^st and 6^th of June are classified as follows:

This break-up by source of contamination is not shown in the headline daily infographic, and its absence masks the fact that community infection was, in early June, almost non-existent with a net 12 cases across the country over a 6-day period.  

Publication of new cases without source of contamination also masks the truly alarming status of 80.0% of the new (1^st to 6^th June) cases were contracted overseas. Considering the known gestation periods, the infection of these people must have been between 24^th May and 30th May!

I recently heard a television commentator say that the major reason for Australia’s excellent record in controlling the spread of the virus, was not the banning of beach and park going, not the closure of restaurants and pubs, not banning golf or fishing, but rather it was that by banning international flights, we stopped importing the virus.

Maybe someone should tell our health authorities that we banned the virus from entering the country, back in the middle of March.

There is an assumption by the government and their army of advisors that “self-isolation” equates with quarantine. They are entirely different concepts.

In the 14th Century, Venice showed the world how to minimise the risk of infection from contageous diseases - isolation became "quarantine", being enforced and supervised isolation. Any medically trained person must be well aware of the difference between self-isolation and quarantine.

Indeed anyone with any knowledge of Australian history (and surely that should be all of us) would know how seriously we have taken quarantine ever since the vagaries of the rest of the world could be visited upon us. Until 1984, we had a quarantine station right at the country's front door in Manly Cove, just inside the Sydney Harbour's North Head. The equestrian events for the Melbourne 1956 Olympic Games were held in Belgium because of our strict quarantine rules. 

With Chief Medical Officers averaging more than $350,000 p.a. and government ministers in the same bracket, one would reasonably expect that someone in the group that is currently controlling our behaviour and our livelihoods would have tweaked to the idea that there is a better management plan.

The previous process of interviewing arriving passengers and asking them if they have any flu-like symptoms and advising them to stay home, clearly didn’t work.

So, we created the current system where us taxpayers pay for overseas arrivals to be quarantined in luxury hotels with meals and cleaning services provided at our cost plus, we also pay for security personnel to ensure that they don’t wander around the streets.

Surely, a better system is that a person wishing to come to Australia must get a negative COVID test before they get on the plane to come here. They must have pre-verified isolation accommodation at their own expense and must be tested in Australia within four days of arrival.

Perhaps the Premiers, Chief Ministers, Chief Health Officers, and the rest of the people who currently control our destinies could think “that’s not a bad idea” and apply the negative COVID-19 test to allow early opening of state or territory borders.

If they decided that they would open their borders to anyone coming interstate who produces a negative COVID-19 test which is dated (say) between 10 and 5 days prior to their entry, they would free up the national economy and not appear to have been “bullied” into the decision. “We won’t be bullied” is currently the most damaging phrase in the entire country and we must immediately take it out of the national narrative.

Let the people who carry no infection move freely around Australia, subject to continuing observance of appropriate Social Distancing rules and personal hygiene protocols.

It’s very simple, uninfected people can’t transmit the virus!

We hear a lot about Social Distancing rules, but like almost every other aspect of the management of this pandemic, confusion reigns supreme.

We are told that the viurus impregnated spittle droplets from an infected person will, under normal circumstances, fall to the ground within a metre to 1.5metres, so we have adopted 1.5m as the definitive separation measurement. We backed this up with a 4sqm "personal space" standard, mostly used in respect of cafes, hotels, offices etc. but no-one seemed to query the built-in contradiction between the two mandated standards.

But again, individual state and territory governments decided to set their own rules, in some instances 4sqm became 7sqm and in others it became 2sqm. At 2sqm it requires 20sqm to house 12 people, at 4sqm, the space needed expands to 80sqm, and at 7sqm, the required space is 245sqm.  

If 1.5 metres is the correct minimum safe distance, then people within the central part of any area require a circle of free space with a radius of 1.5 metres, a total of 7.07sqm, whereas if they are on the edge (say along a wall), they only require 3.5sqm of free space. From what I read, it seems that whatever the mandated space is, it applies throughout the relevant space (i.e. one size fits all), irrespective of their location within the premises.

Then we have the sheer lunacy of throwing in absolute numerical limits for venues, wherein a church with a "normal" capacity of perhaps 600 people, can only have 50, irrespective of how many more that they could have under properly measured personal space rules. 

In melbourne, if a restaraunt had half of its customers requiring 3.5sqm and half needing 7.07sqm, they might be able to have 100 people under social distancing requirements, but are prosecuted if they have any more than 20 people.

Here is the Timeline of 'open' confirmed cases, recoveries, and deaths that I want you to see.

The opinions expressed in this article are my personal opinions and the information that I have provided within the article is, to the best of my understanding, factual. I respect the right of others to have differing opinions. Any errors or inconsistencies are entirely my fault.

Posted By darryl

Updated : 22nd June 2020 | Words : 1573 | Views : 729

Comments