Following some spectacular question-dodging by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, deputy chief medical officer Paul Kelly announced modelling on Australian coronavirus cases would be “unlocked” later this week.
New Zealand’s modelling has already been released, with one report thanking “our Australian colleagues for their valuable work in providing modelling data on numbers of infected cases for different scenarios”.
But researchers say while estimated case rates match other modelling, New Zealand’s modelling is preliminary at best and excludes a number of necessary variables to be applied to Australia.
In their “plan for” scenario, 65% of New Zealand’s population would be infected, with 34% of the population developing symptoms. Deaths would range from between 12,600 to 33,600 people.
Tom Kompas, a foundation director of the Australian Centre for Biosecurity and Environmental Economics and chief investigator in the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, told Crikey the modelling needed more data and variables.
“It uses a basic supervision risk and intensity model,” he said. “As more data comes in, you can make it more elaborate.”
But where it currently stands, Kompas said, lacks depth.
“The way in which you validate parameters and infectious diseases change results if you don’t have the data,” he said.
Frustrated with the secrecy from the government, Kompas is currently working with a team to develop a model applicable to Australia.
“Ours is a bit more comprehensive,” he said. It uses publicly-available data and is set to be released within the coming days.
Dr Mahmoud Elkhodr, information communication technology lecturer at Central Queensland University has previously used artificial intelliegence (AI) predictive analysis to model coronavirus spread. He told Crikey it was difficult to apply New Zealand’s modelling to Australia.
“Is it applicable? Impossible to tell … there are a lot of variables involved. Some were not even considered in the report.”
Transmission sources, he said, were a key driver in Australian cases, with those arriving from overseas isolated. Border controls are mentioned in one New Zealand model, though it focuses on travel restrictions over quarantine.
Similarly, there’s little modelling on what effect introducing new medicines or vaccines, and when, would have on the ICU rate. Australia’s rate of testing is significantly higher than New Zealand’s too, which would also effect the model, Elkhodr said.
“The next two weeks are very crucial in determining where we are heading. We will either follow the UK curve and US curve — the worst-case scenario, which is very unlikely — or South Korea’s curve — the best-case scenario. The next few days will determine the path we are taking.”
Ben Phillips, associate professor in ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Melbourne, had developed an app to model the spread of coronavirus. He told Crikey forecasting the spread was difficult but important.
“The key question right now is how public health measures affect the rate of the virus … This week will be a massive decider,” he said.
Phillips stressed the importance of the government releasing data and modelling.
“It facilitates researchers being able to help … not releasing it limits the capacity for people to collaborate,” he said.
Kiwi’s leading the way again, they do for Oz what Canada does for the US. Bless them both.
“which would also effect the model, ”
Affect, Amber. Strangely you use it correctly only a few pars later.
But did you see/hear the ABC’s “The Drum” on Thursday?
They had the privilege of having the leader (?) of the team providing the modelling used by the Australian government. He’s a professor of biological mathematics, so probably knows his stuff as well as most here.
He was questioned and did his best to answer using language and concepts to match the audience.
BUT, at the end, he was thrown a question by the show’s anchor that demonstrated the she had learnt absolutely nothing from her questioning. It was embarrassing and demonstrated why it would be wiser for the government to keep its modelling confidential.
If the anchor’s blithe refusal to engage with the issue is representative of the way the media are going to respond to the release of the modelling, then they would be better to focus on the modelling and not public appearances and explanations.
It’s OK to have a pretty, dumb chick to keep the conversation bubbling along. But anchors are not experts and they should be humble enough to acknowledge they are out of their depth. Or perhaps she didn’t even realise it.
This lamentable performance occurred in a week when Crikey was asserting the need for quality journalism.
Possibly a scripted question Keith, or an editorial line that had to be got in irrespective of logic. There is a lot less spontaneity to these shows than they would like the audience to think. If the host is wearing a feed you have no idea as to what instructions come down that either.
The use of the phrase ‘a pretty, dumb chick’ is a give away that categorises the comment quite well. I didn’t watch that show but if you are referring to Julia Baird it would be sensible to consider the use of the word ‘dumb’ because while there are quite a few PhDs around making the grade, and she did, still implies a reasonable degree of intelligence and the ability to do some work something that might have been useful to do before making a comment such as that. If you are referring to another anchor how about being specific, or better yet how about observing the male anchors on some of Rupert’s propaganda streams to assess their intelligence and attractiveness. In the former, you might find ‘dumb’ just a little too positive compared to some other words that spring to mind.
As for keeping the modelling ‘confidential’ the track record of conservatives would seem to indicate that they keep things secret when secrecy means that they can make money (as demonstrated so wonderfully recently in the good ole US of A after the initial briefings on the pandemic) or when keeping shtum hides their screwups, incompetence or corruption from the citizenry who they think they rule.