The numbers are less frightening than you think.

Over the last 7 days (21 to 28 July) we had 5 days with a double-digit number of daily cases. The first impression is that the numbers look high.

But I want to offer an alternative way of looking at the numbers.

As of 28 Jul, there are 27 active clusters in the country (Source: Malaysiakini) 

• I think MOH classifies a cluster as non-active when there are no more cases linked to the cluster for a continuous period of time. It could be at least 4 weeks

• An active cluster means that we are likely to see more persons in contact with the respective index cases falling sick. 

The 27 clusters can be categories as follows

Clusters during the past 7 days	No of clusters	No of cases during the past 7 days
Already existing	19	42
New clusters	8	35
Total	27	77

When you look at the table, you can see

• 19 clusters at the start of the 7 days period.  

• 8 which were identified during the past 7 days

When you analyze the 27 clusters

• 3 of them (Bukit Jalil detention centre, Sepang detention centre and cleaning company) started in May

• 12 had index cases who came to Malaysia from overseas ie, not local transmission

• The balance started in Jul

So you can conclude that in the month of Jul, there were just 12 index cases that got COVID from some yet to be determined source in the country.  Then those unfortunate to be in contact with these 12 index cases got sick.

I think that 12 new unknown sources of infection over a one month period doesn’t sound so alarming.  

It meant that the asymptomatic cases in the country which infected them looks manageable.

The other issue with the statistics is that the number of cases within each cluster is not the same. 

• The Sentosa cluster (an existing one at the start of the 7days period) had 24 new cases during the past 7 days.  1026 people related to this cluster have been tested and 107 tests are still pending.  So we may still see some cases for this cluster.   The cause of the index infection is still under investigation. 

• The Bukit Tiram cluster (a new cluster during the past 7 days) had 9 new cases.  The index case came to the country from the Philippines. 

So some clusters had more aggressive spreader-index ie the super spreader.

In terms of risk, not only are the number of locally transmitted index cases low, they are concentrated in Sarawak. 

Of the 27 clusters, 8 are in Sarawak.  If you consider that of the 27 clusters, 12 originated from overseas, the 8 in Sarawak becomes more alarming. 

I think this is why the govt is imposing some “mild” lockdown in Kuching starting 1st Aug.  Kuching has been designated a red zone (with > 40 cases) and some of the neighbouring areas are designated as yellow zones (< 40 cases).

What I don’t understand is why delay the start of the “restrictions”.  If the history of the virus has anything to teach us, it is that any delay will lead to more serious consequences.

If the numbers are already alarming to consider more restrictive measures, we should not wait.

We should watch Sarawak as this is the first red zone after the end of the MCO.  

Remember what Dr. Fauci said about face mask and social distancing? That they can control the virus without a shutdown.

I was looking for evidence of this and came across a Lancet article.

The authors investigated the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission.  

Their findings were

• Transmission of viruses was lower with the physical distancing of 1 m or more. Protection was increased as the distance was lengthened 

• Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar

• Eye protection also was associated with less infection

When you look at the study, I think we would be an idiot if we have another shutdown.

• We have low cases ie easier to contact trace and isolate

• There is generally no issue about wearing a face mask

• Maybe our social distancing message can be improved

Let's look at the latest face mask position based on the YouGov survey (around the 3rd week of Jul).  I only picked out the top 5 and the bottom 5 of the countries surveyed

Country	% of people who said that they wear face masks when in public places (YouGov)	No of Covid-19 cases per m population (Worldodometer)
Singapore	92 %	8,803
Thailand	88 %	47
Spain	88 %	7,008
Hong Kong	86 %	400
Malaysia	85 %	276
UK	38 %	4,428
Australia	20 %	610
Finland	7%	1,338
Sweden	6 %	7,868
Denmark	4 %	2,343

You will be surprised by the US at 74 %.  A month ago, it was below 70%.

I was hoping to find that those countries with a high % of people wearing a face mask would have low cases but Singapore and Spain made this difficult.

Of course in Singapore, the majority of the cases were from the migrant workers and I think the face mask would not help as they are being infected in the dorms.  

Anyway, my main points are

• the number of daily cases is not as alarming as my first impression

• there is evidence that wearing a face mask can help control the virus.  I think the US will be the first large scale proof of this

• we will be idiots if we resort to another lockdown. I think Sarawak will be our first test case of regional "restriction" to control the virus without a national lockdown.  I will be disappointed if this does not work. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Be fearless to get more to Stay Safe, Share this Blog

PS: This blog is for me to better understand COVID 19 as this will impact my investments. If you are also into equities, follow me at i4value.asia

Disclaimer:  I am not an epidemiologist, healthcare worker, pharmacist, or staff in the Ministry of Health, but rather is someone with a strong interest in numerical analysis.  The content is an attempt to understand what is happening in the battle against COVID 19 from a data-based perspective. The opinions expressed here are based on information extracted from readily available public sources but I do not warrant its completeness or accuracy and should not be relied on as such.