Surprised not to see more discussion about Heathrow today.
Personally I think its time to bring back the idea of Boris Island. Doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly in the Thames Estuary, but at this time of infrastructure investments a new purpose built 4-runway airport with good purpose built transport links rather than constantly messing around with an overcrowded airport in an overcrowded residential area could be a good idea now.
It's not a bad idea. You could extend Crossrail a little out past Abbey Wood and build something in the wastes of Erith.
RAF Northolt could be relabelled as Heathrow-ish. Its local MP is Boris Johnson.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Not unusual with viral infections. I think the figures currently suggest around 60% more men than women.
I'm curious. What is the reason for this? Poor hygene (I find that hard to believe makes a 60 percent difference)? Weaker immune system? Hormonal differences? Higher Alcohol/Drug consumption /Stress?
Is the same effect evident with transmissible bacterial infections?
The US seems to be a perfect storm for Coronavirus.
1. Patients have to pay for healthcare -> will lead to sick people avoiding testing and treatment 2. Large percentage of the population over 75, where mortality rises sharply to 10-15% (our 75+ is 9%, vs China 3.3%) 3. Epidemic of low savings - people in the early stages of it may continue working trying to push through. 4. Fractured healthcare system 5. Massive rates of obesity. Obese people are 40% more likely to develop pneumonia, people with a BMI over 35 are more than twice as likely to develop it compared to a healthy person. This will lead to a substantially higher demand on resources. 5. A President very keen on keeping the stock market on a short term high. 6. Gun nuts that won't be keen on quarantine.
The USA has three things working in its favour though:
1: Very low population density (35 per square km in USA vs 117 per square km in EU and 274 per square km in UK) 2: A geographically very spread out nature. The distances between US states and cities is massive compared to here, will make quarantine much easier. 3: Much lower rates of international travel.
If coronavirus does become an epidemic in America its more likely to affect blue states before the red ones.
But on 1, a lot of their population is very concentrated in urban areas, and they travel about a lot. Ditto 2 - the volume of internal flights mean that the distance between cities is in itself immaterial. The virus doesn’t have to walk. On 3. it only needs a little International travel - the whole Italian thing appears to have started from one couple.
Their population density even in urban areas (barring a few coastal cities hence my blue states remark) is lower than in our comparable urban areas. Plus they tend to drive rather than take mass transit.
In general, yes. But there is enough mass transit in the principal cities to get an epidemic going.
Oh thank goodness the beard trend will come to an end then.
Not that I am actually opposed to the resurgence in beards in the last decade, far from it, I'm just unable to grow a convincing one myself so I'm vindictive.
Surprised not to see more discussion about Heathrow today.
Personally I think its time to bring back the idea of Boris Island. Doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly in the Thames Estuary, but at this time of infrastructure investments a new purpose built 4-runway airport with good purpose built transport links rather than constantly messing around with an overcrowded airport in an overcrowded residential area could be a good idea now.
In addition to probably meaning the much needed Heathrow expansion will never go ahead, this ruling sets a really harmful case law situation.
Basically new infrastructure project has to be analysed against ensuring it meets climate change commitments, and I don't see how any major road or airport could pass those (or at least won't be used by people to challenge them so much they get bogged down for years in court meaning they aren't economically viable).
On top of all the reams of barriers that are constantly challenged over the lesser spotted one wing bat nests and alike, this just adds an even big barrier to ever getting shit done, when we already have a system that has gold plated protections.
Is the Today programme a major media outlet? I don't think I know a single person who listens to it. And its approach makes it impossible for interviewees to get their message across.
6 or 7 million audience. Your comment is just silly.
That is the weekly reach - the number who listen for 5 minutes at ANY point in the week.
The programme lasts for 21 hours (?) each week.
So someone listening for 5 minutes out of 21 hours is counted in the weekly reach.
The number listening at any one point in time is a miniscule fraction of that.
There is a reason all radio audiences are published as weekly reach - because if the programme average (on one day) was published (like TV audiences) they would look very small indeed.
No-one listens in five minute chunks. Today is effectively the Radio 4 Breakfast Show so 30 to 60 minutes would seem more plausible.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Not unusual with viral infections. I think the figures currently suggest around 60% more men than women.
I'm curious. What is the reason for this? Poor hygene (I find that hard to believe makes a 60 percent difference)? Weaker immune system? Hormonal differences? Higher Alcohol/Drug consumption /Stress?
Is the same effect evident with transmissible bacterial infections?
Foxy was correct - it was the death rate ratio. My mistake. I think you see something similar with flu.
There are immune system differences between the sexes (see also the rate of autoimmune disease), and of course more men than women smoke in China.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
Is the Today programme a major media outlet? I don't think I know a single person who listens to it. And its approach makes it impossible for interviewees to get their message across.
6 or 7 million audience. Your comment is just silly.
That is the weekly reach - the number who listen for 5 minutes at ANY point in the week.
The programme lasts for 21 hours (?) each week.
So someone listening for 5 minutes out of 21 hours is counted in the weekly reach.
The number listening at any one point in time is a miniscule fraction of that.
There is a reason all radio audiences are published as weekly reach - because if the programme average (on one day) was published (like TV audiences) they would look very small indeed.
I tune to R4 Today by 7.30, once the dog has been out in the garden and my breakfast is on the go. I try and finish breakfast by 7.50 so that the radio is off before Platitude Of The Day comes on. But I am on my PC and back listening by 7.55 for the weather forecast, and stick with Today most days through to 9 am.
I can’t say I am too disappointed at not having to listen to Tory politicians, but agree that it’s a pretty poor show when our government doesn’t feel it necessary to put themselves before the nation’s principal morning current affairs radio show.
Oh thank goodness the beard trend will come to an end then.
Not that I am actually opposed to the resurgence in beards in the last decade, far from it, I'm just unable to grow a convincing one myself so I'm vindictive.
Biden is gaffe prone and a bit doddery at times but regardless he would win all the states you’d expect a Democrat to win .
The issue between Biden and Sanders is who could take on Trump in the swing states and beat him. I’m not a fan of hypothetical polling now , the fundamentals favour Biden as a better bet than Sanders .
The polarization in US politics is far greater than that in the UK even allowing for the toxicity around Brexit.
People in the vast majority of states would vote for the Dem or GOP candidate even if they exposed themselves on stage at a campaign rally !
The only states that matter are the swing states and there Biden is a better bet .
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
He said it was just starting to pick up again after a quiet summer.
Biden is gaffe prone and a bit doddery at times but regardless he would win all the states you’d expect a Democrat to win .
The issue between Biden and Sanders is who could take on Trump in the swing states and beat him. I’m not a fan of hypothetical polling now , the fundamentals favour Biden as a better bet than Sanders .
The polarization in US politics is far greater than that in the UK even allowing for the toxicity around Brexit.
People in the vast majority of states would vote for the Dem or GOP candidate even if they exposed themselves on stage at a campaign rally !
The only states that matter are the swing states and there Biden is a better bet .
Biden has been absolutely terrible, beyond terrible, car crash omni-shambling cluster-fucking disaster.
Surprised not to see more discussion about Heathrow today.
Personally I think its time to bring back the idea of Boris Island. Doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly in the Thames Estuary, but at this time of infrastructure investments a new purpose built 4-runway airport with good purpose built transport links rather than constantly messing around with an overcrowded airport in an overcrowded residential area could be a good idea now.
It's not a bad idea. You could extend Crossrail a little out past Abbey Wood and build something in the wastes of Erith.
Getting car traffic anywhere around Kent or SE London from the rest of the country would be an absolute nightmare.
Fair point, but if you want good road links to the rest of the country that sort of pushes you back towards the Thames valley and Heathrow. You could always demolish a chunk of Slough and put more runways there, I suppose. It would be an improvement on what's there at the moment.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
I don't think that is correct. The male/ female infection rate in China is more or less equal, but the fatality rate in males is nearly twice that of females.
Well he was the lead doctor for the regional primary care network and claimed to have just had the NHS Briefing. But you probably have just as good sources,
In the ski chalet where the twelve of them were in close quarters for their holiday, it seems to be mostly men who came down with it?
But maybe I misunderstood fatality rate for infection rate
In the paper cited, the infection rate was 51% male, while mortality was 2.8% in men, 1.7% in women. The difference seems to be in severity of immune response rather than rate of infection.
Even though short term market trends are essentially random, it is hard not to smile when they do what you expect. I said I was taking most of my profits at 4.30 this afternoon, since when the Dow has been on a rebound. I am starting to think about taking out a down position overnight.
Biden is gaffe prone and a bit doddery at times but regardless he would win all the states you’d expect a Democrat to win .
The issue between Biden and Sanders is who could take on Trump in the swing states and beat him. I’m not a fan of hypothetical polling now , the fundamentals favour Biden as a better bet than Sanders .
The polarization in US politics is far greater than that in the UK even allowing for the toxicity around Brexit.
People in the vast majority of states would vote for the Dem or GOP candidate even if they exposed themselves on stage at a campaign rally !
The only states that matter are the swing states and there Biden is a better bet .
Every Dem primary voter should be forced to read this post!
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
Surprised not to see more discussion about Heathrow today.
Personally I think its time to bring back the idea of Boris Island. Doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly in the Thames Estuary, but at this time of infrastructure investments a new purpose built 4-runway airport with good purpose built transport links rather than constantly messing around with an overcrowded airport in an overcrowded residential area could be a good idea now.
It's not a bad idea. You could extend Crossrail a little out past Abbey Wood and build something in the wastes of Erith.
Getting car traffic anywhere around Kent or SE London from the rest of the country would be an absolute nightmare.
Fair point, but if you want good road links to the rest of the country that sort of pushes you back towards the Thames valley and Heathrow. You could always demolish a chunk of Slough and put more runways there, I suppose. It would be an improvement on what's there at the moment.
Expanding Luton makes more sense. It would need a better name tho'.
Surprised not to see more discussion about Heathrow today.
Personally I think its time to bring back the idea of Boris Island. Doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly in the Thames Estuary, but at this time of infrastructure investments a new purpose built 4-runway airport with good purpose built transport links rather than constantly messing around with an overcrowded airport in an overcrowded residential area could be a good idea now.
It's not a bad idea. You could extend Crossrail a little out past Abbey Wood and build something in the wastes of Erith.
Getting car traffic anywhere around Kent or SE London from the rest of the country would be an absolute nightmare.
Fair point, but if you want good road links to the rest of the country that sort of pushes you back towards the Thames valley and Heathrow. You could always demolish a chunk of Slough and put more runways there, I suppose. It would be an improvement on what's there at the moment.
Expanding Luton makes more sense. It would need a better name tho'.
Flattening Luton and starting again would make great sense....oh you mean the airport.
Is the Today programme a major media outlet? I don't think I know a single person who listens to it. And its approach makes it impossible for interviewees to get their message across.
6 or 7 million audience. Your comment is just silly.
That is the weekly reach - the number who listen for 5 minutes at ANY point in the week.
The programme lasts for 21 hours (?) each week.
So someone listening for 5 minutes out of 21 hours is counted in the weekly reach.
The number listening at any one point in time is a miniscule fraction of that.
There is a reason all radio audiences are published as weekly reach - because if the programme average (on one day) was published (like TV audiences) they would look very small indeed.
I disagree with your use of "miniscule" in that sentence.
But more to the point, Today is specifically designed to cater for listeners who drop in and out at different times. It would be disingenuous to insist that listeners have to listen for all 3 hours to count for the statistics. It might be reasonable for the 30 minute scheduled programmes like "Just a Minute" though.
Biden is gaffe prone and a bit doddery at times but regardless he would win all the states you’d expect a Democrat to win .
The issue between Biden and Sanders is who could take on Trump in the swing states and beat him. I’m not a fan of hypothetical polling now , the fundamentals favour Biden as a better bet than Sanders .
The polarization in US politics is far greater than that in the UK even allowing for the toxicity around Brexit.
People in the vast majority of states would vote for the Dem or GOP candidate even if they exposed themselves on stage at a campaign rally !
The only states that matter are the swing states and there Biden is a better bet .
Biden has been absolutely terrible, beyond terrible, car crash omni-shambling cluster-fucking disaster.
And Trump wasn’t during the 2016 campaign ! The normal rules don’t apply anymore . The vast majority of Dems will do anything to remove Trump and will vote for Biden regardless. Only the swing states matter . The demographics there are better for Biden than Sanders regardless of some dodgy current hypothetical polling .
Even though short term market trends are essentially random, it is hard not to smile when they do what you expect. I said I was taking most of my profits at 4.30 this afternoon, since when the Dow has been on a rebound. I am starting to think about taking out a down position overnight.
I think there is further to drop, when the first significant outbreak happens in the States.
I am just sitting on my cash position for the present, with 10% of my portfolio still invested, in defensive equities. It will be a couple of months at least to the bottom.
Biden is gaffe prone and a bit doddery at times but regardless he would win all the states you’d expect a Democrat to win .
The issue between Biden and Sanders is who could take on Trump in the swing states and beat him. I’m not a fan of hypothetical polling now , the fundamentals favour Biden as a better bet than Sanders .
The polarization in US politics is far greater than that in the UK even allowing for the toxicity around Brexit.
People in the vast majority of states would vote for the Dem or GOP candidate even if they exposed themselves on stage at a campaign rally !
The only states that matter are the swing states and there Biden is a better bet .
Biden has been absolutely terrible, beyond terrible, car crash omni-shambling cluster-fucking disaster.
And Trump wasn’t during the 2016 campaign ! The normal rules don’t apply anymore . The vast majority of Dems will do anything to remove Trump and will vote for Biden regardless. Only the swing states matter . The demographics there are better for Biden than Sanders regardless of some dodgy current hypothetical polling .
Actually Trump had a very clear set of messages, which he was incredibly good at pumping out rally after rally after rally. I am no fan of Trump, but both him and Bernie can really do these rallies, night after night. I said at the time, you can call him out on the bullshit, but his energy was unmatched, many rallies per day, giving all the greatest hits.
In the debates he talked nonsense, but he was aggressive, attacked and ridiculed his opponents and made that stuff stick.
Biden is having an absolute disaster. He is neither showing clear policy idea or managing to hurt his opponents. Most of the time he is just sort of there, like your granddad at a wedding i.e we know he is there, but he isn't going to be ruling the dance floor as his hips have gone, nor will he win the bar as all his medication means he doesn't drink like he used to.
Even the last debate, he tried to throw his weight around with the let me speak, don't cut me off, and then he mumbled China, North Korea, closer, something something, I don't know why I am stopping.
Biden is gaffe prone and a bit doddery at times but regardless he would win all the states you’d expect a Democrat to win .
The issue between Biden and Sanders is who could take on Trump in the swing states and beat him. I’m not a fan of hypothetical polling now , the fundamentals favour Biden as a better bet than Sanders .
The polarization in US politics is far greater than that in the UK even allowing for the toxicity around Brexit.
People in the vast majority of states would vote for the Dem or GOP candidate even if they exposed themselves on stage at a campaign rally !
The only states that matter are the swing states and there Biden is a better bet .
I would say nothing's clear at this point. There's no real polling evidence in the key states so far that Biden would outperform Sanders overall , so I think it has to come down to things :
Is Sanders core vote as durable as Trump's ? If it is, his vote won't be significantly reduced by the deluge of negative campaigning about to come his way, which will be a new development for him. Essentially, is 'socialism' still enough of a dirty word in the US to make his vote softer than Trump's from here on in ?
Can BIden actually inspire enough people to match Trump's heartfelt support ? I've no idea. On the one hand, the idea that enough "never Trumpers" , rather than convinced Clintonites , would turn out to defeat Trump failed completely in 2016 , and could again. On the other hand, Bernie may create as many Never-Sanders as key supporters, and Biden never does that.
The US election aint gonna happen this year is it?
There are of course people working in the UK who don't have sick pay and who literally cannot afford to miss a day's work so that will be how the coronavirus has or will spread here.
People who cannot afford to miss work won't take any notice of calls to self-isolate. They'll keep going to work no matter how sick they are because they have no choice.
If necessary the Government can pass emergency legislation making it illegal to employ staff with potential coronavirus symptoms or require home working, enforceable by whistleblowers and inspectors
Even though short term market trends are essentially random, it is hard not to smile when they do what you expect. I said I was taking most of my profits at 4.30 this afternoon, since when the Dow has been on a rebound. I am starting to think about taking out a down position overnight.
I think there is further to drop, when the first significant outbreak happens in the States.
I am just sitting on my cash position for the present, with 10% of my portfolio still invested, in defensive equities. It will be a couple of months at least to the bottom.
I agree that the medium term outlook is down. I am sure the Dow will reach 24000 and in the longer term a return to 20000 isn’t unlikely. But for spread bettting - given the margin requirements (significantly increased since last year) the question is what will happen in the next few weeks.
For investors, the outlook is to me clear - don’t buy back into the market during 2020.
For speculators, if you had asked me on Monday I would have said hold sell positions for at least the rest of this month.
But I am now wondering whether the gradual warming of the northern hemisphere will turn Carry on Corona into a story that will be continued.....in the autumn.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
He said it was just starting to pick up again after a quiet summer.
... The difference seems to be in severity of immune response rather than rate of infection.
Does that imply that serious cases could be treated with drugs which modulate the severity of the response?
Therapy is mostly supportive, keeping people alive while the virus subsides. There are potential interventions in terms of viral replication and in managing the cytokine inflammatory response, but not much proven yet.
There are theoretical reasons for some common drugs including Statins, ARB blood pressure tablets and metformin (used in type 2 diabetes) to be beneficial, but that doesn't seem to match the significantly higher mortality in patients with diabetes and heart disease. These are cheap generic drugs so I would expect to have been in widespread use in China.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
He said it was just starting to pick up again after a quiet summer.
The US election aint gonna happen this year is it?
There are of course people working in the UK who don't have sick pay and who literally cannot afford to miss a day's work so that will be how the coronavirus has or will spread here.
People who cannot afford to miss work won't take any notice of calls to self-isolate. They'll keep going to work no matter how sick they are because they have no choice.
If necessary the Government can pass emergency legislation making it illegal to employ staff with potential coronavirus symptoms or require home working, enforceable by whistleblowers and inspectors
Surprised not to see more discussion about Heathrow today.
Personally I think its time to bring back the idea of Boris Island. Doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly in the Thames Estuary, but at this time of infrastructure investments a new purpose built 4-runway airport with good purpose built transport links rather than constantly messing around with an overcrowded airport in an overcrowded residential area could be a good idea now.
In addition to probably meaning the much needed Heathrow expansion will never go ahead, this ruling sets a really harmful case law situation.
Basically new infrastructure project has to be analysed against ensuring it meets climate change commitments, and I don't see how any major road or airport could pass those (or at least won't be used by people to challenge them so much they get bogged down for years in court meaning they aren't economically viable).
On top of all the reams of barriers that are constantly challenged over the lesser spotted one wing bat nests and alike, this just adds an even big barrier to ever getting shit done, when we already have a system that has gold plated protections.
To be fair this ruling didn't set that in motion, votes in Parliament did. Parliament voted to require the planning rules the judges based upon. Parliament voted to have the zero carbon policy. The judges are implementing what Parliament voted upon - if Parliament didn't mean that they shouldn't have voted for it - and Parliament has the ability to reverse this precedent through new votes if it wanted to do so.
Future planning applications will know they need to deal with this. The ruling was based upon the Paris agreement being ignored as not relevant despite Parliament voting to make it policy.
There is certainly an argument to be made that an improved airport can lower carbon emissions by stopping planes from circling etc - a smartly designed new airport may be able to lower emissions further.
Is the Today programme a major media outlet? I don't think I know a single person who listens to it. And its approach makes it impossible for interviewees to get their message across.
6 or 7 million audience. Your comment is just silly.
That is the weekly reach - the number who listen for 5 minutes at ANY point in the week.
The programme lasts for 21 hours (?) each week.
So someone listening for 5 minutes out of 21 hours is counted in the weekly reach.
The number listening at any one point in time is a miniscule fraction of that.
There is a reason all radio audiences are published as weekly reach - because if the programme average (on one day) was published (like TV audiences) they would look very small indeed.
No-one listens in five minute chunks. Today is effectively the Radio 4 Breakfast Show so 30 to 60 minutes would seem more plausible.
I occasionally listen in on the way to work. 5 minutes is usually about as much as I can stand before the red mist descends and I turn it off. Seriously - why are so many interviewees so poor, and the interviewers no better? On areas I know a little about, many of their interviewees are so clueless I could wipe the floor with either side, provided I knew which side's case I was meant to be arguing.
The interviewers are no better - they constantly let interviewees get away with assertions which are plain untrue, when they might do better to hold their feet to the fire (I suspect their research generally isn't adequate, they certainly seem to get blinded by science a lot).
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
He said it was just starting to pick up again after a quiet summer.
And to go all materialistic about things this is an absolute bummer as we have share options that are vesting soon which are going to lose a lot of value.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
He said it was just starting to pick up again after a quiet summer.
The US election aint gonna happen this year is it?
There are of course people working in the UK who don't have sick pay and who literally cannot afford to miss a day's work so that will be how the coronavirus has or will spread here.
People who cannot afford to miss work won't take any notice of calls to self-isolate. They'll keep going to work no matter how sick they are because they have no choice.
If necessary the Government can pass emergency legislation making it illegal to employ staff with potential coronavirus symptoms or require home working, enforceable by whistleblowers and inspectors
Nah. How can someone who’s not been tested by the primaries get chosen? Bloomberg is bad enough. Should be a good shout for VP though.
I am shocked how bad Bloomberg is. He has all the resources one could possibly hope for to prep him, he has spent $400m in advertisting and has previously been a long time elected politician, so you would think would be a) able to dunk and dive in a debate and b) able to realize the level of incoming that will be fired and be prepped for it.
Instead all you get is the odd really cringe-worthy attempt at a joke, some mumbling and muttering and then bogged down in NDAs.
He is exactly how I imagine Zuckerberg would have done if he had decided to run, but Bloomberg actually has been a politician.
Surprised not to see more discussion about Heathrow today.
Personally I think its time to bring back the idea of Boris Island. Doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly in the Thames Estuary, but at this time of infrastructure investments a new purpose built 4-runway airport with good purpose built transport links rather than constantly messing around with an overcrowded airport in an overcrowded residential area could be a good idea now.
It's not a bad idea. You could extend Crossrail a little out past Abbey Wood and build something in the wastes of Erith.
Getting car traffic anywhere around Kent or SE London from the rest of the country would be an absolute nightmare.
Fair point, but if you want good road links to the rest of the country that sort of pushes you back towards the Thames valley and Heathrow. You could always demolish a chunk of Slough and put more runways there, I suppose. It would be an improvement on what's there at the moment.
Expanding Luton makes more sense. It would need a better name tho'.
Flattening Luton and starting again would make great sense....oh you mean the airport.
Same of Croydon, which had London's first airport and could have been made jet-ready .... if someone had had the foresight and, er, not built Croydon, or built it around a long enough strip of land for jets
The US election aint gonna happen this year is it?
There are of course people working in the UK who don't have sick pay and who literally cannot afford to miss a day's work so that will be how the coronavirus has or will spread here.
People who cannot afford to miss work won't take any notice of calls to self-isolate. They'll keep going to work no matter how sick they are because they have no choice.
If necessary the Government can pass emergency legislation making it illegal to employ staff with potential coronavirus symptoms or require home working, enforceable by whistleblowers and inspectors
You are all heart !!
Well if it saves lives in the long run
You just do not have any empathy and at times talk nonsense, as in your views on Scotlands indyref 2
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
He said it was just starting to pick up again after a quiet summer.
My dem nomination position has improved dramatically over that blast 48 hours, my cash out value has doubled. Who have been the big movers, My Boy Sherrod Brown excepted?
My dem nomination position has improved dramatically over that blast 48 hours, my cash out value has doubled. Who have been the big movers, My Boy Sherrod Brown excepted?
Biden shortening, Bloomberg lengthening.
Or, to put it another way, some modicum of sense returning to the market. The odds on Bloomberg were nuts.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
He said it was just starting to pick up again after a quiet summer.
Have you guys not clocked that Dr Who is a WOMAN?
You don't know which of the Doctors IanB2 spoke to. It could just as easily be the 2029 incarnation of the Doctor than the 2019/20 incarnation.
The US election aint gonna happen this year is it?
There are of course people working in the UK who don't have sick pay and who literally cannot afford to miss a day's work so that will be how the coronavirus has or will spread here.
People who cannot afford to miss work won't take any notice of calls to self-isolate. They'll keep going to work no matter how sick they are because they have no choice.
If necessary the Government can pass emergency legislation making it illegal to employ staff with potential coronavirus symptoms or require home working, enforceable by whistleblowers and inspectors
You are all heart !!
So will it send most so-called 'self-employed' (ha ha) van drivers home without pay and ban car mechanics, electricians, carpenters, jobbing builders, agricultural contractors, etc from going out to work?
I can't see any way we avoid a serious crash this year now. Coronavirus may or may not be containable and/or a major cause of global mortality* but the economic damage seems unavoidable to me.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
He said it was just starting to pick up again after a quiet summer.
Have you guys not clocked that Dr Who is a WOMAN?
You don't know which of the Doctors IanB2 spoke to. It could just as easily be the 2029 incarnation of the Doctor than the 2019/20 incarnation.
He was a very well spoken early middle aged Asian guy. I will leave it to fans of kiddie television to decide which of them it might be, or might yet be.
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3% 40/49 is 0.40% 20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
To put that in context, from a random google (so I haven't checked authenticity of this site) the all-cause death rate for 80-84 year olds in Us in 2017 was 6.9% male, 5.1% female; for 85 and over 14.7% and 13.0% male/female. Many many illnesses (and life itself) are dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The doctor who spoke to us this morning said that the provisional view is that adult men appear significantly more susceptible to catch the virus than women or children. The history of some of the well publicised early cases suggests this also.
Dr Who spoke to you this morning? You could have asked him to travel to September to see how the pandemic pans out!
He said it was just starting to pick up again after a quiet summer.
Have you guys not clocked that Dr Who is a WOMAN?
You don't know which of the Doctors IanB2 spoke to. It could just as easily be the 2029 incarnation of the Doctor than the 2019/20 incarnation.
He was a very well spoken early middle aged Asian guy. I will leave it to fans of kiddie television to decide which of them it might be, or might yet be.
Ok you've convinced me...
But never mind who's Who, or the extent of corona - when did the stock market bottom out?
Time to start thinking who BENEFITS from a wide pandemic requiring mass quarantine..
My initial list
Netflix (their shares are UP) Publishers and writers (lots more time to read) Journalists and journalism (same reason, plus desire for news) Food delivery companies Drone manufacturers Dettol Staycation companies in remoter parts of the uk: holiday cottages in the Grampians are a BUY Remote work companies Crossword puzzle makers
Who else?
Anything pregnancy related....to boom in about 9 months.
Time to start thinking who BENEFITS from a wide pandemic requiring mass quarantine..
My initial list
Netflix (their shares are UP) Publishers and writers (lots more time to read) Journalists and journalism (same reason, plus desire for news) Food delivery companies Drone manufacturers Dettol Staycation companies in remoter parts of the uk: holiday cottages in the Grampians are a BUY Remote work companies Crossword puzzle makers
Who else?
Big Pharma? Governments likely to splash the cash for treatments/cures.
Time to start thinking who BENEFITS from a wide pandemic requiring mass quarantine..
My initial list
Netflix (their shares are UP) Publishers and writers (lots more time to read) Journalists and journalism (same reason, plus desire for news) Food delivery companies Drone manufacturers Dettol Staycation companies in remoter parts of the uk: holiday cottages in the Grampians are a BUY Remote work companies Crossword puzzle makers
Who else?
Anything pregnancy related....to boom in about 9 months.
Time to start thinking who BENEFITS from a wide pandemic requiring mass quarantine..
My initial list
Netflix (their shares are UP) Publishers and writers (lots more time to read) Journalists and journalism (same reason, plus desire for news) Food delivery companies Drone manufacturers Dettol Staycation companies in remoter parts of the uk: holiday cottages in the Grampians are a BUY Remote work companies Crossword puzzle makers
Who else?
Anything pregnancy related....to boom in about 9 months.
Can't see the government coming out of this smelling of roses if it gets bad.
I am sure that Dr Foxy said that that treatment cost £50k per patient per treatment and can only be used on somebody for about a week. That is why there are hardly any of them. And it didn't help the whistle-blower doctor in China when they used it on him.
Time to start thinking who BENEFITS from a wide pandemic requiring mass quarantine..
My initial list
Netflix (their shares are UP) Publishers and writers (lots more time to read) Journalists and journalism (same reason, plus desire for news) Food delivery companies Drone manufacturers Dettol Staycation companies in remoter parts of the uk: holiday cottages in the Grampians are a BUY Remote work companies Crossword puzzle makers
Who else?
Anything pregnancy related....to boom in about 9 months.
90% of businesses are gonna suffer from this virus. But not all. It’s time to start thinking who BENEFITS from a wide pandemic requiring mass quarantine..
My initial list
Netflix (their shares are UP) Publishers and writers (lots more time to read) Journalists and journalism (same reason, plus desire for news) Food delivery companies Drone manufacturers Dettol Staycation companies in remoter parts of the uk: holiday cottages in the Grampians are a BUY Remote work companies Crossword puzzle makers
Who else?
If the Black Death is anything to go by, healthy working age survivors will see the price of their labour go up.
I was thinking about the potential shortage of general hospital beds and the Chinese response of building a potakabin hospital in 6 days.
We clearly couldn't do that here (it would take 6 years of planning to decide where to site it) but...
... There are potentially going to be a lot of empty cruise ships in dock if panic sets in. Could some of these be repurposed into makeshift hospitals?
(No idea where the staff would come from but then the Chinese must have faced the same issue.)
Not sure about that. Downgrading of maternity services a big issue across the north of Scotland - constantly in the local press. Scotland is more than the Central Belt.
(No idea where the staff would come from but then the Chinese must have faced the same issue.)
iirc the Chinese used their military medical people to staff the new hospital. Obviously there's a limit to how many times they can do that, but a definite advantage to having a military of 2 million+
90% of businesses are gonna suffer from this virus. But not all. It’s time to start thinking who BENEFITS from a wide pandemic requiring mass quarantine..
My initial list
Netflix (their shares are UP) Publishers and writers (lots more time to read) Journalists and journalism (same reason, plus desire for news) Food delivery companies Drone manufacturers Dettol Staycation companies in remoter parts of the uk: holiday cottages in the Grampians are a BUY Remote work companies Crossword puzzle makers
Comments
Poor hygene (I find that hard to believe makes a 60 percent difference)?
Weaker immune system?
Hormonal differences?
Higher Alcohol/Drug consumption /Stress?
Is the same effect evident with transmissible bacterial infections?
Basically new infrastructure project has to be analysed against ensuring it meets climate change commitments, and I don't see how any major road or airport could pass those (or at least won't be used by people to challenge them so much they get bogged down for years in court meaning they aren't economically viable).
On top of all the reams of barriers that are constantly challenged over the lesser spotted one wing bat nests and alike, this just adds an even big barrier to ever getting shit done, when we already have a system that has gold plated protections.
I think you see something similar with flu.
There are immune system differences between the sexes (see also the rate of autoimmune disease), and of course more men than women smoke in China.
I can’t say I am too disappointed at not having to listen to Tory politicians, but agree that it’s a pretty poor show when our government doesn’t feel it necessary to put themselves before the nation’s principal morning current affairs radio show.
#MeMeMe
The issue between Biden and Sanders is who could take on Trump in the swing states and beat him. I’m not a fan of hypothetical polling now , the fundamentals favour Biden as a better bet than Sanders .
The polarization in US politics is far greater than that in the UK even allowing for the toxicity around Brexit.
People in the vast majority of states would vote for the Dem or GOP candidate even if they exposed themselves on stage at a campaign rally !
The only states that matter are the swing states and there Biden is a better bet .
Government document reveals plans to ditch tool that allows for fast extradition of criminals‘
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/27/uk-to-withdraw-from-european-arrest-warrant?CMP=share_btn_tw
But more to the point, Today is specifically designed to cater for listeners who drop in and out at different times. It would be disingenuous to insist that listeners have to listen for all 3 hours to count for the statistics. It might be reasonable for the 30 minute scheduled programmes like "Just a Minute" though.
I am just sitting on my cash position for the present, with 10% of my portfolio still invested, in defensive equities. It will be a couple of months at least to the bottom.
In the debates he talked nonsense, but he was aggressive, attacked and ridiculed his opponents and made that stuff stick.
Biden is having an absolute disaster. He is neither showing clear policy idea or managing to hurt his opponents. Most of the time he is just sort of there, like your granddad at a wedding i.e we know he is there, but he isn't going to be ruling the dance floor as his hips have gone, nor will he win the bar as all his medication means he doesn't drink like he used to.
Even the last debate, he tried to throw his weight around with the let me speak, don't cut me off, and then he mumbled China, North Korea, closer, something something, I don't know why I am stopping.
It would be nice for me in betting terms if he were to get it, but it seems a remote chance to me.
Is Sanders core vote as durable as Trump's ? If it is, his vote won't be significantly reduced by the deluge of negative campaigning about to come his way, which will be a new development for him. Essentially, is 'socialism' still enough of a dirty word in the US to make his vote softer than Trump's from here on in ?
Can BIden actually inspire enough people to match Trump's heartfelt support ? I've no idea. On the one hand, the idea that enough "never Trumpers" , rather than convinced Clintonites , would turn out to defeat Trump failed completely in 2016 , and could again. On the other hand, Bernie may create as many Never-Sanders as key supporters, and Biden never does that.
Everything is still up in the air.
For investors, the outlook is to me clear - don’t buy back into the market during 2020.
For speculators, if you had asked me on Monday I would have said hold sell positions for at least the rest of this month.
But I am now wondering whether the gradual warming of the northern hemisphere will turn Carry on Corona into a story that will be continued.....in the autumn.
There are theoretical reasons for some common drugs including Statins, ARB blood pressure tablets and metformin (used in type 2 diabetes) to be beneficial, but that doesn't seem to match the significantly higher mortality in patients with diabetes and heart disease. These are cheap generic drugs so I would expect to have been in widespread use in China.
Future planning applications will know they need to deal with this. The ruling was based upon the Paris agreement being ignored as not relevant despite Parliament voting to make it policy.
There is certainly an argument to be made that an improved airport can lower carbon emissions by stopping planes from circling etc - a smartly designed new airport may be able to lower emissions further.
If Coronavirus strikes bigtime in the US and Trump's ratings plummet, what are the chances he'll try to push for a postponement?
Does the constitution even allow for a postponement?
The interviewers are no better - they constantly let interviewees get away with assertions which are plain untrue, when they might do better to hold their feet to the fire (I suspect their research generally isn't adequate, they certainly seem to get blinded by science a lot).
Instead all you get is the odd really cringe-worthy attempt at a joke, some mumbling and muttering and then bogged down in NDAs.
He is exactly how I imagine Zuckerberg would have done if he had decided to run, but Bloomberg actually has been a politician.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croydon_Airport
After all, Washington DC has a National Airport which is only about 4 miles/6 km from the White House.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1232978314559729665?s=20
https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/o9UgkX
Sent via @updayUK
Tomorrow's shocking news is that a footballer kicked a ball.
Or, to put it another way, some modicum of sense returning to the market. The odds on Bloomberg were nuts.
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1233087384910254081?s=19
Worse than 2008/9 I suspect.
But never mind who's Who, or the extent of corona - when did the stock market bottom out?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/27/coronavirus-england-only-has-15-beds-for-worst-respiratory-cases
Can't see the government coming out of this smelling of roses if it gets bad.
Food processing companies - ready meals, canners?
Funeral directors
Scrap metal merchants
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2019/12/02/revealed-shocking-timeline-of-violence-on-spains-costa-del-sol-sees-up-to-four-brits-killed-as-emboldened-drug-mafias-use-bombs-and-assassinate-enemies-in-broad-daylight/
For example, I believe Wales has 0 of them.
I would imagine any NHS trust would struggle to determine ordering many of these over all the other potential upgrades they could do to a hospital.
https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1233075874393731074
We clearly couldn't do that here (it would take 6 years of planning to decide where to site it) but...
... There are potentially going to be a lot of empty cruise ships in dock if panic sets in. Could some of these be repurposed into makeshift hospitals?
(No idea where the staff would come from but then the Chinese must have faced the same issue.)