10 minutes and the FTSE100 will be negative. Why do we seem to think that you can out stimulate a problem based on facts rather than sentiment?
It`s all about sentiment, and it`s all about supply and demand. Generally speaking, people are not dumping their shares. The problem is on the buy side. No-one is buying. From an investing perspective my belief is that the virus itself is less of a worry than the self-generated panic. Under these conditions the markets will bounce back strongly. However, fear rules at the moment so maybe not yet.
I partially agree but... don't forget that the self-generated panic seems likely to have a real and severe effect on the global economy. That for me is why equties should be a sell right now.
I agree with you in respect of some sectors - travel comes to mind - but I`m talking generally and am an advocate of buying ETFs which track the market as a whole. E.g. VUKE - which tracks the FTSE 100, or VEUR which tracks European index - both down 11- 12%.
Even if you look at travel - Ryanair shares are down 24%. Is this really justified? It may be, but I stick (at the moment) to the hunch that the fall has been overdone, even in this sector.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Now that 2.9 on a US recession is gone (I wish I'd had more), it looks like the value US bet for now.
That was a good bet. I didn't do it because I'm very short Trump and I see it as (indirectly) adding to that exposure, which right now I do not wish to do. In fact, following that thought train, I might lay it if it goes (say) 1.5.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
That death rate is for the population, not the infected? It's 4.3% among the infected on those figures (for a crude deaths/known cases).
Or are you just highlighting low infection rates? It seems (CDC information) that transmission requires fairly close contact with people who are symptomatic (if main vector coughs/sneezes). A big lockdown is quite effective at containing that.
Transmission via contaminated surfaces or before symptoms are apparent is harder to contain.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Indeed. The WHO stats have a 4.13% death rate in Hubei of confirmed cases. The key stat for me is the very low confirmed case rate (67k in a population of 59m).
Now, it's very likely that the confirmed case rate is significantly under reported but in that case the death rate* is proportionally lower than 4%.
(*I'm assuming the Hubei corvid-19 deaths are nearly all being reported - harder to hide dead bodies. If we get evidence that that's not the case, I'll start to worry.)
I'm quite tempted to throw a tenner away on a 2021 General Election.
But why?
For reasons that are really too distasteful, and hopefully too ridiculous, to post on here.
Boris's fidelity???
There was that Pádraig Belton tweet that no one believed because C. Symonds wasn't thought to be pregnant but now.....
If there is anything that is a racing certainty it's that Johnson is going to fuck around on FLOTUK. The only question is whether she is so besmitten with the trappings of office that she'll cave it all in or put up with it.
She knows what his track record is. She had no scruples about having an affair with a married man. So she is hardly in a position to complain if he does to her what he has done to his other lovers.
Who was it who said, that the man who marries his mistress simply creates a vacancy?
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Why do you think the UK and the EU are not cooperating?
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
It's 0.0047 PERCENT. So 0.0047 in a 100. Multiply both by 10,000 and you get 47 in a million.
There will be a combination of factors behind the apparent low numbers. The containment was very good (the Chinese uniquely can do that), there wasn't widespread testing of anyone who wasn't seriously ill, the virus was probably much more localised than media reports might have suggested, it was tens of thousandssick in a Hubai population the size of the UK. There were also early reports of things like hospital incinerators being used as makeshift crematoria, which could mean there were a lot of deaths unrecorded. There might also be a number of dead or seriously ill who are still locked in their buildings, and haven't been found yet.
More reliable numbers are going to be from these countries with good healthcare systems, primarily Japan, Korea and Italy at the moment.
Iran is a total sh1t-show, we are a few days away from total breakdown of law and order there, there's apparently large infection rates among medical workers and government ministers. People are either going to run to the mountains with supplies and tents, or they're going to stay in the cities and riot.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
That death rate is for the population, not the infected? It's 4.3% among the infected on those figures (for a crude deaths/known cases).
Or are you just highlighting low infection rates? It seems (CDC information) that transmission requires fairly close contact with people who are symptomatic (if main vector coughs/sneezes). A big lockdown is quite effective at containing that.
Transmission via contaminated surfaces or before symptoms are apparent is harder to contain.
Yes, that's my point. Low infection rates.
Quite remarkable really. I apperciate Wuhan is in lockdown but locking down 59m across the whole of Hubei? I am struggling to think it's that alone that is keeping the reported figures so (relatively) low.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Jesus
Was he there in spirit?
No. Their new Jesus is in the middle of the piccie...
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
It's 0.0047 PERCENT. So 0.0047 in a 100. Multiply both by 10,000 and you get 47 in a million.
There will be a combination of factors behind the apparent low numbers. The containment was very good (the Chinese uniquely can do that), there wasn't widespread testing of anyone who wasn't seriously ill, the virus was probably much more localised than media reports might have suggested, it was tens of thousandssick in a Hubai population the size of the UK. There were also early reports of things like hospital incinerators being used as makeshift crematoria, which could mean there were a lot of deaths unrecorded. There might also be a number of dead or seriously ill who are still locked in their buildings, and haven't been found yet.
More reliable numbers are going to be from these countries with good healthcare systems, primarily Japan, Korea and Italy at the moment. Iran is a total sh1t-show.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Jesus
Was he there in spirit?
Given Trump's in the room, you would expect the father of all lies to be in attendance...
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Indeed. The WHO stats have a 4.13% death rate in Hubei of confirmed cases. The key stat for me is the very low confirmed case rate (67k in a population of 59m).
Now, it's very likely that the confirmed case rate is significantly under reported but in that case the death rate* is proportionally lower than 4%.
(*I'm assuming the Hubei corvid-19 deaths are nearly all being reported - harder to hide dead bodies. If we get evidence that that's not the case, I'll start to worry.)
Yes, it is a bit puzzling that some epidemiologists are saying that as many as 80% of people world-wide could get infected (worst case) when in Hubei it is only 67,000 out of 59m so far.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Jesus
Was he there in spirit?
No. Their new Jesus is in the middle of the piccie...
Did you see the French fisherman are threatening a blockade of the channel ports if no deal is done on access to UK waters ?
A significant and credible (and disgraceful) threat.
Well given they would be in breach of international maritime law I guess we'd just treat them as pirates
Not much help if it's the ports on the other side of the Channel...
We'd probably have to get Serco to do the enforcement. The RN currently has FOUR operational escorts at sea with Defender and Montrose in the gulf (for some reason).
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Jesus
Was he there in spirit?
Given Trump's in the room, you would expect the father of all lies to be in attendance...
Interesting the differences in results. While STV is the theoretically best system, Ams is the most likely one to be adopted if the UK ever does switch to PR. It could potentially happen if 2024 results in a hung parliament. Unlike in 2010 when Labour were basically done with government, a Labour Party in 2024 would be much more willing to implement PR with Lib Dems to get into government.
If the Tories win 2024, its more likely that Labour would win in 2029 with a majority and so PR once again off the table.
Would the SNP be in favour of PR though? I’d say not, on the numbers.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Yes, this also puzzles me. We have top epidemiologists in the UK and here in Germany predicting maybe 70% infected within a year or two, but the infection rate in China (even in Hubei) seems to be nowhere near that and is slowing down.
So are those predictions based on Europe being unwilling or unable to take the kinds of measures that China has taken? Or the actual numbers being infected in China being much higher (and presumably a much smaller percentage of those actually getting sick)? Or something else?
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
It's a bit late in the day (as this is Saturday's story) but Peston has an interesting viewpoint. Cummings and the Government have an overambitious set of deadlines as they have never actually delivered anything.
The experience of Cummings's time at education bears this out. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the new-style GCSEs (on balance, something like the changes that happened were needed), the implementation was a rushed mess. To the extent that science teachers were having to teach the new syllabus before it had been approved by the DofE. No syllabus meant no long-term planning and no published resources. It was a mess because someone somewhere was impatient.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
Because there will be lots of people attending and providing information
If London why not Manchester? And Liverpool? And Newcastle? And Scotland?
There should be a national strategy that is then fed into the regional strategies
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Why do you think the UK and the EU are not cooperating?
I hope they are.
But there have been two reports that (1) Mike Hancock, the Health Secretary, was ordered not to attend an EU meeting in relation to coronavirus; and (2) the Health Department wants to stay in the EU wide pandemic notification system but has been overruled by No 10 because this would breach negotiating “red lines”.
That does not suggest a government which is co-operating as much as it ought to be not one which is prepared to do whatever it takes. In a health emergency, whatever is necessary to protect our health should, IMO, take priority over “red lines”.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
Why do you think the UK and the EU are not cooperating?
I hope they are.
But there have been two reports that (1) Mike Hancock, the Health Secretary, was ordered not to attend an EU meeting in relation to coronavirus; and (2) the Health Department wants to stay in the EU wide pandemic notification system but has been overruled by No 10 because this would breach negotiating “red lines”.
That does not suggest a government which is co-operating as much as it ought to be not one which is prepared to do whatever it takes. In a health emergency, whatever is necessary to protect our health should, IMO, take priority over “red lines”.
Surely given this is a virus that could be spread round by travelling - joining a conference call would be better all round.
Interesting the differences in results. While STV is the theoretically best system, Ams is the most likely one to be adopted if the UK ever does switch to PR. It could potentially happen if 2024 results in a hung parliament. Unlike in 2010 when Labour were basically done with government, a Labour Party in 2024 would be much more willing to implement PR with Lib Dems to get into government.
If the Tories win 2024, its more likely that Labour would win in 2029 with a majority and so PR once again off the table.
Would the SNP be in favour of PR though? I’d say not, on the numbers.
We will be independent so will not matter
Good luck with that Malcolm....
Surely one of the lessons of Brexit is that going independent is anything but a clean process?
Raoul Ruparel, who advised May on Brexit, said the logic worked both ways. "There are elements of denial in the opening positions of both sides,” he told me. “The EU seems unable to accept that the U.K. will no longer be part of its legal and regulatory order [but] the U.K. doesn't yet seem to have fully accepted the trade-offs that will need to be made to secure a deal in such short order."
The truth that dare not speak its name is that while Brexit was—and is—about taking back control, Britain ceded total control of Northern Ireland to do so, and the EU lost control of Britain in the process.
The markets are now tanking. I'm afraid this is inevitable and may continue for some months. There's really nothing left to shore them up. We will go into global recession with a number of companies folding and some industries taking a hit from which they may never recover.
By the way, I trust China less now than at any point. They are positioning themselves to be the Doyen of coronavirus and may well exploit that to maximum economic and political advantage.
Definitely plausible, she's a pragmatist. She gave Hillary a free run in exchange for lots of promises over appointments, she could play an even bigger power move on Biden with both the VP slot and a whole load of policy that she wants.
And surely the VP must be a woman.
So, Biden/Warren or Sanders/Abrams, this is what I'm thinking atm.
Biden/Abrams is equally likely.
With Abrams on the ticket the Democrats would tank.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Yes, this also puzzles me. We have top epidemiologists in the UK and here in Germany predicting maybe 70% infected within a year or two, but the infection rate in China (even in Hubei) seems to be nowhere near that and is slowing down.
So are those predictions based on Europe being unwilling or unable to take the kinds of measures that China has taken? Or the actual numbers being infected in China being much higher (and presumably a much smaller percentage of those actually getting sick)? Or something else?
Something is amiss in the data for sure.
But overall from what we know from previous pandemics, the lockdown strategy leads to a lower total peak but a long tail of infections over a long period. It's generally effective at helping with mortality because you don't get such a crush at once on the health care system. By contrast, imagine the situation in Wuhan if they hadn't locked down? It is almost unimaginable.
The Chinese locked down because it was the only rational response. Currently our government is toying with the idea of letting it rip in order to minimise the social and economic costs. It sounds crazy and I think it is crazy.
Definitely plausible, she's a pragmatist. She gave Hillary a free run in exchange for lots of promises over appointments, she could play an even bigger power move on Biden with both the VP slot and a whole load of policy that she wants.
And surely the VP must be a woman.
So, Biden/Warren or Sanders/Abrams, this is what I'm thinking atm.
Biden/Abrams is equally likely.
With Abrams on the ticket the Democrats would tank.
R4 saying markets are rallying today on the back of co-ordinated "willworld.
If coronavirus proves controllable, then we could be back to normal within a matter of months; if not, we could also be back to some kind of normality within a matter of moths, as there will no longer be any point in massive lockdowns/quarantines.
And to put it brutally, most of the active workforce will be far less affected than the retired.
Central banks acting to prevent liquidity crises in a co-ordinated manner is simply common sense.
There is an argument but not one I would agree with.
But I am increasingly of the view the government is going to try a strategy of no lock down. But it might however get dragged into one because the consequences of its decision would be so severe. By then it would be too late to reap many of the benefits whilst it will still accrue all the costs. Probably the most important decision any government has made in a generation.
It's going to be a brutal few months. Let's hope it passes quickly. God bless all those working in health care.
I don't disagree.
How we get through this depends to some extent on how pragmatic and foresighted the government turn out to be. They do have the advantage of more preparation time than many countries, the chance to learn from others' mistakes, and a decent nationwide public health administration.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not be refusing to co-operate with its nearest neighbours or overruling the views of health experts on the need for such co-operation simply for ideological reasons.
A “pragmatic and foresighted” government would not risk the health of its citizens because it cares more about making a point about “red lines”.
This is malevolence by the government. It is despicable.
It was the EU that prevented the UK retaining membership of various things.
Clearly operations like Euratom, Galileo, Erasmus, pandemic planning etc need have nothing to do with a deeper political cooperation.
But the EU made it so by saying it was not possible without free movement - something completely unconnected and unattractive to the UK
Although they have now compromised on Galileo so hopefully there will be more rational behaviour in future.
Interesting, I never realised that about Euratom. Have you got some evidence that our continued membership was tied to fee movement?
They said it was only available to full members of the EU (the free movement bit follows)
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Jesus
Was he there in spirit?
No. Their new Jesus is in the middle of the piccie...
And he is normally the one who boasts about the laying on of hands.
I was curious about Aidan Barclay’s mother being “unknown”... surely someone has a pretty clear idea... or am I confused about some part of the process?
I fitted three separate curves to the set of 16 daily data points for outside of China between 15 Feb and 1 Mar. Each curve has exactly three parameters. Any interpretation will introduce assumptions, some of which may be false; but considering only the numbers, each curve fits the data extremely closely. Extrapolations are as follows. All statements concern only the world outside of China.
1) Gaussian (R^2=0.9898; 1/(1-R^2) = 98 ) *1 millionth case 27 March *10^7 th case 9 April *10^8 th case 24 April *10^9 th case 9 May *everyone (8*10^9) has it: 25 May (A Gaussian curve has a maximum. This one's is at 2.2 * 10^14.)
2) Logistic (R^2=0.9909; 1/(1-R^2) = 110 ) *1 millionth case 25 March *10^7 th case 6 April *10^8 th case 17 April *10^9 th case 29 April *everyone (8*10^9) has it: 10 May (A logistic curve has a least upper bound. This one's is at 2.7 * 10^10.)
3) A function that fits the data even more closely than the above two (R^2=0.9988; 1/(1-R^2) = 833 ) *1 millionth case 16 March *10^7 th case 22 March *10^8 th case 26 March *10^9 th case 31 March *everyone (8*10^9) has it: 3 Apr (Note: this function has no maximum but to carp at that fact may be similar to insisting on knowing a heavyweight boxer's exact reach before speculating on whether he will win a fight against a disabled nonagenarian.)
With a mortality rate of 3-4% we would be looking at 230-310 million deaths worldwide and 2.0-2.6 million in Britain. The numbers who would normally die over 4-5 years would all die within a period of 2-3 months. That's the equivalent of 15-20 times the usual throughput for undertakers, every day for 3 months.
Note: the analysis lumps together countries that differ greatly in the amount of testing they have done, their cultures, and their political systems. Everything else being equal, that should strengthen the predictive power of a model rather than weakening it. However, the largest inputs are from places that have reported the most cases so far, and therefore the models are biased towards those countries.
With all due respect, I don't think it is helpful that amateurs try and crunch numbers like this. This is not a game, like politicalbetting, where it is fine to be wrong. We need to be careful about what we are writing.
It is enough to say that it is going to be a significant amount of deaths which will impact upon everyone everywhere.
All these crises going on - floods, viruses, EU stuff, Home Office falling apart, etc.
It seems to be remarkably quiet on the Boris Front...
He's chairing a COBRA meeting on Coronavirus this morning, to be fair.
How many days late?
Why have a meeting for the sake of a meeting?
Usually one of three reasons:
1. It is a way to book a free lunch 2. You can avoid doing something else by saying you have a meeting 3. You fancy one of the people you have invited to the meeting
All these crises going on - floods, viruses, EU stuff, Home Office falling apart, etc.
It seems to be remarkably quiet on the Boris Front...
He's chairing a COBRA meeting on Coronavirus this morning, to be fair.
How many days late?
Why have a meeting for the sake of a meeting?
Usually one of three reasons:
1. It is a way to book a free lunch 2. You can avoid doing something else by saying you have a meeting 3. You fancy one of the people you have invited to the meeting
I fitted three separate curves to the set of 16 daily data points for outside of China between 15 Feb and 1 Mar. Each curve has exactly three parameters. Any interpretation will introduce assumptions, some of which may be false; but considering only the numbers, each curve fits the data extremely closely. Extrapolations are as follows. All statements concern only the world outside of China.
1) Gaussian (R^2=0.9898; 1/(1-R^2) = 98 ) *1 millionth case 27 March *10^7 th case 9 April *10^8 th case 24 April *10^9 th case 9 May *everyone (8*10^9) has it: 25 May (A Gaussian curve has a maximum. This one's is at 2.2 * 10^14.)
2) Logistic (R^2=0.9909; 1/(1-R^2) = 110 ) *1 millionth case 25 March *10^7 th case 6 April *10^8 th case 17 April *10^9 th case 29 April *everyone (8*10^9) has it: 10 May (A logistic curve has a least upper bound. This one's is at 2.7 * 10^10.)
3) A function that fits the data even more closely than the above two (R^2=0.9988; 1/(1-R^2) = 833 ) *1 millionth case 16 March *10^7 th case 22 March *10^8 th case 26 March *10^9 th case 31 March *everyone (8*10^9) has it: 3 Apr (Note: this function has no maximum but to carp at that fact may be similar to insisting on knowing a heavyweight boxer's exact reach before speculating on how many rounds he will take to win a fight against a disabled nonagenarian.)
With a mortality rate of 3-4% we would be looking at 230-310 million deaths worldwide and 2.0-2.6 million in Britain. The numbers who would normally die over 4-5 years would all die within a period of 2-3 months. That's the equivalent of 15-20 times the usual throughput for undertakers, every day for 3 months. There would be no alternative to mass cremations, or to mass graves where cremation is culturally forbidden.
Note: the analysis lumps together countries that differ greatly in the amount of testing they have done, their cultures, and their political systems. Everything else being equal, that should strengthen the predictive power of a model rather than weakening it. However, the largest inputs are from places that have reported the most cases so far, and therefore the models are biased towards those countries.
So how do you account for the fact that not everyone in Hubei has it?
Interesting the differences in results. While STV is the theoretically best system, Ams is the most likely one to be adopted if the UK ever does switch to PR. It could potentially happen if 2024 results in a hung parliament. Unlike in 2010 when Labour were basically done with government, a Labour Party in 2024 would be much more willing to implement PR with Lib Dems to get into government.
If the Tories win 2024, its more likely that Labour would win in 2029 with a majority and so PR once again off the table.
Would the SNP be in favour of PR though? I’d say not, on the numbers.
We will be independent so will not matter
Not by the time of the next general election as Boris has blocked indyref2
All these crises going on - floods, viruses, EU stuff, Home Office falling apart, etc.
It seems to be remarkably quiet on the Boris Front...
He's chairing a COBRA meeting on Coronavirus this morning, to be fair.
How many days late?
Why have a meeting for the sake of a meeting?
Usually one of three reasons:
1. It is a way to book a free lunch 2. You can avoid doing something else by saying you have a meeting 3. You fancy one of the people you have invited to the meeting
I fitted three separate curves to the set of 16 daily data points for outside of China between 15 Feb and 1 Mar. Each curve has exactly three parameters. Any interpretation will introduce assumptions, some of which may be false; but considering only the numbers, each curve fits the data extremely closely. Extrapolations are as follows. All statements concern only the world outside of China.
1) Gaussian (R^2=0.9898; 1/(1-R^2) = 98 ) *1 millionth case 27 March *10^7 th case 9 April *10^8 th case 24 April *10^9 th case 9 May *everyone (8*10^9) has it: 25 May (A Gaussian curve has a maximum. This one's is at 2.2 * 10^14.)
2) Logistic (R^2=0.9909; 1/(1-R^2) = 110 ) *1 millionth case 25 March *10^7 th case 6 April *10^8 th case 17 April *10^9 th case 29 April *everyone (8*10^9) has it: 10 May (A logistic curve has a least upper bound. This one's is at 2.7 * 10^10.)
3) A function that fits the data even more closely than the above two (R^2=0.9988; 1/(1-R^2) = 833 ) *1 millionth case 16 March *10^7 th case 22 March *10^8 th case 26 March *10^9 th case 31 March *everyone (8*10^9) has it: 3 Apr (Note: this function has no maximum but to carp at that fact may be similar to insisting on knowing a heavyweight boxer's exact reach before speculating on how many rounds he will take to win a fight against a disabled nonagenarian.)
With a mortality rate of 3-4% we would be looking at 230-310 million deaths worldwide and 2.0-2.6 million in Britain. The numbers who would normally die over 4-5 years would all die within a period of 2-3 months. That's the equivalent of 15-20 times the usual throughput for undertakers, every day for 3 months. There would be no alternative to mass cremations, or to mass graves where cremation is culturally forbidden.
Note: the analysis lumps together countries that differ greatly in the amount of testing they have done, their cultures, and their political systems. Everything else being equal, that should strengthen the predictive power of a model rather than weakening it. However, the largest inputs are from places that have reported the most cases so far, and therefore the models are biased towards those countries.
Fiddling with a formula until it fits the data points you already have, and then projecting it forwards, is hooky statistics. As you ought to know.
Either you produce a theory and a model, use it to derive a formula from first principles, and then test it against the data you already have.
Or you wait until you have sufficient new data points to prove or disprove your model, and if disproven go back to the drawing board.
Nonsense dressed up with cod maths is still nonsense.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
Because there will be lots of people attending and providing information
If London why not Manchester? And Liverpool? And Newcastle? And Scotland?
There should be a national strategy that is then fed into the regional strategies
London has more people in it than all the above combined and Scotland was represented. Id imagine it also has people living closer together than any of the above cities, more public spaces with thousands of people congregating daily, more international travel. But hey they didnt vote Tory in sufficient number so f... them just like f... business.
Overall the government response has been reasonable - all the critics on here and elsewhere are the usual suspects desperately trying to point score whilst ignoring the failings of other countries nearby who appear further along the curve. The latest nonsense about Sadiq Khan being a prime example - we've seen how he's coped with crime in London - need anybody say anything more. Everyone knows the situation will get worse before it gets better. On the European pandemic stuff how is that working out in Italy/France/Germany, etc?
It would be nice to see some grown up behavoiur from the government critics instead of the doom mongering and point scoring.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
Because there will be lots of people attending and providing information
If London why not Manchester? And Liverpool? And Newcastle? And Scotland?
There should be a national strategy that is then fed into the regional strategies
London has more people in it than all the above combined and Scotland was represented. Id imagine it also has people living closer together than any of the above cities, more public spaces with thousands of people congregating daily, more international travel. But hey they didnt vote Tory in sufficient number so f... them just like f... business.
On topic: I'm not sure "momentum" exists betwixt Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. At least not to the extent Buttigieg or anyone net backing him would wish to believe. I think the first four contests are separate and test out appeal to varying demographics.
Certainly the South Carolina voters did not care a jot for how Iowa voted. In addition the Iowa caucuses allow indulgent votes in minor, almost certainly unviable candidates without broader national appeal (Klobuchar sits firmly in this category) which would otherwise have gone to Biden mainly if Iowa was held further down the line.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
Because there will be lots of people attending and providing information
If London why not Manchester? And Liverpool? And Newcastle? And Scotland?
There should be a national strategy that is then fed into the regional strategies
London has more people in it than all the above combined and Scotland was represented. Id imagine it also has people living closer together than any of the above cities, more public spaces with thousands of people congregating daily, more international travel. But hey they didnt vote Tory in sufficient number so f... them just like f... business.
It’s an utterly pointless and worthless exercise as it assumes that people will vote in the same way regardless of system and that parties will be the same regardless of system.
Which given a major argument in favour of change is people will vote in different ways free of FPTP forcing them in certain ways, makes it even sillier.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
Because there will be lots of people attending and providing information
If London why not Manchester? And Liverpool? And Newcastle? And Scotland?
There should be a national strategy that is then fed into the regional strategies
London has more people in it than all the above combined and Scotland was represented. Id imagine it also has people living closer together than any of the above cities, more public spaces with thousands of people congregating daily, more international travel. But hey they didnt vote Tory in sufficient number so f... them just like f... business.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
Because there will be lots of people attending and providing information
If London why not Manchester? And Liverpool? And Newcastle? And Scotland?
There should be a national strategy that is then fed into the regional strategies
London has more people in it than all the above combined and Scotland was represented. Id imagine it also has people living closer together than any of the above cities, more public spaces with thousands of people congregating daily, more international travel. But hey they didnt vote Tory in sufficient number so f... them just like f... business.
Sturgeon is responsible for Health in Scotland
Hancock is responsible for Health in London
Both regions were represented
The issue isn’t just health but transport as well.
The tube and Heathrow have the potential to be superspreaders, so it would have made sense for the Mayor of London to be invited.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Yes, this also puzzles me. We have top epidemiologists in the UK and here in Germany predicting maybe 70% infected within a year or two, but the infection rate in China (even in Hubei) seems to be nowhere near that and is slowing down.
So are those predictions based on Europe being unwilling or unable to take the kinds of measures that China has taken? Or the actual numbers being infected in China being much higher (and presumably a much smaller percentage of those actually getting sick)? Or something else?
Something is amiss in the data for sure.
But overall from what we know from previous pandemics, the lockdown strategy leads to a lower total peak but a long tail of infections over a long period. It's generally effective at helping with mortality because you don't get such a crush at once on the health care system. By contrast, imagine the situation in Wuhan if they hadn't locked down? It is almost unimaginable.
The Chinese locked down because it was the only rational response. Currently our government is toying with the idea of letting it rip in order to minimise the social and economic costs. It sounds crazy and I think it is crazy.
I agree, the only question is when and where should be locked down, a nationwide lockdown would be premature at the moment, but could be just a week or two away in parts of the country.
This sounds a sensible precaution at the best of times... Finally, fans in Southampton were warned not to touch or take selfies with pop star Peter Andre....
I'm quite tempted to throw a tenner away on a 2021 General Election.
But why?
For reasons that are really too distasteful, and hopefully too ridiculous, to post on here.
Boris's fidelity???
There was that Pádraig Belton tweet that no one believed because C. Symonds wasn't thought to be pregnant but now.....
If there is anything that is a racing certainty it's that Johnson is going to fuck around on FLOTUK. The only question is whether she is so besmitten with the trappings of office that she'll cave it all in or put up with it.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means.
That the mayor is way more interested in political point scoring, than meeting with his own teams to plan for contingencies?
Would it not make sense for there to be co-ordination between the two? Of course it would. The government is not behaving like a grown up, if these reports are true. This is hardly a surprise. It is not led by a grown up.
I'm sure there's a process in place for all local authorities to be briefed of the government's national emergency plans, and mechanisms to feed back progress in both directions. This just smacks of Sadiq trying to play politics.
I suspect that this morning's meeting is going to be mostly the various government departments and emergency planners briefing the Cabinet, rather than the other way around.
And the problem with briefing the Mayor at that same meeting is what, exactly? Especially given how likely London is to be affected, both by the virus and any counter-measures.
Because there will be lots of people attending and providing information
If London why not Manchester? And Liverpool? And Newcastle? And Scotland?
There should be a national strategy that is then fed into the regional strategies
London has more people in it than all the above combined and Scotland was represented. Id imagine it also has people living closer together than any of the above cities, more public spaces with thousands of people congregating daily, more international travel. But hey they didnt vote Tory in sufficient number so f... them just like f... business.
Sturgeon is responsible for Health in Scotland
Hancock is responsible for Health in London
Both regions were represented
Sturgeon is responsible for Health in Scotland
Hancock is responsible for Health in England
Both nations were represented
Khan was complaining London wasn’t represented. That was the context
Overall the government response has been reasonable - all the critics on here and elsewhere are the usual suspects
Well you should get out more from this site because the loudest criticisms have come from the Tory press. People like Tom Newton-Dunn of The Sun and other right-wingers are criticising the lacklustre blusterings from No. 10.
I was curious about Aidan Barclay’s mother being “unknown”... surely someone has a pretty clear idea... or am I confused about some part of the process?
Where does it say that?
In the article there is a photo of a woman holding a baby, captioned: "Former model Zoe Newton with her new-born baby and husband, David Barclay in 1956". Aidan Barclay is 64. Ergo...
I was curious about Aidan Barclay’s mother being “unknown”... surely someone has a pretty clear idea... or am I confused about some part of the process?
Where does it say that?
In the article there is a photo of a woman holding a baby, captioned: "Former model Zoe Newton with her new-born baby and husband, David Barclay in 1956". Aidan Barclay is 64. Ergo...
Sorry must have got the name wrong (read it yesterday). Meant Aidan’s half brother in his 30s
It’s a different article... Sunday times had one yesterday (I was referring to Alistair Barclay)
Overall the government response has been reasonable - all the critics on here and elsewhere are the usual suspects desperately trying to point score whilst ignoring the failings of other countries nearby who appear further along the curve. The latest nonsense about Sadiq Khan being a prime example - we've seen how he's coped with crime in London - need anybody say anything more. Everyone knows the situation will get worse before it gets better. On the European pandemic stuff how is that working out in Italy/France/Germany, etc?
It would be nice to see some grown up behavoiur from the government critics instead of the doom mongering and point scoring.
What is the responsible response to a fast moving situation if you are denied access to the latest updates?
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Jesus
Was he there in spirit?
No. Their new Jesus is in the middle of the piccie...
I think it's rather wonderful. Prayers can hardly hurt, can they?
Overall the government response has been reasonable - all the critics on here and elsewhere are the usual suspects desperately trying to point score whilst ignoring the failings of other countries nearby who appear further along the curve. The latest nonsense about Sadiq Khan being a prime example - we've seen how he's coped with crime in London - need anybody say anything more. Everyone knows the situation will get worse before it gets better. On the European pandemic stuff how is that working out in Italy/France/Germany, etc?
It would be nice to see some grown up behavoiur from the government critics instead of the doom mongering and point scoring.
What is the responsible response to a fast moving situation if you are denied access to the latest updates?
120 in Spain up to how 35 in Madrid no shortage of information. When are there school closures et in UK but no reported cases
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Yes, this also puzzles me. We have top epidemiologists in the UK and here in Germany predicting maybe 70% infected within a year or two, but the infection rate in China (even in Hubei) seems to be nowhere near that and is slowing down.
So are those predictions based on Europe being unwilling or unable to take the kinds of measures that China has taken? Or the actual numbers being infected in China being much higher (and presumably a much smaller percentage of those actually getting sick)? Or something else?
Something is amiss in the data for sure.
But overall from what we know from previous pandemics, the lockdown strategy leads to a lower total peak but a long tail of infections over a long period. It's generally effective at helping with mortality because you don't get such a crush at once on the health care system. By contrast, imagine the situation in Wuhan if they hadn't locked down? It is almost unimaginable.
The Chinese locked down because it was the only rational response. Currently our government is toying with the idea of letting it rip in order to minimise the social and economic costs. It sounds crazy and I think it is crazy.
I agree, the only question is when and where should be locked down, a nationwide lockdown would be premature at the moment, but could be just a week or two away in parts of the country.
I hope so but I've been very concerned by the briefings. The lock-down should be done when we still have some control of the situation.
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Yes, this also puzzles me. We have top epidemiologists in the UK and here in Germany predicting maybe 70% infected within a year or two, but the infection rate in China (even in Hubei) seems to be nowhere near that and is slowing down.
So are those predictions based on Europe being unwilling or unable to take the kinds of measures that China has taken? Or the actual numbers being infected in China being much higher (and presumably a much smaller percentage of those actually getting sick)? Or something else?
Something is amiss in the data for sure.
But overall from what we know from previous pandemics, the lockdown strategy leads to a lower total peak but a long tail of infections over a long period. It's generally effective at helping with mortality because you don't get such a crush at once on the health care system. By contrast, imagine the situation in Wuhan if they hadn't locked down? It is almost unimaginable.
The Chinese locked down because it was the only rational response. Currently our government is toying with the idea of letting it rip in order to minimise the social and economic costs. It sounds crazy and I think it is crazy.
I agree, the only question is when and where should be locked down, a nationwide lockdown would be premature at the moment, but could be just a week or two away in parts of the country.
I don’t disagree with either of you, but just what do you mean by ‘lockdown’ ?
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Jesus
Was he there in spirit?
No. Their new Jesus is in the middle of the piccie...
I think it's rather wonderful. Prayers can hardly hurt, can they?
Tell that to the followers of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus......
According to the WHO the current confirmed cases and death rates in Hubei province (pop. 59m) are 0.11% and 0.0047% respectively. That's a death rate just 47 in a million.
Why so low? Are the Chinese under-reporting? Have their containment measures been stringent and successful? Is coronavirus not actually that infectious?
Yes, this also puzzles me. We have top epidemiologists in the UK and here in Germany predicting maybe 70% infected within a year or two, but the infection rate in China (even in Hubei) seems to be nowhere near that and is slowing down.
So are those predictions based on Europe being unwilling or unable to take the kinds of measures that China has taken? Or the actual numbers being infected in China being much higher (and presumably a much smaller percentage of those actually getting sick)? Or something else?
Something is amiss in the data for sure.
But overall from what we know from previous pandemics, the lockdown strategy leads to a lower total peak but a long tail of infections over a long period. It's generally effective at helping with mortality because you don't get such a crush at once on the health care system. By contrast, imagine the situation in Wuhan if they hadn't locked down? It is almost unimaginable.
The Chinese locked down because it was the only rational response. Currently our government is toying with the idea of letting it rip in order to minimise the social and economic costs. It sounds crazy and I think it is crazy.
I agree, the only question is when and where should be locked down, a nationwide lockdown would be premature at the moment, but could be just a week or two away in parts of the country.
Interesting. I guess that it's a matter of resources. The UK army has what, maybe 50k people that it could mobilise (an incredibly generous number). How much can you lockdown and provide resources within with that number? A few mid size cities?Portsmouth, Newcastle, Reading, and Hull?
What I do know is that there's not enough resources to quarantine London, which is by far the most likely point for a big outbreak in the UK.
Scotland's chief medical officer, Dr Catherine Calderwood, has told a press conference in Edinburgh that evidence suggests between 50 and 80 per cent of the UK population could be infected with coronavirus if it is not contained.
She said the outbreak is likely to peak in the UK in between two and three months, Simon Johnson reports.
However, most cases are expected to be mild, with only four per cent requiring hospitalisation.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Jesus
Was he there in spirit?
No. Their new Jesus is in the middle of the piccie...
I think it's rather wonderful. Prayers can hardly hurt, can they?
Tell that to the followers of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus......
No se tiene muy claro el origen de la infección en Torrejón de Ardoz", ha explicado Simón. Una situación de interés se da en un grupo religioso de Torrejón, donde se han registrado varios casos y se investiga si puede tener relación con otro grupo. "Es una investigación difícil que los trabajadores de salud pública están llevando a cabo", ha señalado.
The PM is reported as saying that he will do “whatever it takes”. But that does not apparently extend to listening to advice from NHS specialists or co-operating with countries nearby.
So the fact that the NHS is probably better than the US system means not a jot. The PM is, even with something as serious as this, putting ideology before the interests of the people and as one of the people who is potentially more at risk than others I consider that to be an utter disgrace.
At least we are not being subjected to pictures of the Cabinet praying the nation better
Jesus
Was he there in spirit?
No. Their new Jesus is in the middle of the piccie...
I think it's rather wonderful. Prayers can hardly hurt, can they?
If you had to design a social mechanism to spread a virus amongst a dispersed and mostly car-bound population, coming up with something that made people from a wide area come together and stand close to each other in a small room for an hour or two every Sunday would be ideal.
Comments
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/03/02/barclays-1-end-of-empire/content.html
Or are you just highlighting low infection rates? It seems (CDC information) that transmission requires fairly close contact with people who are symptomatic (if main vector coughs/sneezes). A big lockdown is quite effective at containing that.
Transmission via contaminated surfaces or before symptoms are apparent is harder to contain.
Now, it's very likely that the confirmed case rate is significantly under reported but in that case the death rate* is proportionally lower than 4%.
(*I'm assuming the Hubei corvid-19 deaths are nearly all being reported - harder to hide dead bodies. If we get evidence that that's not the case, I'll start to worry.)
More reliable numbers are going to be from these countries with good healthcare systems, primarily Japan, Korea and Italy at the moment.
Iran is a total sh1t-show, we are a few days away from total breakdown of law and order there, there's apparently large infection rates among medical workers and government ministers. People are either going to run to the mountains with supplies and tents, or they're going to stay in the cities and riot.
Quite remarkable really. I apperciate Wuhan is in lockdown but locking down 59m across the whole of Hubei? I am struggling to think it's that alone that is keeping the reported figures so (relatively) low.
So are those predictions based on Europe being unwilling or unable to take the kinds of measures that China has taken? Or the actual numbers being infected in China being much higher (and presumably a much smaller percentage of those actually getting sick)? Or something else?
If London why not Manchester? And Liverpool? And Newcastle? And Scotland?
There should be a national strategy that is then fed into the regional strategies
But there have been two reports that (1) Mike Hancock, the Health Secretary, was ordered not to attend an EU meeting in relation to coronavirus; and (2) the Health Department wants to stay in the EU wide pandemic notification system but has been overruled by No 10 because this would breach negotiating “red lines”.
That does not suggest a government which is co-operating as much as it ought to be not one which is prepared to do whatever it takes. In a health emergency, whatever is necessary to protect our health should, IMO, take priority over “red lines”.
If Scotland, why not London?
Sanders
3 in 5
(59%)
Biden
2 in 5
(39%)
Bloomberg
1 in 50
(2%)
Warren, Klobuchar, Gabbard
<1 in 100
(0.1%)
Biden plurality surely gives him the nom, indicating he ought to be perhaps shorter than Sanders.
Surely one of the lessons of Brexit is that going independent is anything but a clean process?
Raoul Ruparel, who advised May on Brexit, said the logic worked both ways. "There are elements of denial in the opening positions of both sides,” he told me. “The EU seems unable to accept that the U.K. will no longer be part of its legal and regulatory order [but] the U.K. doesn't yet seem to have fully accepted the trade-offs that will need to be made to secure a deal in such short order."
The truth that dare not speak its name is that while Brexit was—and is—about taking back control, Britain ceded total control of Northern Ireland to do so, and the EU lost control of Britain in the process.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/03/britain-eu-brexit-trade-negotiations-unreality/607282/
By the way, I trust China less now than at any point. They are positioning themselves to be the Doyen of coronavirus and may well exploit that to maximum economic and political advantage.
But overall from what we know from previous pandemics, the lockdown strategy leads to a lower total peak but a long tail of infections over a long period. It's generally effective at helping with mortality because you don't get such a crush at once on the health care system. By contrast, imagine the situation in Wuhan if they hadn't locked down? It is almost unimaginable.
The Chinese locked down because it was the only rational response. Currently our government is toying with the idea of letting it rip in order to minimise the social and economic costs. It sounds crazy and I think it is crazy.
https://twitter.com/BeijingPalmer/status/1234364815407288325?s=19
It is enough to say that it is going to be a significant amount of deaths which will impact upon everyone everywhere.
1. It is a way to book a free lunch
2. You can avoid doing something else by saying you have a meeting
3. You fancy one of the people you have invited to the meeting
As it is Bozo, I'd go with 3
They will have invited whoever needs to be there. Khan has got the hump
Edited extra bit: welcome to PB, incidentally.
The Mayor of London has NO devolved powers? At all?
Either you produce a theory and a model, use it to derive a formula from first principles, and then test it against the data you already have.
Or you wait until you have sufficient new data points to prove or disprove your model, and if disproven go back to the drawing board.
Nonsense dressed up with cod maths is still nonsense.
It would be nice to see some grown up behavoiur from the government critics instead of the doom mongering and point scoring.
Hancock is responsible for Health in London
Both regions were represented
I think the first four contests are separate and test out appeal to varying demographics.
Certainly the South Carolina voters did not care a jot for how Iowa voted.
In addition the Iowa caucuses allow indulgent votes in minor, almost certainly unviable candidates without broader national appeal (Klobuchar sits firmly in this category) which would otherwise have gone to Biden mainly if Iowa was held further down the line.
Hancock is responsible for Health in England
Both nations were represented
The Mayor has a legal duty to create plans and policies for health, transport, planning, business and the economy.
The tube and Heathrow have the potential to be superspreaders, so it would have made sense for the Mayor of London to be invited.
Finally, fans in Southampton were warned not to touch or take selfies with pop star Peter Andre....
In the article there is a photo of a woman holding a baby, captioned: "Former model Zoe Newton with her new-born baby and husband, David Barclay in 1956". Aidan Barclay is 64. Ergo...
It’s a different article... Sunday times had one yesterday (I was referring to Alistair Barclay)
Eh?
What I do know is that there's not enough resources to quarantine London, which is by far the most likely point for a big outbreak in the UK.
By definition you can’t time an emergency.
Scotland's chief medical officer, Dr Catherine Calderwood, has told a press conference in Edinburgh that evidence suggests between 50 and 80 per cent of the UK population could be infected with coronavirus if it is not contained.
She said the outbreak is likely to peak in the UK in between two and three months, Simon Johnson reports.
However, most cases are expected to be mild, with only four per cent requiring hospitalisation.
https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/1234446292098658304?s=20
Religion can be a problem by the look of it!