What new legislation would be required? Blair’s Civil Contingencies Act already allows for martial law and the army on the streets restricting movement, commandeering spaces and clearing the streets.
However, some suggested that the pause offered an opportunity to do something radically different from Galileo, given the advances in technology since the system was designed nearly two decades ago.
“This is an opportunity to do something that goes well beyond Galileo,” said Stuart Martin, chief executive of the Satellite Applications Catapult and a member of the UK Space Council. “If we do this it will give us an immediate export opportunity and we would be adding to the systems already there.”
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. (...)
Note: the analysis lumps together countries that differ greatly in the amount of testing they have done,s.
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.
Well I won't tell you what the third function is if you're so patronising :-) I am very careful. I hadn't realised that public speculation about horrible futures informed by an analysis of data could only be undertaken by irresponsible types who treat it as a game or by those who are paid to do it.
For anyone who wishes to assess whether any of my three models manages to keep up with the data over the next week, predictions are as follows. The dates are for the figures for cases outside of China, published at the Worldometers website.
Tuesday 3 March (to be published about 3am GMT, 4 March): * Gaussian 12220, * logistic 12367 * third function 14237
Thursday 5 March (~ 3am GMT, 6 March) * Gaussian 18074, * logistic 18512 * third function 24820
Monday 9 March (~ 3am GMT, 10 March) * Gaussian 39157 * logistic 41484 * third function 85835.
So after just one week, one of your curves is coming up with a number more than double another of your curves.
And this is telling us what, exactly?
That the numbers are getting larger each day we can see for ourselves.
What new legislation would be required? Blair’s Civil Contingencies Act already allows for martial law and the army on the streets restricting movement, commandeering spaces and clearing the streets.
Enforcing working at home or staying at home for all but emergency services and select food and drink distributors if it got really bad
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
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.
Well I won't tell you what the third function is if you're so patronising :-) I am very careful. I hadn't realised that public speculation about horrible futures informed by an analysis of data could only be undertaken by irresponsible types who treat it as a game or by those who are paid to do it.
For anyone who wishes to assess whether any of my three models manages to keep up with the data over the next week, predictions are as follows. The dates are for the figures for cases outside of China, published at the Worldometers website.
Tuesday 3 March (to be published about 3am GMT, 4 March): * Gaussian 12220, * logistic 12367 * third function 14237
Thursday 5 March (~ 3am GMT, 6 March) * Gaussian 18074, * logistic 18512 * third function 24820
Monday 9 March (~ 3am GMT, 10 March) * Gaussian 39157 * logistic 41484 * third function 85835.
OK I had a look and you seem to be predicting everyone in the world will have been infected with (or is it tested positive for?) covid-19 by the 25th May at the latest. I guess something's not quite right with your "models".
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.
Four percent requiring hospitalisation... What makes us think that given how much more susceptible our demographics are to this we'll only need to hospitalise 1/4 to 1/5th of what other places are doing?
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?
Of course they can. When people leave things to prayer and a cult like leader, they are likely to stop doing so much to help themselves. The worshipping of such an anti-Christian man like Trump shows any sense of principle or logic has already left these nutcases.
What new legislation would be required? Blair’s Civil Contingencies Act already allows for martial law and the army on the streets restricting movement, commandeering spaces and clearing the streets.
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
About 170k hospital beds in UK? I think its fair to assume the 25k a week average wont be flat, so at times over half the hospital beds needed for coronavirus alone. Describing most cases as mild in this context seems "brave".
What new legislation would be required? Blair’s Civil Contingencies Act already allows for martial law and the army on the streets restricting movement, commandeering spaces and clearing the streets.
Disposal of bodies?
Dumping them in Hyde Park apparently. (Obviously no point co-ordinating that with that Mayor of London though).
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 ) 2) Logistic (R^2=0.9909; 1/(1-R^2) = 110 ) 3) A function that fits the data even more closely than the above two (R^2=0.9988; 1/(1-R^2) = 833 )
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.
Using nothing but R^2 to assess how good the model is is even more dodgy. It breaks all the rules of statistical data analysis and machine learning.
I can criticise this in so many ways, but here's just one. The gaussian curve being fitted increases and decreases. The logistic curve increases to an asymptote. If the data being modelled is the number of new cases then the gaussian is a sensible start, it can drop back to zero. If the data being modelled is total number of cases the the logistic curve is a sensible start. They can't both be appropriate.
How can I even start to asses what Model 3 is supposed to be?
What new legislation would be required? Blair’s Civil Contingencies Act already allows for martial law and the army on the streets restricting movement, commandeering spaces and clearing the streets.
Disposal of bodies?
Dumping them in Hyde Park apparently. (Obviously no point co-ordinating that with that Mayor of London though).
Yes, you're right. There will be someone responsible for managing that (I'd assume it would fall within Westminster Council's responsibilities since it was their former leader who made the plans public)
We’re headed for a constitutional crisis in the near future.
The Duchess of Cornwall will not assume the title of queen when Prince Charles ascends to the throne, Clarence House insisted last night.
There has been no change in the decision taken at the time of her marriage in 2005 that Camilla, 72, will become princess consort when her husband becomes king, a spokeswoman for the couple said. The decision was made to appease continuing public resentment surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
The Daily Star claimed yesterday that Prince Charles wants his wife to take the title of queen consort. Supporters have hoped that Camilla would take the traditional title amid her growing significance at the heart of the family as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex step back from their royal duties...
... The official royal website explaining the coronation ceremony states: “Unless decided otherwise, a queen consort is crowned with the King, in a similar but simpler ceremony.”
Experts at University College London’s constitutional unit say that under common law the spouse of a king automatically becomes queen.
They warned that if Camilla adopts the title it could prompt a renewal of challenges to the validity of her wedding under civil law, as some opponents claim a member of the royal family can only marry in a religious service in the Church of England.
The unit added: “Prince Charles will no doubt have regard to public opinion at the time of his accession, in deciding whether Camilla should become queen; and he may also want to seek the advice of the government of the day.”
What new legislation would be required? Blair’s Civil Contingencies Act already allows for martial law and the army on the streets restricting movement, commandeering spaces and clearing the streets.
Disposal of bodies?
Dumping them in Hyde Park apparently. (Obviously no point co-ordinating that with that Mayor of London though).
Still, it gives Boris a chance to say hecatomb....
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)
No worries. Interesting article which, if true, paints a terrible picture of the principal subjects.
We’re headed for a constitutional crisis in the near future.
The Duchess of Cornwall will not assume the title of queen when Prince Charles ascends to the throne, Clarence House insisted last night.
There has been no change in the decision taken at the time of her marriage in 2005 that Camilla, 72, will become princess consort when her husband becomes king, a spokeswoman for the couple said. The decision was made to appease continuing public resentment surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
The Daily Star claimed yesterday that Prince Charles wants his wife to take the title of queen consort. Supporters have hoped that Camilla would take the traditional title amid her growing significance at the heart of the family as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex step back from their royal duties...
... The official royal website explaining the coronation ceremony states: “Unless decided otherwise, a queen consort is crowned with the King, in a similar but simpler ceremony.”
Experts at University College London’s constitutional unit say that under common law the spouse of a king automatically becomes queen.
They warned that if Camilla adopts the title it could prompt a renewal of challenges to the validity of her wedding under civil law, as some opponents claim a member of the royal family can only marry in a religious service in the Church of England.
The unit added: “Prince Charles will no doubt have regard to public opinion at the time of his accession, in deciding whether Camilla should become queen; and he may also want to seek the advice of the government of the day.”
Well I won't tell you what the third function is if you're so patronising :-) I am very careful. I hadn't realised that public speculation about horrible futures informed by an analysis of data could only be undertaken by irresponsible types who treat it as a game or by those who are paid to do it.
I'm sorry but it is this type of forecasting using a poor statitical approach and presenting the results, as if they are certain, with no assesment of the uncertainty in the model, is what gives my profession a bad name.
R4 saying markets are rallying today on the back of co-ordinated "willworld.
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)
We’re headed for a constitutional crisis in the near future.
The Duchess of Cornwall will not assume the title of queen when Prince Charles ascends to the throne, Clarence House insisted last night.
There has been no change in the decision taken at the time of her marriage in 2005 that Camilla, 72, will become princess consort when her husband becomes king, a spokeswoman for the couple said. The decision was made to appease continuing public resentment surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
The Daily Star claimed yesterday that Prince Charles wants his wife to take the title of queen consort. Supporters have hoped that Camilla would take the traditional title amid her growing significance at the heart of the family as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex step back from their royal duties...
... The official royal website explaining the coronation ceremony states: “Unless decided otherwise, a queen consort is crowned with the King, in a similar but simpler ceremony.”
Experts at University College London’s constitutional unit say that under common law the spouse of a king automatically becomes queen.
They warned that if Camilla adopts the title it could prompt a renewal of challenges to the validity of her wedding under civil law, as some opponents claim a member of the royal family can only marry in a religious service in the Church of England.
The unit added: “Prince Charles will no doubt have regard to public opinion at the time of his accession, in deciding whether Camilla should become queen; and he may also want to seek the advice of the government of the day.”
However, some suggested that the pause offered an opportunity to do something radically different from Galileo, given the advances in technology since the system was designed nearly two decades ago.
“This is an opportunity to do something that goes well beyond Galileo,” said Stuart Martin, chief executive of the Satellite Applications Catapult and a member of the UK Space Council. “If we do this it will give us an immediate export opportunity and we would be adding to the systems already there.”
Satellite Applications Catapult? Is Morris Dancer the CEO?
We’re headed for a constitutional crisis in the near future.
The Duchess of Cornwall will not assume the title of queen when Prince Charles ascends to the throne, Clarence House insisted last night.
There has been no change in the decision taken at the time of her marriage in 2005 that Camilla, 72, will become princess consort when her husband becomes king, a spokeswoman for the couple said. The decision was made to appease continuing public resentment surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
The Daily Star claimed yesterday that Prince Charles wants his wife to take the title of queen consort. Supporters have hoped that Camilla would take the traditional title amid her growing significance at the heart of the family as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex step back from their royal duties...
... The official royal website explaining the coronation ceremony states: “Unless decided otherwise, a queen consort is crowned with the King, in a similar but simpler ceremony.”
Experts at University College London’s constitutional unit say that under common law the spouse of a king automatically becomes queen.
They warned that if Camilla adopts the title it could prompt a renewal of challenges to the validity of her wedding under civil law, as some opponents claim a member of the royal family can only marry in a religious service in the Church of England.
The unit added: “Prince Charles will no doubt have regard to public opinion at the time of his accession, in deciding whether Camilla should become queen; and he may also want to seek the advice of the government of the day.”
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.
Using nothing but R^2 to assess how good the model is is even more dodgy. It breaks all the rules of statistical data analysis and machine learning.
I can criticise this in so many ways, but here's just one. The gaussian curve being fitted increases and decreases. The logistic curve increases to an asymptote. If the data being modelled is the number of new cases then the gaussian is a sensible start, it can drop back to zero. If the data being modelled is total number of cases the the logistic curve is a sensible start. They can't both be appropriate.
How can I even start to asses what Model 3 is supposed to be?
Indeed... I can trivially create a model which fits all the existing points you currently have and any future ones that you want it to hit with an R^2 of 1 (Polynomial of order n+y) but that is of no earthly benefit to anyone. Reminds me what my Stats Lecturer always said - R^2 etc is all very helpful - but for God's sake plot the damn thing first so that you can see what you're actually working with...
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
50% of the UK catching does not seem 'lucky', given only 0.11% (yep, 1 in a 900) of the population of Hubei are confirmed as having caught it.
Well Wuhan would be a better population to use rather than Hubei, and implicit in your 0.11% is that everyone has been tested which of course is nonsense.
But I do agree with you that people predicting 50% in the UK at the end of 2021 even or the whole world sometime in May are way way off the mark. The spread of infections just does not work like that.
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.
Using nothing but R^2 to assess how good the model is is even more dodgy. It breaks all the rules of statistical data analysis and machine learning.
I can criticise this in so many ways, but here's just one. The gaussian curve being fitted increases and decreases. The logistic curve increases to an asymptote. If the data being modelled is the number of new cases then the gaussian is a sensible start, it can drop back to zero. If the data being modelled is total number of cases the the logistic curve is a sensible start. They can't both be appropriate.
How can I even start to asses what Model 3 is supposed to be?
Indeed... I can trivially create a model which fits all the existing points you currently have and any future ones that you want it to hit with an R^2 of 1 (Polynomial of order n+y) but that is of no earthly benefit to anyone. Reminds me what my Stats Lecturer always said - R^2 etc is all very helpful - but for God's sake plot the damn thing first so that you can see what you're actually working with...
This stats lecturer goes further and says "R^2 is not helpful at all".
It's gone round the houses and taken a mahoosive detour, but looks like it is probably going to be a straight Sanders - Biden shootout after Super Tuesday.
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
50% of the UK catching does not seem 'lucky', given only 0.11% (yep, 1 in a 900) of the population of Hubei are confirmed as having caught it.
Well Wuhan would be a better population to use rather than Hubei, and implicit in your 0.11% is that everyone has been tested which of course is nonsense.
But I do agree with you that people predicting 50% in the UK at the end of 2021 even or the whole world sometime in May are way way off the mark. The spread of infections just does not work like that.
A lot of this "back of a fag packet" analysis seems to ignore the fact that there are fewer and fewer people left to catch it, and most of those are in the lowest risk areas (e.g. the countryside), and thus the rate of spread will inevitably reduce dramatically at some point.
Modelling the future using an initially steep rise (in percentage terms) it just bonkers.
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.
Would it make sense, now, to cut down on the numbers of people coming into this country from the United States? They don´t seem to be very good at screening possible cases over there.
Any US trade deal is more about symbolism than economics . And really more about duping members of the public to think Brexit is going wonderfully well .
Clearly any sane country would be prioritizing trade with the EU but sanity left a long time ago .
It's gone round the houses and taken a mahoosive detour, but looks like it is probably going to be a straight Sanders - Biden shootout after Super Tuesday.
Since this is PB, and there's an exception reserve of knowledge here, does anyone know how (or how the government is planning) to quarantine cities?
They dont need to stop every single person leaving on pain of imprisonment, Id assume mostly it would be done with consent, plus severe reductions on public transport routes out and perhaps road blocks on major roads in and out.
23m ago 14:07 One quirk of Pete Buttigieg dropping out of the race to be the Democratic nomination at the weekend is that now Joe Biden, incredibly, is the youngest man seeking to be the Democrats’ next nominee.
(...) 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.
What do you think I've been doing? I've had the third model for several days. It keeps fitting the new data that comes in, even without tweaking. The logistic curve is "theoretically" more appropriate, but we'll see in a few days' time whether it or the Gaussian beat the third function. Perhaps the data will diverge from all three. We'll be able to tell around 3am on Wednesday (2 more data points), Friday (4), and next Tuesday (8) whether any of the three models is doing a good prediction job.
Using nothing but R^2 to assess how good the model is is even more dodgy. It breaks all the rules of statistical data analysis and machine learning.
I can criticise this in so many ways, but here's just one. The gaussian curve being fitted increases and decreases. The logistic curve increases to an asymptote. If the data being modelled is the number of new cases then the gaussian is a sensible start, it can drop back to zero. If the data being modelled is total number of cases the the logistic curve is a sensible start. They can't both be appropriate.
That's true. I should junk the Gaussian. And that one gave the latest date for us all contracting the virus too.
How can I even start to asses what Model 3 is supposed to be?
You can't! But on a number of already specified days in the future you'll be able to see how predictive or unpredictive it and the other two have been.
No, because you won’t. Predicting the early growth isn’t the big deal. It’s predicting the levelling off (or lack of it), when the case numbers are large (current numbers are, in the scene of things, tiny) that will matter. None of your dot joining tells us that.
We need to block anyone entering the country who have been to Italy or Iran.
Iran’s the total sh!t-show here, even more so than China. They have no way to contain the virus, and millions of people have been through there in the last couple of months.
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
50% of the UK catching does not seem 'lucky', given only 0.11% (yep, 1 in a 900) of the population of Hubei are confirmed as having caught it.
Well Wuhan would be a better population to use rather than Hubei, and implicit in your 0.11% is that everyone has been tested which of course is nonsense.
But I do agree with you that people predicting 50% in the UK at the end of 2021 even or the whole world sometime in May are way way off the mark. The spread of infections just does not work like that.
But those predictions are made by the global experts, who study this shit for a living
I'd like to think, like you, that they are lying, or mad, or locked in groupthink, but where is your evidence for this?
Not to go all parochial on you, but I'd be much more interested in what percentage of the European population the global experts think will be infected.
I see you're all doing really well in NOT TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS in my absence.
So I am not the only Vector of Fear.....
I’m really looking forward to your calm rational analysis if and when we have the first UK Covid-19 fatality on these shores.
I'll probably be the only one NOT panicking, as I got my panic in early, ie about four weeks ago, when I started telling you all that this was going to happen.
I have to say that you show admirable stamina in your capacity to panic, having managed to keep delivering a high pressing game for many weeks and with no signs of fatigue yet.
I see you're all doing really well in NOT TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS in my absence.
So I am not the only Vector of Fear.....
I’m really looking forward to your calm rational analysis if and when we have the first UK Covid-19 fatality on these shores.
I'll probably be the only one NOT panicking, as I got my panic in early, ie about four weeks ago, when I started telling you all that this was going to happen.
I have to say that you show admirable stamina in your capacity to panic, having managed to keep delivering a high pressing game for many weeks and with no signs of fatigue yet.
Are you saying his pandemic panic has become endemic?
I see you're all doing really well in NOT TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS in my absence.
So I am not the only Vector of Fear.....
I’m really looking forward to your calm rational analysis if and when we have the first UK Covid-19 fatality on these shores.
I'll probably be the only one NOT panicking, as I got my panic in early, ie about four weeks ago, when I started telling you all that this was going to happen.
I have to say that you show admirable stamina in your capacity to panic, having managed to keep delivering a high pressing game for many weeks and with no signs of fatigue yet.
Posting stats on PB doesn't really count as panic, tho, does it? Or you set a very low bar.
Panicking, to my mind, is running naked to the greengrocers while avidly singing the Marseillaise.
I'd more got in mind a homage to Lenny Bruce screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE".
I see you're all doing really well in NOT TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS in my absence.
So I am not the only Vector of Fear.....
I’m really looking forward to your calm rational analysis if and when we have the first UK Covid-19 fatality on these shores.
I'll probably be the only one NOT panicking, as I got my panic in early, ie about four weeks ago, when I started telling you all that this was going to happen.
I have to say that you show admirable stamina in your capacity to panic, having managed to keep delivering a high pressing game for many weeks and with no signs of fatigue yet.
Posting stats on PB doesn't really count as panic, tho, does it? Or you set a very low bar.
Panicking, to my mind, is running naked to the greengrocers while avidly singing the Marseillaise.
I do not think that word means what you think.
You seem to have confused 'panic' with 'psychiatric breakdown'.
I see you're all doing really well in NOT TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS in my absence.
So I am not the only Vector of Fear.....
I’m really looking forward to your calm rational analysis if and when we have the first UK Covid-19 fatality on these shores.
I'll probably be the only one NOT panicking, as I got my panic in early, ie about four weeks ago, when I started telling you all that this was going to happen.
I have to say that you show admirable stamina in your capacity to panic, having managed to keep delivering a high pressing game for many weeks and with no signs of fatigue yet.
Panicking, to my mind, is running naked to the greengrocers while avidly singing the Marseillaise.
As I've mentioned before, the web page design is quite spectacularly bad, a textbook example of what goes wrong when you let some geek get over-excited about interactive web pages. You have to hover the mouse over random and counter-intuitive bits of the page to actually find the data it's meant to be presenting, so for convenience I've summarised it here (central forecast percentage vote share and number of delegates):
If those forecasts are anything like right, Biden is doing better than I would have expected under the rules of the contest. I'm surprised he'd get that number of delegates, a respectable second behind Bernie .
Lord only knows why Klobuchar thinks it's worth persevering, and it looks like the end of the road for Bloomberg given how much advertising he's done here. Elizabeth Warren might well be able to keep going in the hope that something turns up.
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
50% of the UK catching does not seem 'lucky', given only 0.11% (yep, 1 in a 900) of the population of Hubei are confirmed as having caught it.
Well Wuhan would be a better population to use rather than Hubei, and implicit in your 0.11% is that everyone has been tested which of course is nonsense.
But I do agree with you that people predicting 50% in the UK at the end of 2021 even or the whole world sometime in May are way way off the mark. The spread of infections just does not work like that.
But those predictions are made by the global experts, who study this shit for a living
I'd like to think, like you, that they are lying, or mad, or locked in groupthink, but where is your evidence for this?
Not to go all parochial on you, but I'd be much more interested in what percentage of the European population the global experts think will be infected.
Why? Are Europeans so genetically different?? Italy says not. In fact Italy has a higher death rate than Korea, Japan, etc
The bias in Korea is towards Shinjeonchi (sp. ?) cult members at present I'd think, so not sure that represents a typical age distribution.
We need to block anyone entering the country who have been to Italy or Iran.
Iran’s the total sh!t-show here, even more so than China. They have no way to contain the virus, and millions of people have been through there in the last couple of months.
I think the Hajj will be postponed which hasn’t happened in over a Millennium, something Muslims won’t take as a sign or the Saudis ban Iranians from the Hajj which will do wonders for Saudi/Iranian relations.
I think we might see Iranians banned from the Umrah, which again will be great for Saudi/Iranian relations.
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
50% of the UK catching does not seem 'lucky', given only 0.11% (yep, 1 in a 900) of the population of Hubei are confirmed as having caught it.
Well Wuhan would be a better population to use rather than Hubei, and implicit in your 0.11% is that everyone has been tested which of course is nonsense.
But I do agree with you that people predicting 50% in the UK at the end of 2021 even or the whole world sometime in May are way way off the mark. The spread of infections just does not work like that.
But those predictions are made by the global experts, who study this shit for a living
I'd like to think, like you, that they are lying, or mad, or locked in groupthink, but where is your evidence for this?
Not to go all parochial on you, but I'd be much more interested in what percentage of the European population the global experts think will be infected.
Why? Are Europeans so genetically different?? Italy says not. In fact Italy has a higher death rate than Korea, Japan, etc
No, I mean given that Europe isn't the epicentre of the outbreak and is full of fancy public healthcare systems and advanced bureaucracies. That out to be worth something in reducing the percentage infected.
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
50% of the UK catching does not seem 'lucky', given only 0.11% (yep, 1 in a 900) of the population of Hubei are confirmed as having caught it.
Well Wuhan would be a better population to use rather than Hubei, and implicit in your 0.11% is that everyone has been tested which of course is nonsense.
But I do agree with you that people predicting 50% in the UK at the end of 2021 even or the whole world sometime in May are way way off the mark. The spread of infections just does not work like that.
But those predictions are made by the global experts, who study this shit for a living
I'd like to think, like you, that they are lying, or mad, or locked in groupthink, but where is your evidence for this?
Not to go all parochial on you, but I'd be much more interested in what percentage of the European population the global experts think will be infected.
Why? Are Europeans so genetically different?? Italy says not. In fact Italy has a higher death rate than Korea, Japan, etc
No, I mean given that Europe isn't the epicentre of the outbreak and is full of fancy public healthcare systems and advanced bureaucracies. That out to be worth something in reducing the percentage infected.
Indeed. One would reasonably expect very different percentages across different continents.
As it stands I would expect the UK to have one of the lowest rates in the world, while Africa could have a horrendous rate. Similar to HIV/AIDS which is under control [relatively] in this country but stil a pandemic in Africa.
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
50% of the UK catching does not seem 'lucky', given only 0.11% (yep, 1 in a 900) of the population of Hubei are confirmed as having caught it.
Well Wuhan would be a better population to use rather than Hubei, and implicit in your 0.11% is that everyone has been tested which of course is nonsense.
But I do agree with you that people predicting 50% in the UK at the end of 2021 even or the whole world sometime in May are way way off the mark. The spread of infections just does not work like that.
But those predictions are made by the global experts, who study this shit for a living
I'd like to think, like you, that they are lying, or mad, or locked in groupthink, but where is your evidence for this?
That misses out key phrases like 'up to', 'if the virus goes unchecked' etc which are present (albeit several paragraphs down) in the original news reports.
We need to block anyone entering the country who have been to Italy or Iran.
Iran’s the total sh!t-show here, even more so than China. They have no way to contain the virus, and millions of people have been through there in the last couple of months.
I think we might see Iranians banned from the Umrah, which again will be great for Saudi/Iranian relations.
All tourism has been suspended from: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Macua, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Somalia, South Korea, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.
I see you're all doing really well in NOT TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS in my absence.
So I am not the only Vector of Fear.....
I’m really looking forward to your calm rational analysis if and when we have the first UK Covid-19 fatality on these shores.
I'll probably be the only one NOT panicking, as I got my panic in early, ie about four weeks ago, when I started telling you all that this was going to happen.
I have to say that you show admirable stamina in your capacity to panic, having managed to keep delivering a high pressing game for many weeks and with no signs of fatigue yet.
Posting stats on PB doesn't really count as panic, tho, does it? Or you set a very low bar.
Panicking, to my mind, is running naked to the greengrocers while avidly singing the Marseillaise.
I do not think that word means what you think.
You seem to have confused 'panic' with 'psychiatric breakdown'.
My "psychiatric breakdown" involved me realising this would be THE global news story for the rest of the year, about a month before everyone else on this site.
This terrible breakdown continued when I successfully sold my shares before the crash; the severe mental illness then made me buy all the hand sanitisers in my neighbourhood before they sold out (which they have), and the psychosis worsened when I bought several weeks of food and water, before the *panic buying* which is now common across Europe.
I see you're all doing really well in NOT TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS in my absence.
So I am not the only Vector of Fear.....
I’m really looking forward to your calm rational analysis if and when we have the first UK Covid-19 fatality on these shores.
I'll probably be the only one NOT panicking, as I got my panic in early, ie about four weeks ago, when I started telling you all that this was going to happen.
I have to say that you show admirable stamina in your capacity to panic, having managed to keep delivering a high pressing game for many weeks and with no signs of fatigue yet.
Posting stats on PB doesn't really count as panic, tho, does it? Or you set a very low bar.
Panicking, to my mind, is running naked to the greengrocers while avidly singing the Marseillaise.
OK go on then post some stats then.
On a daily basis how many people are dying from COVID19? How does that compare to how many people are dying daily from influenza? How does that compare to how many people are dying daily from road traffic accidents?
I see you're all doing really well in NOT TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS in my absence.
So I am not the only Vector of Fear.....
I’m really looking forward to your calm rational analysis if and when we have the first UK Covid-19 fatality on these shores.
I'll probably be the only one NOT panicking, as I got my panic in early, ie about four weeks ago, when I started telling you all that this was going to happen.
I have to say that you show admirable stamina in your capacity to panic, having managed to keep delivering a high pressing game for many weeks and with no signs of fatigue yet.
Posting stats on PB doesn't really count as panic, tho, does it? Or you set a very low bar.
Panicking, to my mind, is running naked to the greengrocers while avidly singing the Marseillaise.
Have you run naked to the greengrocers while avidly singing the Marseillaise? I suspect you might have.
Serious question - how do we know what is really going on in Hubei / Wuhan. I don't see any reporting due to the fact China isn't allowing things to be reported.
Yes, that's true (tho I wonder whether Italy has an advance bureaucracy compared to East Asian nations).
Sadly, there are countervailing factors: we have more elderly, more obesity (esp in the UK), we are less able or willing to impose draconian quarantines, welding people into their homes and so on.
Maybe it's a wash. We'll get it about the same as Asia.
On the big up side....one difference is we know its coming. China, Korea and even Italy were caught unawares (well in China's case, trying to silence it). I am sure there is already increasing knowledge of what best practice is, rather than when it hit in China it is "no f##king clue", ignore it, oh shit, now lock everybody down.
I have just heard the official from New York talking about how they already know children are less likely to catch it than even normal flu.
Second up side, there are now two drugs in human clinical trials that will report in the next few weeks. They are already certificated, so if they are found to effective, production apparently can begin immediately (and it doesn't appear that technically they are that hard to produce).
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
50% of the UK catching does not seem 'lucky', given only 0.11% (yep, 1 in a 900) of the population of Hubei are confirmed as having caught it.
Well Wuhan would be a better population to use rather than Hubei, and implicit in your 0.11% is that everyone has been tested which of course is nonsense.
But I do agree with you that people predicting 50% in the UK at the end of 2021 even or the whole world sometime in May are way way off the mark. The spread of infections just does not work like that.
But those predictions are made by the global experts, who study this shit for a living
I'd like to think, like you, that they are lying, or mad, or locked in groupthink, but where is your evidence for this?
Not to go all parochial on you, but I'd be much more interested in what percentage of the European population the global experts think will be infected.
Why? Are Europeans so genetically different?? Italy says not. In fact Italy has a higher death rate than Korea, Japan, etc
No, I mean given that Europe isn't the epicentre of the outbreak and is full of fancy public healthcare systems and advanced bureaucracies. That out to be worth something in reducing the percentage infected.
Indeed. One would reasonably expect very different percentages across different continents.
As it stands I would expect the UK to have one of the lowest rates in the world, while Africa could have a horrendous rate. Similar to HIV/AIDS which is under control [relatively] in this country but stil a pandemic in Africa.
You think the UK will have one of the lowest infection rates in the world? Interesting.
Given that this is a highly contagious virus with no immunity, and no means of stopping it outside Chinese style lockdowns (and we still don't know if they work medium term) my guess it that we get infected just as much as everyone else.
Better handwashing Better hygiene Better tracking and tracing Better self-isolation Better awareness Better communication Better home life Better nourished
We need to block anyone entering the country who have been to Italy or Iran.
Iran’s the total sh!t-show here, even more so than China. They have no way to contain the virus, and millions of people have been through there in the last couple of months.
I think we might see Iranians banned from the Umrah, which again will be great for Saudi/Iranian relations.
We need to block anyone entering the country who have been to Italy or Iran.
Iran’s the total sh!t-show here, even more so than China. They have no way to contain the virus, and millions of people have been through there in the last couple of months.
I think we might see Iranians banned from the Umrah, which again will be great for Saudi/Iranian relations.
All tourism has been suspended from: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Macua, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Somalia, South Korea, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.
Gather Thailand's lifted restrictions on travel from Malaysia and Vietnam. Which my son, who travels from Thailand to all sorts of places, is very relieved about.
We need to block anyone entering the country who have been to Italy or Iran.
Iran’s the total sh!t-show here, even more so than China. They have no way to contain the virus, and millions of people have been through there in the last couple of months.
I think the Hajj will be postponed which hasn’t happened in over a Millennium, something Muslims won’t take as a sign or the Saudis ban Iranians from the Hajj which will do wonders for Saudi/Iranian relations.
I think we might see Iranians banned from the Umrah, which again will be great for Saudi/Iranian relations.
Middle East travel is about to be severely curtailed everywhere.
I see you're all doing really well in NOT TALKING ABOUT CORONAVIRUS in my absence.
So I am not the only Vector of Fear.....
I’m really looking forward to your calm rational analysis if and when we have the first UK Covid-19 fatality on these shores.
I'll probably be the only one NOT panicking, as I got my panic in early, ie about four weeks ago, when I started telling you all that this was going to happen.
I have to say that you show admirable stamina in your capacity to panic, having managed to keep delivering a high pressing game for many weeks and with no signs of fatigue yet.
Posting stats on PB doesn't really count as panic, tho, does it? Or you set a very low bar.
Panicking, to my mind, is running naked to the greengrocers while avidly singing the Marseillaise.
I do not think that word means what you think.
You seem to have confused 'panic' with 'psychiatric breakdown'.
My "psychiatric breakdown" involved me realising this would be THE global news story for the rest of the year, about a month before everyone else on this site.
This terrible breakdown continued when I successfully sold my shares before the crash; the severe mental illness then made me buy all the hand sanitisers in my neighbourhood before they sold out (which they have), and the psychosis worsened when I bought several weeks of food and water, before the *panic buying* which is now common across Europe.
We need to block anyone entering the country who have been to Italy or Iran.
Iran’s the total sh!t-show here, even more so than China. They have no way to contain the virus, and millions of people have been through there in the last couple of months.
I think the Hajj will be postponed which hasn’t happened in over a Millennium, something Muslims won’t take as a sign or the Saudis ban Iranians from the Hajj which will do wonders for Saudi/Iranian relations.
I think we might see Iranians banned from the Umrah, which again will be great for Saudi/Iranian relations.
Middle East travel is about to be severely curtailed everywhere.
Greetings from Coronavirus Overreaction Central (aka London).
Various offices have apparently now shut down completely due to actual or potential outbreaks. Several firms are cancelling all external meetings, and/or converting to teleconferences where possible. We are going ahead, but asking participants to confirm they haven't travelled to an at-risk area.
Some firms still taking no precautions at all. There are some weird social dances going on where meetings take place at one of these, and we have to figure out if we can go or not.
In related news, the bit of the London insurance market that covers Contingency risks is starting to get really worried about the Olympics.
In unrelated news, I'm really disappointed that Scott_P hasn't come back as Scott_NP. There's a million dollars on the table if we figure this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
I would think one of the biggest breakthroughs somebody make beyond a vaccine / drugs to treat it, early easy detection even when people aren't showing any signs.
Then it would allow for screening at airports etc and help contain it.
Comments
Say we get lucky and 50% of people catch it (rather than the 70 or 80 that seems possible).
66 million in uk.
33 million catch it.
4% is 1,320,000.
If that is over 12 months, then ≈ 25K a week needing hospital.
For goodness sake.
“This is an opportunity to do something that goes well beyond Galileo,” said Stuart Martin, chief executive of the Satellite Applications Catapult and a member of the UK Space Council. “If we do this it will give us an immediate export opportunity and we would be adding to the systems already there.”
And this is telling us what, exactly?
That the numbers are getting larger each day we can see for ourselves.
All the doctors advice is washing your hands is the best way to avoid coronavirus (other than staying at home)
Big move to Cheltenham being on
I can criticise this in so many ways, but here's just one. The gaussian curve being fitted increases and decreases. The logistic curve increases to an asymptote. If the data being modelled is the number of new cases then the gaussian is a sensible start, it can drop back to zero. If the data being modelled is total number of cases the the logistic curve is a sensible start. They can't both be appropriate.
How can I even start to asses what Model 3 is supposed to be?
The Duchess of Cornwall will not assume the title of queen when Prince Charles ascends to the throne, Clarence House insisted last night.
There has been no change in the decision taken at the time of her marriage in 2005 that Camilla, 72, will become princess consort when her husband becomes king, a spokeswoman for the couple said. The decision was made to appease continuing public resentment surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
The Daily Star claimed yesterday that Prince Charles wants his wife to take the title of queen consort. Supporters have hoped that Camilla would take the traditional title amid her growing significance at the heart of the family as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex step back from their royal duties...
... The official royal website explaining the coronation ceremony states: “Unless decided otherwise, a queen consort is crowned with the King, in a similar but simpler ceremony.”
Experts at University College London’s constitutional unit say that under common law the spouse of a king automatically becomes queen.
They warned that if Camilla adopts the title it could prompt a renewal of challenges to the validity of her wedding under civil law, as some opponents claim a member of the royal family can only marry in a religious service in the Church of England.
The unit added: “Prince Charles will no doubt have regard to public opinion at the time of his accession, in deciding whether Camilla should become queen; and he may also want to seek the advice of the government of the day.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/royals-deny-camilla-will-be-queen-consort-vbdww7blg
I didn’t become a primogeniture geek without reason, this could be my moment.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/02/mike-bloomberg-secret-weaknesses-118505
“I don’t know who we’re going to be able to elect,” another woman lamented. “But anybody’s better than Trump.” She pointed plaintively at her patio furniture. “I’d vote for that chair,” she said. Maybe that would mean Bloomberg. Or maybe it … wouldn’t?...
(This is not true, but I think it would be very effective. The unintended consequences would, of course, be quite horrendous.)
But I do agree with you that people predicting 50% in the UK at the end of 2021 even or the whole world sometime in May are way way off the mark. The spread of infections just does not work like that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-01/china-s-push-to-jump-start-economy-revives-worries-of-fake-data
Modelling the future using an initially steep rise (in percentage terms) it just bonkers.
Clearly any sane country would be prioritizing trade with the EU but sanity left a long time ago .
https://twitter.com/mssocietyuk/status/1233400298112245760?s=21
14:07
One quirk of Pete Buttigieg dropping out of the race to be the Democratic nomination at the weekend is that now Joe Biden, incredibly, is the youngest man seeking to be the Democrats’ next nominee.
When One Woman’s Lie About Adultery Got Out Of Hand.
You seem to have confused 'panic' with 'psychiatric breakdown'.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/california/
As I've mentioned before, the web page design is quite spectacularly bad, a textbook example of what goes wrong when you let some geek get over-excited about interactive web pages. You have to hover the mouse over random and counter-intuitive bits of the page to actually find the data it's meant to be presenting, so for convenience I've summarised it here (central forecast percentage vote share and number of delegates):
Sanders 36%, 186 delegates
Biden 25%, 125 delegates
Warren 17%, 61 delegates
Bloomberg 15%, 42 delegates
Klobuchar 5%, 1 delegate
If those forecasts are anything like right, Biden is doing better than I would have expected under the rules of the contest. I'm surprised he'd get that number of delegates, a respectable second behind Bernie .
Lord only knows why Klobuchar thinks it's worth persevering, and it looks like the end of the road for Bloomberg given how much advertising he's done here. Elizabeth Warren might well be able to keep going in the hope that something turns up.
I think we might see Iranians banned from the Umrah, which again will be great for Saudi/Iranian relations.
The Hajj is at the end of July/start of August, we’ll be fine in that heat.
As it stands I would expect the UK to have one of the lowest rates in the world, while Africa could have a horrendous rate. Similar to HIV/AIDS which is under control [relatively] in this country but stil a pandemic in Africa.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-arabia-suspends-umrah-pilgrimage-temporarily-preparing-coronavirus
All tourism has been suspended from: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Macua, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Somalia, South Korea, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-arabia-coronavirus-umrah-ban-tourism-what-we-know
Why are there so few cases in Hubei (pop 59m, capital Wuhan)?
According to the WHO just 47 in every million in Hubei have succumbed, three months into the epidemic.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200301-sitrep-41-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=6768306d_2
On a daily basis how many people are dying from COVID19?
How does that compare to how many people are dying daily from influenza?
How does that compare to how many people are dying daily from road traffic accidents?
What stats do you have to share?
I have just heard the official from New York talking about how they already know children are less likely to catch it than even normal flu.
Second up side, there are now two drugs in human clinical trials that will report in the next few weeks. They are already certificated, so if they are found to effective, production apparently can begin immediately (and it doesn't appear that technically they are that hard to produce).
Better hygiene
Better tracking and tracing
Better self-isolation
Better awareness
Better communication
Better home life
Better nourished
Than most of the world.
I preformed the Umrah back in 2002. Stop giggling in the background. It was hectic.
I only went because my parents went and I didn’t want to spend a fortnight worry about them as my Mum had mobility issues and my father had diabetes.
I absolutely didn’t text my then girlfriend every night after performing all the daily rituals.
My mum said during that Umrah that she was really happy that she had raised such a good Muslim. 👀
Emirates Airline is offering staff voluntary unpaid leave.
https://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/emirates-group-offers-staff-voluntary-leave-as-coronavirus-outbreak-dents-air-travel-demand-1.986533
Better healthcare
Than most of the world.
Various offices have apparently now shut down completely due to actual or potential outbreaks. Several firms are cancelling all external meetings, and/or converting to teleconferences where possible. We are going ahead, but asking participants to confirm they haven't travelled to an at-risk area.
Some firms still taking no precautions at all. There are some weird social dances going on where meetings take place at one of these, and we have to figure out if we can go or not.
In related news, the bit of the London insurance market that covers Contingency risks is starting to get really worried about the Olympics.
In unrelated news, I'm really disappointed that Scott_P hasn't come back as Scott_NP. There's a million dollars on the table if we figure this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
Then it would allow for screening at airports etc and help contain it.