At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
A better analogy for your final paragraph would be that you're a poster who goes to the Grand National, grabs a megaphone and then drowns out all conversation amongst all other spectators on the grandstand by shouting about how the bizarre radioactive tornado will wipe out all horses for all time and how we'd be best burning all our wallets and just throwing ourselves in front of them now so we can get it over with.
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Given your respective ages he's at much lower risk than you are.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
Italy is seriously close to matching China in number of dead today. What on earth is going on?
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Yes but not as cold or damp as here. And our heating/ventilation isn't great. 4x the death rate? I can't help wondering how many of those deaths would have been classified in this country.
A quick check on Google says it is colder in Milan over the winter than it is in London, it is only when you hot spring it gets warmer. And consistently more humidity.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
Italy is seriously close to matching China in number of dead today. What on earth is going on?
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Also north Italy - the Veneto and Lombardy - is notoriously dank and humid in winter. And this virus likes that.
Nice story - surely no evidence though?
Let's hope it doesn't like the warm.
No, there is some tentative evidence, from a German study I lined days ago.
Sadly, some experts think the sun won't necessarily save us:
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
A better analogy for your final paragraph would be that you're a poster who goes to the Grand National, grabs a megaphone and then drowns out all conversation amongst all other spectators on the grandstand by shouting about how the bizarre radioactive tornado will wipe out all horses for all time and how we'd be best burning all our wallets and just throwing ourselves in front of them now so we can get it over with.
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Not sure the virus cares whether it kills those with normalcy bias or the rest.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that these kinds of virus are more likely to evolve/mutate to a state where they don't kill the host.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Not sure the virus cares whether it kills those with normalcy bias or the rest.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that these kinds of virus are more likely to evolve/mutate to a state where they don't kill the host.
Ah, okay, thank you.
Ratters - really interesting post below. Thank you for that.
The origin is certainle norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmentndous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
I think it'll be bad.
It's not sure though tha
Who knows.
Glad you broached this, not me!
If coronavirus kills off a shagload of old people and severely reduces property prices etc etc it may well be a good thing..... in the very long term.
Also good for the environment, pangolins, and crowding in Venice.
Seems unfair that you should cut off my thoughts given the tricky terrain!
"It's not sure though tha" makes me seem like a blithering idiot. I can do that with no help whatsoever from you thanks.
Apols!
But your point is good.
My wife is very much of the Gaia persuasion. And I discern some sense in what she says. This is the planet readjusting. Giving humanity a lesson, and making sure we stop f*cking around with pollution, animal welfare, plastics, and so on.
It's a good perspective to use, mentally. This is the cold sharp shock. This is the Earth saying: Wise Up or you ALL die.
If there is any truth in this Gaia needs to pull a finger out. So far in about 3 months 3,000 people have died. In the meantime the human population increases by about 250,000 a day: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Aside from the fact it's absolutely barking it's also a tidy example of confirmation bias.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
Italy is seriously close to matching China in number of dead today. What on earth is going on?
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Also north Italy - the Veneto and Lombardy - is notoriously dank and humid in winter. And this virus likes that.
Nice story - surely no evidence though?
Let's hope it doesn't like the warm.
No, there is some tentative evidence, from a German study I lined days ago.
Sadly, some experts think the sun won't necessarily save us:
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
I'm bullish about the UK, we're doing a lot of random testing.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Not sure the virus cares whether it kills those with normalcy bias or the rest.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
Answer: nothing. But I am not sure a virus gives it a lot of thought.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Not sure the virus cares whether it kills those with normalcy bias or the rest.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that these kinds of virus are more likely to evolve/mutate to a state where they don't kill the host.
Isn't that natural selection? If it's too deadly the host dies before transmitting it.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Not sure the virus cares whether it kills those with normalcy bias or the rest.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
Well, nothing. Mostly it's a consequence of taking things a bit too far with provoking the symptoms that enable it to spread. Could be a metaphor for Johnson's career.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
Italy is seriously close to matching China in number of dead today. What on earth is going on?
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Also north Italy - the Veneto and Lombardy - is notoriously dank and humid in winter. And this virus likes that.
Nice story - surely no evidence though?
Let's hope it doesn't like the warm.
No, there is some tentative evidence, from a German study I lined days ago.
Sadly, some experts think the sun won't necessarily save us:
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Isn't that like a bear promising never to sh*t in the wood again?
Its exactly what we've done in this country. Foreigners who don't get free access to the NHS are all entitled to free treatment and testing for coronavirus.
And which makes perfect sense. I don't want to give a tourist free access to cataract surgery, but I do want to make sure he's not spreading Coronavirus.
9/109. The case/death ratio in the US is now the worst in the world.
And Trump might still win? Jeez, he should be hanging off a lamp post.
Surely that is because even ill people are being turned away for a test if they aren’t ill enough?
That case that hit the news today - person pitches up with temperature of 100, denied test because the qualifying threshold is 100.4. Now turns out they have the virus.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Also north Italy - the Veneto and Lombardy - is notoriously dank and humid in winter. And this virus likes that.
Nice story - surely no evidence though?
Let's hope it doesn't like the warm.
No, there is some tentative evidence, from a German study I lined days ago.
Sadly, some experts think the sun won't necessarily save us:
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
There's no evidence it's rampant in the UK.
I don't believe for a moment it is. If it was our wide ranging testing would be picking up random cases. Every case today caught it abroad. Every one. So far, we are keeping this in check.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
Italy is seriously close to matching China in number of dead today. What on earth is going on?
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Also north Italy - the Veneto and Lombardy - is notoriously dank and humid in winter. And this virus likes that.
Nice story - surely no evidence though?
Let's hope it doesn't like the warm.
No, there is some tentative evidence, from a German study I lined days ago.
Sadly, some experts think the sun won't necessarily save us:
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
It will be very interesting to see where the numbers shake out once we have good, comprehensive data from serology of entire populations. Alas, we very rarely get that.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
Italy is seriously close to matching China in number of dead today. What on earth is going on?
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Also north Italy - the Veneto and Lombardy - is notoriously dank and humid in winter. And this virus likes that.
Nice story - surely no evidence though?
Let's hope it doesn't like the warm.
No, there is some tentative evidence, from a German study I lined days ago.
Sadly, some experts think the sun won't necessarily save us:
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
Looking at this outbreak from a maths background, two concepts spring to mind: 1) exponential growth, which had been well discussed; and 2) catastrophe theory, which has been less so.
Catastrophe theory is essentially the study of what happens in non-linear systems where a small change causes a sudden very large change (think a landslide), where it is often highly unpredictable in advance what the breaking point will be.
The relevance here is the impact on healthcare systems and society. This 'may' only be 10x worse than normal flu in isolation, but that places no limit on what the impact will be in certain countries when they reach breaking point. Some countries (hopefully the UK from our initial response) may only see a bad flu season plus slowing economic growth, but others (see Iran...) won't be so lucky.
Exponential growth is very likely to be far more scary than any chaotic process.
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Also north Italy - the Veneto and Lombardy - is notoriously dank and humid in winter. And this virus likes that.
Nice story - surely no evidence though?
Let's hope it doesn't like the warm.
No, there is some tentative evidence, from a German study I lined days ago.
Sadly, some experts think the sun won't necessarily save us:
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
I'm bullish about the UK, we're doing a lot of random testing.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
Are we really doing any random testing? I'd assumed that was a luxury we can't really afford and only those with relevant symptoms were being tested.
Plus with current positive rates being so low*, what what would be the point? Chances of getting a positive from random testing must be near zero.
(*"As of 3 March, a total of 13,911 people have been tested in the UK, of which 13,860 were confirmed negative. 51 were confirmed as positive.")
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in aise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Not sure the virus cares whether it kills those with normalcy bias or the rest.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that these kinds of virus are more likely to evolve/mutate to a state where they don't kill the host.
Isn't that natural selection? If it's too deadly the host dies before transmitting it.
Equally if not more pertinently, viruses that only make us slightly unwell encourage us to go out and about and share it with all our workmates and friends. Viruses that make us seriously ill keep us in bed away from doing too much harm.
For about £25 on Amazon, enough ingredients to make a couple of litres, and delivery for the weekend.
It is an enveloped RNA virus. Isn't soap all your need? A lot less than £25.
Soap is best, but alcohol hand rubs are good when on the move. Indeed our infection Prevention team favour them for general use except on invisibly contaminated hands.
Interestingly today when I arrived at my daughter's nursery to pick her up there was a new addition of an alcohol santiser dispenser at the front door of the nursery asking people to sanitise their hands before they come in to prevent the spread of germs which wasn't there this morning or before.
A good addition and not crazy given the age group the nursery is looking after, you don't want a viral outbreak with babies without good immunity and toddlers present. But it made me wonder why the dispenser was never there before today.
So far as we can tell the kids are not really at risk but that does not mean that they couldn't carry it and infect their families. Inter-familial infection was by far the most common in China. We have had these dispensers in Hospitals for some time now, ever since HAIs became a serious issue. It is surprising that the practice in places other than hospitals has not been reviewed.
Indeed this particular virus seems to not target kids and is especially targeting the elderly but many viruses DO target kids who lack an immune system, which is why looking back the sanitiser should likely have always been there.
From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Also north Italy - the Veneto and Lombardy - is notoriously dank and humid in winter. And this virus likes that.
Nice story - surely no evidence though?
Let's hope it doesn't like the warm.
No, there is some tentative evidence, from a German study I lined days ago.
Sadly, some experts think the sun won't necessarily save us:
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
There's no evidence it's rampant in the UK.
I don't believe for a moment it is. If it was our wide ranging testing would be picking up random cases. Every case today caught it abroad. Every one. So far, we are keeping this in check.
Yes, so far so good, but it is really a matter of time before community spread occurs.
Maps on the news every day of people Over There, becoming Infected, and coming Over Here should push the mindset of the electorate in one direction or the other.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
Italy is seriously close to matching China in number of dead today. What on earth is going on?
Italy is very vulnerable to flu outbreaks. 17,000 Italians die per annum from the flu (vs 4000 typically in the UK).
Weird. Is it a classification thing amongst doctors or something? I would have thought that their climate ought to have made them less vulnerable than ours.
Italy is pretty cold and damp in winter, and little central heating.
Yes but not as cold or damp as here. And our heating/ventilation isn't great. 4x the death rate? I can't help wondering how many of those deaths would have been classified in this country.
A quick check on Google says it is colder in Milan over the winter than it is in London, it is only when you hot spring it gets warmer. And consistently more humidity.
Bet its colder in Glasgow though and certainly damper. The fact remains that they live longer than us on average so their living conditions are not harming them. The prevalence of recorded flu deaths must be down to something else.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Car based analogies are the only legal analogies allowed on the Internet.
9/109. The case/death ratio in the US is now the worst in the world.
And Trump might still win? Jeez, he should be hanging off a lamp post.
Surely that is because even ill people are being turned away for a test if they aren’t ill enough?
That case that hit the news today - person pitches up with temperature of 100, denied test because the qualifying threshold is 100.4. Now turns out they have the virus.
It's really shocking. To call it third world is insulting. To the third world.
That's not denial. I think the western world is teetering on the edge of a precipice. In fact, to paraphrase Soren Kierkegaard, we are already 'out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water.'
We're screwed and life will not be the same again. In decades, centuries, to come people will look back to the Great 2020 Plague (or more likely the Great 2019-2023 Plague) in hushed tones.
This will wipe out vast numbers. The inevitability is clear.
So just for a moment I'm going to savour my Friends
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the burno!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
Fuck off.
Seriously: fuck off.
I first posted my concerns about Coronavirus on 22nd January (check my twitter feed) when @eadric was just a wink in an international novelist's eye. I ordered emergency supplies for 2-3 weeks before you or anyone else were bleating about it on here, including sanitisers, goggles, masks, gloves and medical supplies. My assumption is that most of us will get it and I have factored in self-isolation and supply chain disruption.
I have done it soberly, rationally and calculatedly. Just like I do with my betting. And I bet I thought about it weeks before you.
What I haven't done is been a total fucking bore about it on here night and day because I'm an absolute drama queen who thinks there's no difference between keeping calm and being ignorant, and so the only sign of being informed is to lose your shit about it every 42 minutes.
But, you know this. You're just a follower who struggles with independent thought and who's very easily influenced by others.
And so, we feel a bit sorry for you - and we ignore you.
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
I'm bullish about the UK, we're doing a lot of random testing.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
Are we really doing any random testing? I'd assumed that was a luxury we can't really afford and only those with relevant symptoms were being tested.
Plus with current positive rates being so low*, what what would be the point? Chances of getting a positive from random testing must be near zero.
(*"As of 3 March, a total of 13,911 people have been tested in the UK, of which 13,860 were confirmed negative. 51 were confirmed as positive.")
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Not sure the virus cares whether it kills those with normalcy bias or the rest.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
The ones that kill their hosts are still at the design stage.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Not sure the virus cares whether it kills those with normalcy bias or the rest.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
The ones that kill their hosts are still at the design stage.
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
There's no evidence it's rampant in the UK.
I don't believe for a moment it is. If it was our wide ranging testing would be picking up random cases. Every case today caught it abroad. Every one. So far, we are keeping this in check.
Yes, so far so good, but it is really a matter of time before community spread occurs.
Oh I agree, but the more time the better, the flatter the curve, the less stress on hospitals, the possibility of a vaccine. We are doing the right thing.
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
I'm bullish about the UK, we're doing a lot of random testing.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
Are we really doing any random testing? I'd assumed that was a luxury we can't really afford and only those with relevant symptoms were being tested.
Plus with current positive rates being so low*, what what would be the point? Chances of getting a positive from random testing must be near zero.
(*"As of 3 March, a total of 13,911 people have been tested in the UK, of which 13,860 were confirmed negative. 51 were confirmed as positive.")
Looking at this outbreak from a maths background, two concepts spring to mind: 1) exponential growth, which had been well discussed; and 2) catastrophe theory, which has been less so.
Catastrophe theory is essentially the study of what happens in non-linear systems where a small change causes a sudden very large change (think a landslide), where it is often highly unpredictable in advance what the breaking point will be.
The relevance here is the impact on healthcare systems and society. This 'may' only be 10x worse than normal flu in isolation, but that places no limit on what the impact will be in certain countries when they reach breaking point. Some countries (hopefully the UK from our initial response) may only see a bad flu season plus slowing economic growth, but others (see Iran...) won't be so lucky.
On 1. Sigmoid aka logistic growth ist the usual pattern for disease counts, which in the "take off" stage is indistinguishable from exponential growth, which is where we are now. Wuhan could well be in the linear stage in the middle, before the tailing off.
On 2. Your right. And for those who don't know, a catastrophe in this sense does not have to be a disaster, but where an overhanging cliff edge in the mathematical functon is reached and there is suddenly a drop to another smooth part of the function. If a mathematical catastrophe point is reached in the spread of this virus, it would be a human catastrophe as well.
This type of problem is modelled in the applied maths and physics fields where the inputs can be accurately controlled and the occurrence of a catastrophic event easily measured. Such models are rarely fitted in data analysis, although a higly non-linear model like a neural network might find such behaviour. The problem is you need shed loads of data to have a chance of modelling it, and we have at the moment very limited data.
TL;DR catastrophe theory models might be relevant, but aren't going to help us at this stage, due to lack of information.
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
I'm bullish about the UK, we're doing a lot of random testing.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
Are we really doing any random testing? I'd assumed that was a luxury we can't really afford and only those with relevant symptoms were being tested.
Plus with current positive rates being so low*, what what would be the point? Chances of getting a positive from random testing must be near zero.
(*"As of 3 March, a total of 13,911 people have been tested in the UK, of which 13,860 were confirmed negative. 51 were confirmed as positive.")
From a purely economic view, a 20% reduction in the number of over 75s would enhance the fiscal prospects of the next 50 years greatly. The massive pensions spend would fall, the amount spent on care would fall, less strain on the NHS etc. From a cold objective view this virus might not be all bad.
On the flip side, every death is someone losing their parent, many someones losing their grandparents etc. Add on top of that the massive psychological trauma that such an event would cause.
I disagree with almost everything Mr Meeks says, but his this is looking like a divider in history, a true before/after event like 9/11 is looking more likely by the day.
But I am enormously grateful that our Health minister and public health bodies look to be tackling it in a world leading manner, so far.
One consequence of your observation is that there will be an economic penalty suffered by countries that manage the virus well and minimise deaths compared to countries that suffer a higher death rate, if that difference is large. I know which I'd choose, but it's odd how that will also shape the years to come.
I disagree.
All countries will be forced to take measures eventually, and the later you take them, the greater the economic impact.
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
I'm bullish about the UK, we're doing a lot of random testing.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
Are we really doing any random testing? I'd assumed that was a luxury we can't really afford and only those with relevant symptoms were being tested.
Plus with current positive rates being so low*, what what would be the point? Chances of getting a positive from random testing must be near zero.
(*"As of 3 March, a total of 13,911 people have been tested in the UK, of which 13,860 were confirmed negative. 51 were confirmed as positive.")
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Why?
It’s like he designed a great car and then it spun off the road.
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
There's no evidence it's rampant in the UK.
I don't believe for a moment it is. If it was our wide ranging testing would be picking up random cases. Every case today caught it abroad. Every one. So far, we are keeping this in check.
Yes, so far so good, but it is really a matter of time before community spread occurs.
Oh I agree, but the more time the better, the flatter the curve, the less stress on hospitals, the possibility of a vaccine. We are doing the right thing.
Absolutely. The difference between the UK and the USA and the differences between Trump and Johnson have never been more stark.
> Tests for coronavirus are being increased to include people displaying flu-like symptoms at 100 GP surgeries and eight hospitals across the UK.
That seems about as random as possible. 108 locations in the UK where if someone walks in with flu symptoms they get tested. It's a damn sight more than almost every other country is doing.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Why?
It’s like he designed a great car and then it spun off the road.
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
I'm bullish about the UK, we're doing a lot of random testing.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
Are we
(*"As of 3 March, a total of 13,911 people have been tested in the UK, of which 13,860 were confirmed negative. 51 were confirmed as positive.")
The public is far more interested in coronavirus, the party has an 80 seat majority, there's no election due for over 4 years, she's the right person for the job.
> Tests for coronavirus are being increased to include people displaying flu-like symptoms at 100 GP surgeries and eight hospitals across the UK.
That seems about as random as possible. 108 locations in the UK where if someone walks in with flu symptoms they get tested. It's a damn sight more than almost every other country is doing.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate,
If you made the you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Given your respective ages he's at much lower risk than you are.
Yes, he is. I wish him well.
And as he is (I think) the father of young children, I understand his yearning for denial and the intense normalcy bias.
I have daughters in their early teens. I have very close relatives who will probably die of this if it hits, as now expected, due to underlying conditions. I would love to wish this away. But I cannot. The maths is the maths.
You can avoid the possibilities, or accept them. We all have a choice. But pretending this issue must not infect debate on the Democratic primaries is just mad bollocks. This plague is going to dominate politics for the foreseeable future.
There's nothing I've ever said on this subject that could in the slightest way be interpreted as denial or "normalcy bias", which is now just a phrase you trot out at anyone who criticises you.
You know this. But you just won't leave it alone because attention.
So I will leave it there and deny you the oxygen for your ravings you so clearly crave.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
If you made the slightest link between the democratic primaries (and remember tonight is the biggest bunch of them in this presidential cycle for four years - hence "Super Tuesday") and the betting opportunities then I might be more forgiving.
But you don't. You just tediously wank out apocalyptical posts 24/7.
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Normalcy bias.
Sad but he will come round.
I'm very nearly done with them. Let them f*cking die. Frankly.
Not sure the virus cares whether it kills those with normalcy bias or the rest.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
The ones that kill their hosts are still at the design stage.
Ah, okay, thank you. It's HIV which made me curious on this level. But then the timespan from infection to death via AIDS is long, very long, by the standards of coronavirus.
Right, Joey beckons.
I'm sorry you seem so cross, Mr Casino. It's just the most important news event of my lifetime and yours. Your irritation with those of us discussing it is somewhat out of tune.
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
I'm bullish about the UK, we're doing a lot of random testing.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
Are we really doing any random testing? I'd assumed that was a luxury we can't really afford and only those with relevant symptoms were being tested.
Plus with current positive rates being so low*, what what would be the point? Chances of getting a positive from random testing must be near zero.
(*"As of 3 March, a total of 13,911 people have been tested in the UK, of which 13,860 were confirmed negative. 51 were confirmed as positive.")
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Why?
It’s like he designed a great car and then it spun off the road.
The public is far more interested in coronavirus, the party has an 80 seat majority, there's no election due for over 4 years, she's the right person for the job.
She will ride this out comfortably.
An alleged bully is the right person for the job???
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
There's no evidence it's rampant in the UK.
I don't believe for a moment it is. If it was our wide ranging testing would be picking up random cases. Every case today caught it abroad. Every one. So far, we are keeping this in check.
Yes, so far so good, but it is really a matter of time before community spread occurs.
Oh I agree, but the more time the better, the flatter the curve, the less stress on hospitals, the possibility of a vaccine. We are doing the right thing.
Absolutely. The difference between the UK and the USA and the differences between Trump and Johnson have never been more stark.
As astute observers have been saying for a while, Trump is a populist playing politics, Johnson is a politician playing populism.
> Tests for coronavirus are being increased to include people displaying flu-like symptoms at 100 GP surgeries and eight hospitals across the UK.
That seems about as random as possible. 108 locations in the UK where if someone walks in with flu symptoms they get tested. It's a damn sight more than almost every other country is doing.
Mmmm doesn't seem random to me. It's just testing people with symptoms.
That's not denial. I think the western world is teetering on the edge of a precipice. In fact, to paraphrase Soren Kierkegaard, we are already 'out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water.'
We're screwed and life will not be the same again. In decades, centuries, to come people will look back to the Great 2020 Plague (or more likely the Great 2019-2023 Plague) in hushed tones.
This will wipe out vast numbers. The inevitability is clear.
So just for a moment I'm going to savour my Friends
It's because of the easily influenced like you that people like SeanT are bundled off to the rear in wartime.
> Tests for coronavirus are being increased to include people displaying flu-like symptoms at 100 GP surgeries and eight hospitals across the UK.
That seems about as random as possible. 108 locations in the UK where if someone walks in with flu symptoms they get tested. It's a damn sight more than almost every other country is doing.
Mmmm doesn't seem random to me. It's just testing people with symptoms.
Well yes, testing 500/65,000,000 every day wouldn't get you anything unless the virus was endemic. Testing people with flu symptoms is the best way of discerning what may be flu, what may be Coronavirus.
The public is far more interested in coronavirus, the party has an 80 seat majority, there's no election due for over 4 years, she's the right person for the job.
She will ride this out comfortably.
An alleged bully is the right person for the job???
Someone whose objectives are the same as the government's objectives and is prepared to rock the boat to get there is the right person for the job right now.
Who would be Nick Watt or others tonight? Trying to put some umph into the Patel story when we are faced by a massive, generation-level health crisis.
Politicians have to multi-task. Journalists too. Just because this virus is the most serious challenge now does not mean that other stories do not matter, if not now, later. If we are to handle this virus well, we will depend on civil servants doing their job well. So how they are treated by a Minister, whose department will have a leading role in dealing with it, does matter, even if it is rightly not at the forefront of most people’s concerns.
Next week we may get hundreds of thousands of migrants (or millions) breaching Europe’s border from Turkey. Or the collapse of the Iranian regime with God knows what consequences for the Middle East and the rest of us. Or the Israeli PM decides to seize even more territory while the world is not looking. Who knows?
This issue is not the only serious matter affecting us right now. How we deal with it, its health and other consequences, its interaction with and effect on other issues (Iran, the US election) etc are hugely important. But the rest of life and events are not going to stop happening.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Why?
I posted an analogy about a fire in a house, and before long, people had extended the analogy all the way back to Thomas Edison, Nikolai Tesla, and the invention of alternating current.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
Indeed not - he belongs in a cage.
LOL, TimB. How's Atlanta?
Warmer. We have our first 2 cases of Covid 19 in town. But not to worry Trump is in town visiting CDC on Friday after he visits Nashville to see the result of the tornadoes that killed 25 today. Hope you're doing well up there.
NB: this Harvard guy is one of the early warners I've been watching for a month. He sensed the danger and sounded the klaxon, for a long time he was ignored.
Marc is certainly well plugged into all the national preparedness and policy circles in DC on biological issues. He was prominent in the gain-of-function debate here.
He predicts 40-70% contagion rate around the world.
Which means millions dead in just America, and the UK. Pretty damn sobering.
Yep. Latest WHO mortality is up today to 3.4% which tallies with the current figure in Italy.
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
I'm bullish about the UK, we're doing a lot of random testing.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
Are we really doing any random testing? I'd assumed that was a luxury we can't really afford and only those with relevant symptoms were being tested.
Plus with current positive rates being so low*, what what would be the point? Chances of getting a positive from random testing must be near zero.
(*"As of 3 March, a total of 13,911 people have been tested in the UK, of which 13,860 were confirmed negative. 51 were confirmed as positive.")
I'm not sure but I think the "random testing" was specifically to see if there was any sign of it being in the general population at the time it started spreading out of China. The figure of 13.9 thousand does not seem much higer than the number at the start of last week, so the "under the radar" testing has more or less ended and now the focus is on checking the freinds and aquaintances of those who test positive.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Why?
It’s like he designed a great car and then it spun off the road.
It hit black ice or something....
Exactly. Rcs designed the car to be fast and luxurious but didn’t consider safety or road handling. When he took it out on the road it ran into unexpected conditions and the rest is history.
If we're going all anthropomorphic, what does the virus get out of killing its host? It's something which has always baffled me.
There is no telos in evolution. Chance mutations occur. In viruses, some of these chance mutations cause the virus to jump host species and be pathogenic to the new host species. Natural selection then does its work.
If a new pathogen is too pathogenic, it does not tend to do well. Generally, there is an inverse relationship between how well a pathogen transmits between hosts and its pathogenicity, but not always. And the tendency over time is for a new pathogen to evolve to a more attenuated form.
So there are two stages - the original mutation, then natural selection.
The ideal niche for a virus, then, is for natural selection to drive it to a place where it transmits between hosts very well and the host produces massive numbers of copies of it, without causing the host enough inconvenience for the host to avoid contracting the virus - ie either not to be pathogenic at all, or only to be very mildly so (eg to cause sneezes if that is how transmission works).
That's not denial. I think the western world is teetering on the edge of a precipice. In fact, to paraphrase Soren Kierkegaard, we are already 'out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water.'
We're screwed and life will not be the same again. In decades, centuries, to come people will look back to the Great 2020 Plague (or more likely the Great 2019-2023 Plague) in hushed tones.
This will wipe out vast numbers. The inevitability is clear.
So just for a moment I'm going to savour my Friends
It's because of the easily influenced like you that people like SeanT are bundled off to the rear in wartime.
Actually, my friend, as Foxy demonstrated the other day with a link on this site, I was referring to the trouble we were in about coronavirus before Eadric. And I warned a good friend of mine to get out of the stock market 2 months ago for the same reason. I then waivered with the slow pick up in China, but now know for sure that Sean T was correct about this.
It shows you in poor light that you don't just admit it.
On the subject of herding, it's a little like suggesting that because I believe the science of climate change is by now irrefutable that this, in some way, makes me less of a leader and more of a sheep. That doesn't really say a lot for your intellectual faculties.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
I am sympathetic to your argument, as you know, but facts are facts. This POTUS election is taking place in a context of a full-on plague, which might, very conceivably, kill millions of Americans and hospitalise millions of others.
These are not fanciful figures, they are reasonable scenarios.
So whenever you start talking about the POTUS elex you will be talking about the virus within about 3 minutes, not least coz it could actually kill half the candidates. Cf Iran's parliament
A fanatic: one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Mate, there is no other subject.
Please explain to me how you could debate the betting opportunities around the Dem primaries WITHOUT referencing a massive global menace which presages intense global death.
Answer, you can't.
It would be like discussing the Grand National betting opportunities without mentioning the fact the race will take place during a bizarre radioactive tornado, which attacks certain kinds of horses.
Then, when everyone groans, and then one horse subsequently falls over and needs to be put down, you shout even louder: "ah, you see - I told you I was right! It was just a worst case scenario!!"
I see you are still in "this is just the flu" stage. Good luck.
Absolute bollocks.
Good luck,
No offence, but I don't need your "luck".
This may hurt you to hear this but none of the actions I've taken over this virus have been predicated on a single thing you've said on this website. I've done my own research (weeks before you popped up) and I'm most impressed by professionals, experts and those able to conduct sober analysis of data and information even in highly charged situations, without letting their emotions get the better of them.
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
The only drips are the melted snowflakes leaving here department.
Describing victims of alleged bullying as snowflakes...
Wow. Ok.
"victims".
You could have put the word "alleged" or "supposed" or even "apparent" before "victims".
There have been a grand total of ZERO formal complaints levied via the formal complaint mechanism against Patel. So yeah, I'm going with no victims here. If you're a victim and there's a complaint mechanism the first step is to put in a complaint. 🙄
Watching CNN. If you've got a red number next to Joe Biden it's time to panic
Comrade....for the last year the general consensus on this site by the great and good is that Biden's next position is one in the corner, with a blanket and pads....
So, yes...there must be more than just me with quite a lot of red on Biden..especially if we've been taking any notice of these threads.....
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
it is actually the fault of George Westinghouse for developing the high voltage AC electricity system in the 1880's, allowing the development of national electricit grids. Without this the electric blanket would never have been invented, and the poor residents at No.5 would never have died.
Clearly, you're on the right track with your root cause analysis. But have you gone back quite far enough? Is Mr Faraday blameless?
I hereby solemnly promise to never use an analogy on PB ever again.
Why?
I posted an analogy about a fire in a house, and before long, people had extended the analogy all the way back to Thomas Edison, Nikolai Tesla, and the invention of alternating current.
I tried to move the discussion on to an analogy about your analogy. Is this better?
An important component of bullying to my mind is gross disparity in power between the bully and the bullied.
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
I think there Patel is the victim of misogynistic racism. People don't like a Conservative female ethnic minority so pick on her in a way they wouldn't with a white man.
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
That's not denial. I think the western world is teetering on the edge of a precipice. In fact, to paraphrase Soren Kierkegaard, we are already 'out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water.'
We're screwed and life will not be the same again. In decades, centuries, to come people will look back to the Great 2020 Plague (or more likely the Great 2019-2023 Plague) in hushed tones.
This will wipe out vast numbers. The inevitability is clear.
So just for a moment I'm going to savour my Friends
It's because of the easily influenced like you that people like SeanT are bundled off to the rear in wartime.
Actually, my friend, as Foxy demonstrated the other day with a link on this site, I was referring to the trouble we were in about coronavirus before Eadric. And I warned a good friend of mine to get out of the stock market 2 months ago for the same reason. I then waivered with the slow pick up in China, but now know for sure that Sean T was correct about this.
It shows you in poor light that you don't just admit it.
On the subject of herding, it's a little like suggesting that because I believe the science of climate change is by now irrefutable that this, in some way, makes me less of a leader and more of a sheep. That doesn't really say a lot for your intellectual faculties.
Comments
And we know this is now spreading in the US with its minimal testing regime. It's probably rampant in the UK without any lockdown measures.
It's really grim. And obviously far more important than how many delegates Sleepy Joe gets over Bernie Sanders.
Ratters - really interesting post below. Thank you for that.
Whereas the US... based on 5 days to double, and 20 cases escaping catching end Jan, they're over the 10k mark.
No majority: 3 in 5
Biden: 3 in 10
Sanders: 1 in 12
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/super-tuesday/
And Trump might still win? Jeez, he should be hanging off a lamp post.
That case that hit the news today - person pitches up with temperature of 100, denied test because the qualifying threshold is 100.4. Now turns out they have the virus.
There are no resonance effects here.
Plus with current positive rates being so low*, what what would be the point? Chances of getting a positive from random testing must be near zero.
(*"As of 3 March, a total of 13,911 people have been tested in the UK, of which 13,860 were confirmed negative. 51 were confirmed as positive.")
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
That's not denial. I think the western world is teetering on the edge of a precipice. In fact, to paraphrase Soren Kierkegaard, we are already 'out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water.'
We're screwed and life will not be the same again. In decades, centuries, to come people will look back to the Great 2020 Plague (or more likely the Great 2019-2023 Plague) in hushed tones.
This will wipe out vast numbers. The inevitability is clear.
So just for a moment I'm going to savour my Friends
Seriously: fuck off.
I first posted my concerns about Coronavirus on 22nd January (check my twitter feed) when @eadric was just a wink in an international novelist's eye. I ordered emergency supplies for 2-3 weeks before you or anyone else were bleating about it on here, including sanitisers, goggles, masks, gloves and medical supplies. My assumption is that most of us will get it and I have factored in self-isolation and supply chain disruption.
I have done it soberly, rationally and calculatedly. Just like I do with my betting. And I bet I thought about it weeks before you.
What I haven't done is been a total fucking bore about it on here night and day because I'm an absolute drama queen who thinks there's no difference between keeping calm and being ignorant, and so the only sign of being informed is to lose your shit about it every 42 minutes.
But, you know this. You're just a follower who struggles with independent thought and who's very easily influenced by others.
And so, we feel a bit sorry for you - and we ignore you.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1234969156467994626
Good point. Maybe you're right, I just don't know. The test numbers do seem impressively high.
Can anyone confirm categorically if random coronavirus testing is taking place in the UK?
On 2. Your right. And for those who don't know, a catastrophe in this sense does not have to be a disaster, but where an overhanging cliff edge in the mathematical functon is reached and there is suddenly a drop to another smooth part of the function. If a mathematical catastrophe point is reached in the spread of this virus, it would be a human catastrophe as well.
This type of problem is modelled in the applied maths and physics fields where the inputs can be accurately controlled and the occurrence of a catastrophic event easily measured. Such models are rarely fitted in data analysis, although a higly non-linear model like a neural network might find such behaviour. The problem is you need shed loads of data to have a chance of modelling it, and we have at the moment very limited data.
TL;DR catastrophe theory models might be relevant, but aren't going to help us at this stage, due to lack of information.
The closest is that Italian football match on Sunday - 1,200 spectators tested, all negative,
All countries will be forced to take measures eventually, and the later you take them, the greater the economic impact.
Drip... drip... drip...
> Tests for coronavirus are being increased to include people displaying flu-like symptoms at 100 GP surgeries and eight hospitals across the UK.
That seems about as random as possible. 108 locations in the UK where if someone walks in with flu symptoms they get tested. It's a damn sight more than almost every other country is doing.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-britain/uk-conducts-random-coronavirus-testing-as-part-of-early-warning-plan-idUSKCN20K1G1
The public is far more interested in coronavirus, the party has an 80 seat majority, there's no election due for over 4 years, she's the right person for the job.
She will ride this out comfortably.
You know this. But you just won't leave it alone because attention.
So I will leave it there and deny you the oxygen for your ravings you so clearly crave.
Right, Joey beckons.
I'm sorry you seem so cross, Mr Casino. It's just the most important news event of my lifetime and yours. Your irritation with those of us discussing it is somewhat out of tune.
A shining light of progress and democracy- lambasted by luddites, puritans, communists and breakfast haters.
Meanwhile - has Biden won yet ?
The only drips are the melted snowflakes leaving here department.
Well yes, testing 500/65,000,000 every day wouldn't get you anything unless the virus was endemic. Testing people with flu symptoms is the best way of discerning what may be flu, what may be Coronavirus.
Wow. Ok.
Next week we may get hundreds of thousands of migrants (or millions) breaching Europe’s border from Turkey. Or the collapse of the Iranian regime with God knows what consequences for the Middle East and the rest of us. Or the Israeli PM decides to seize even more territory while the world is not looking. Who knows?
This issue is not the only serious matter affecting us right now. How we deal with it, its health and other consequences, its interaction with and effect on other issues (Iran, the US election) etc are hugely important. But the rest of life and events are not going to stop happening.
If a new pathogen is too pathogenic, it does not tend to do well. Generally, there is an inverse relationship between how well a pathogen transmits between hosts and its pathogenicity, but not always. And the tendency over time is for a new pathogen to evolve to a more attenuated form.
So there are two stages - the original mutation, then natural selection.
The ideal niche for a virus, then, is for natural selection to drive it to a place where it transmits between hosts very well and the host produces massive numbers of copies of it, without causing the host enough inconvenience for the host to avoid contracting the virus - ie either not to be pathogenic at all, or only to be very mildly so (eg to cause sneezes if that is how transmission works).
It shows you in poor light that you don't just admit it.
On the subject of herding, it's a little like suggesting that because I believe the science of climate change is by now irrefutable that this, in some way, makes me less of a leader and more of a sheep. That doesn't really say a lot for your intellectual faculties.
This may hurt you to hear this but none of the actions I've taken over this virus have been predicated on a single thing you've said on this website. I've done my own research (weeks before you popped up) and I'm most impressed by professionals, experts and those able to conduct sober analysis of data and information even in highly charged situations, without letting their emotions get the better of them.
You think you're helping but actually your presence on this site is supremely selfish as you're using it to exorcise your innermost fears and help develop and roadtest a juicy future plot narrative.
I think it's atrocious behaviour.
Log off, and have a think about that.
You could have put the word "alleged" or "supposed" or even "apparent" before "victims".
There have been a grand total of ZERO formal complaints levied via the formal complaint mechanism against Patel. So yeah, I'm going with no victims here. If you're a victim and there's a complaint mechanism the first step is to put in a complaint. 🙄
So, yes...there must be more than just me with quite a lot of red on Biden..especially if we've been taking any notice of these threads.....
I would therefore not describe an altercation between Priti Patel and Sir Philip Rutnam as bullying.
It may well be that they can't get on, or that they shouted at each other, or that they loathe each other. They are both very powerful. There is no huge power imbalance.
I think for Sir Philip to use the word bullying in this context is completely wrong.
The word bullying is going to end up with no meaning, if everytime two powerful people disagree, they say they are being bullied.
(The same may not apply to Patel's interaction with more junior civil servants).
There we go, now Patel is a victim. I mean no formal complaint has been levied by Patel and I just made that up [sort of] but apparently we don't need formal complaints for there to be victims that people should lose their jobs over.
I'm an idiot because I think you're an idiot.
Absolutely.