politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t fear the reaper. How Covid-19 will change us
Breaking News: Italy is weighing a plan to restrict the movement of a fourth of its population in the most extreme effort to contain the coronavirus outside China https://t.co/ya71OUTBXA
OT Hilarious piece on Bloomberg campaign, which seems to have consisted from top to bottom of layers of people conspiring to grift money out of Bloomberg:
Multiple people described elaborate schemes to undermine the campaign and help their favored candidates. As one staffer explained, “I would actively canvass for Bernie when I was supposed to be canvassing for Mike. I know of at least one team of ‘volunteers’ that was entirely fabricated by the organizers who had to hit their goals. It was easy enough to fudge the data to make it look like real people put in real volunteer work, when in reality Mike was getting nothing out of it.”
So far I’ve had one flight cancelled- rebooked onto another one 2 hours later and scored a cheap upgrade (half usual price) to Premium Economy on BA....so it’s an Ill wind....
So far I’ve had one flight cancelled- rebooked onto another one 2 hours later and scored a cheap upgrade (half usual price) to Premium Economy on BA....so it’s an Ill wind....
Well it has to be said that if you're brave, or foolhardy, there are serious bargains around.
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
I thought this was a really astute point: 'Fernand Braudel hypothesised that crises such as the South Sea Bubble and the Wall Street Crash marked the passing of the baton from one dominant economy to another.'
The US has been exposed by this and is heading for an absolute disaster. Those of us who know the country, by which I mean those of us not immunised inside our 4x4's: the real America, the one where down and outs are now the dominant population in city centres, where the social and healthcare structures have disintegrated, the one where a few are immensely successful at the expense of everyone else, those of us who know this America are now watching in horror as the edifice comes crashing down a thousand times more viscerally than the twin towers.
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
Fine, but what will you call the next novel coronavirus that comes along in a few years time? “Coronavirus 2”? “Coronavirus returns”? “Coronavirus with a Vengeance”?
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
Fine, but what will you call the next novel coronavirus that comes along in a few years time? “Coronavirus 2”? “Coronavirus returns”? “Coronavirus with a Vengeance”?
Dunno and don't care. There will only ever be one coronavirus now.
It'll be interesting to see what happens now in Thailand. March-April are the hottest months in Bangkok so we await with bated so see if the bastard virus loses its grip.
The most obvious change to make would be to reconsider the structure of the pharma industry.
Leaving aside the enormous profit margins, the incentives are wrong and we need a better system which gets us more research on the biggest health problems in a proactive fashion.
The most obvious change to make would be to reconsider the structure of the pharma industry.
Leaving aside the enormous profit margins, the incentives are wrong and we need a better system which gets us more research on the biggest health problems in a proactive fashion.
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
Fine, but what will you call the next novel coronavirus that comes along in a few years time? “Coronavirus 2”? “Coronavirus returns”? “Coronavirus with a Vengeance”?
Dunno and don't care. There will only ever be one coronavirus now.
A good header, but missing out the important aspect of the mental health impact on shellfish workers, who might pray for deliverance. I expect there will be a blue oyster cult.
It'll be interesting to see what happens now in Thailand. March-April are the hottest months in Bangkok so we await with bated so see if the bastard virus loses its grip.
I've grandchildren at an International school in Bangkok, and I've just had a skim through the latest newsletter. Activities within the school community...... children and parents seem to be going on as normal, but inter-school activities, such as sports are postponed or cancelled.
OT Hilarious piece on Bloomberg campaign, which seems to have consisted from top to bottom of layers of people conspiring to grift money out of Bloomberg:
Multiple people described elaborate schemes to undermine the campaign and help their favored candidates. As one staffer explained, “I would actively canvass for Bernie when I was supposed to be canvassing for Mike. I know of at least one team of ‘volunteers’ that was entirely fabricated by the organizers who had to hit their goals. It was easy enough to fudge the data to make it look like real people put in real volunteer work, when in reality Mike was getting nothing out of it.”
I saw a camera report by a BBC reporter recently, where he called at various Bloomberg campaign centres, or to towns where they were supposed to be campaigning, only to find empty offices and no-one there; no one at all. The rooms were all empty, with a few bits of campaign material lying about. Which fits the suggestion that they were mock.
Just back from a week in sunny Spain, there was no sign of anything wrong, no masks no notices, plane was full, hotel busy, just people going about their business. Home just long enough to re-pack for skiing in Switzerland I hope to be OK. I have cancelled all other holidays, and cancelled a new car purchase. Lucky I chose Switzerland for skiing and not Italy. It will be the economic problems that will hurt if everyone else does like me and stops spending and travelling. Areas that rely on tourism, like Spanish Costas, will have a torrid time.
The most obvious change to make would be to reconsider the structure of the pharma industry.
Leaving aside the enormous profit margins, the incentives are wrong and we need a better system which gets us more research on the biggest health problems in a proactive fashion.
The US has at least twenty separate teams working on it. Doubtless all with their eyes on the financial prize and not sharing data or co-operating at all?
Just back from a week in sunny Spain, there was no sign of anything wrong, no masks no notices, plane was full, hotel busy, just people going about their business. Home just long enough to re-pack for skiing in Switzerland I hope to be OK. I have cancelled all other holidays, and cancelled a new car purchase. Lucky I chose Switzerland for skiing and not Italy. It will be the economic problems that will hurt if everyone else does like me and stops spending and travelling. Areas that rely on tourism, like Spanish Costas, will have a torrid time.
My brother has just cancelled his Italian ski trip, planned for this week. I am still holding onto my May trip.
The most obvious change to make would be to reconsider the structure of the pharma industry.
Leaving aside the enormous profit margins, the incentives are wrong and we need a better system which gets us more research on the biggest health problems in a proactive fashion.
The US has at least twenty separate teams working on it. Doubtless all with their eyes on the financial prize and not sharing data or co-operating at all?
Probably. Also, there was research done with SARS that was abandoned once those outbreaks were contained. Commercially there wasn't much point developing a vaccine then but probably would have been pretty handy to have carried on...
Apropos the previous thread my wife’s sister’s friend sent her husband out to stock up. He came back with a tin of corned beef and some Mr Kiplings cakes. Unfortunately, by the time his wife came home, he’d eaten both.
I checked the John Hopkins daily cases dataset yesterday and looked at the time series for Italy. Plotting log 10 (cases) against time, I could see a slight downward curvature in the graph.
Using a well known spreadsheet I fitted a quadratic curve to this plot and there appeared to be a good fit. It is of course risky to extrapolate this model into the future, but the spreadsheet provided the equation of the curve. A quadratic has a maximum/minumum and I calculated that this would happen around Thursday 12th March at a value of 3.842, equivalent to 6950 new cases per day. Let's see how that projection turns out. I cannot yet see any corresponding downward curvature in the UK figures for log (cases).
It is possible to write virtually any story about how Covid will play out. Alastair has some very good points. But whilst working from home is definitely one output I think it is on the trivial end of the scale.
In my view the implications are going to be comparable to a world war. In 1914 or 1939 could anyone predict what the world would like after a war? With difficulty because it was so dependent on how the war played out. This is similar. However, my gut feeling is that the world will remain within the 21st century but opinions and politics will shift back in time.
Internationally I'd expect a closing down of borders. Globalisation will be in serious retreat. Expect nationalism and extremism to grow. Take Italy as an example. What will this do to their politics? I would be surprised if the winners will be centrists. Difficulties ensue with the EU about borders, policy, currency etc.
On a more mundane level and something I noted three weeks ago. UK universities are currently working on a business model which includes a large number of Chinese students. In every University city high rise luxury towers are being thrown up, paid for by private finance to house these students. Bad news for those investors and for universities I'm afraid.
So that's some of the bad. But remember, WW2 brought us the NHS and the welfare state more broadly. Perhaps we can get some positive social improvements too. The US might catch up with a welfare state, after 70 years, for example.
I checked the John Hopkins daily cases dataset yesterday and looked at the time series for Italy. Plotting log 10 (cases) against time, I could see a slight downward curvature in the graph.
Using a well known spreadsheet I fitted a quadratic curve to this plot and there appeared to be a good fit. It is of course risky to extrapolate this model into the future, but the spreadsheet provided the equation of the curve. A quadratic has a maximum/minumum and I calculated that this would happen around Thursday 12th March at a value of 3.842, equivalent to 6950 new cases per day. Let's see how that projection turns out. I cannot yet see any corresponding downward curvature in the UK figures for log (cases).
Has anyone started doing similar work on deaths? Which would possibly begin to make sense if the numbers are large enough. And of course deaths (once you get to large enough numbers) will be more reliable indicators as they are less susceptible to variations in testing regimes (although still susceptible to variations in how deaths are reported)
On topic whilst I have little doubt that this is going to be bad with enormous strain on the Health Service in particular I also think that it will be relatively short term. By the Autumn things may well be back to something like normal. I agree that remote working will get something of a boost but I am a lot less persuaded that there will be anything like such fundamental changes.
In theory I can do a lot of my work remotely. I have a large quantity of good legal resources a available online, most of my instructions come by email and nearly all of my product is sent back the same way. I also do what amounts to piece work so my productivity and how long I choose to spend on PB is my concern, not an employer’s. And yet going to Edinburgh makes me more productive even allowing for a lot of travelling time. It is more sociable. I get to discuss my work with pals who do the same in kind. There is a qualitative difference between a consultation in person and one remotely. Even in pretty optimal circumstances I use the working at home option maybe one day a week.
I checked the John Hopkins daily cases dataset yesterday and looked at the time series for Italy. Plotting log 10 (cases) against time, I could see a slight downward curvature in the graph.
Using a well known spreadsheet I fitted a quadratic curve to this plot and there appeared to be a good fit. It is of course risky to extrapolate this model into the future, but the spreadsheet provided the equation of the curve. A quadratic has a maximum/minumum and I calculated that this would happen around Thursday 12th March at a value of 3.842, equivalent to 6950 new cases per day. Let's see how that projection turns out. I cannot yet see any corresponding downward curvature in the UK figures for log (cases).
Has anyone started doing similar work on deaths? Which would possibly begin to make sense if the numbers are large enough. And of course deaths (once you get to large enough numbers) will be more reliable indicators as they are less susceptible to variations in testing regimes (although still susceptible to variations in how deaths are reported)
There is so much uncertainty at the moment that modelling will give such a wide spread of results. But pick a big number less than a million and you will have an estimate within the 95% confidence interval/credible range.
Apropos the previous thread my wife’s sister’s friend sent her husband out to stock up. He came back with a tin of corned beef and some Mr Kiplings cakes. Unfortunately, by the time his wife came home, he’d eaten both.
It is possible to write virtually any story about how Covid will play out. Alastair has some very good points. But whilst working from home is definitely one output I think it is on the trivial end of the scale.
In my view the implications are going to be comparable to a world war. In 1914 or 1939 could anyone predict what the world would like after a war? With difficulty because it was so dependent on how the war played out. This is similar. However, my gut feeling is that the world will remain within the 21st century but opinions and politics will shift back in time.
Internationally I'd expect a closing down of borders. Globalisation will be in serious retreat. Expect nationalism and extremism to grow. Take Italy as an example. What will this do to their politics? I would be surprised if the winners will be centrists. Difficulties ensue with the EU about borders, policy, currency etc.
On a more mundane level and something I noted three weeks ago. UK universities are currently working on a business model which includes a large number of Chinese students. In every University city high rise luxury towers are being thrown up, paid for by private finance to house these students. Bad news for those investors and for universities I'm afraid.
So that's some of the bad. But remember, WW2 brought us the NHS and the welfare state more broadly. Perhaps we can get some positive social improvements too. The US might catch up with a welfare state, after 70 years, for example.
I don't reckon it will change that much. Some travel and hospitality industries will go to the wall, and there may be some more home working this spring. There may also be some rethinking about NHS capacity issues, but by and large things will be all over by Christmas with a return to normal. There will be a quick bounce back, and many individual tragedies, but life goes on.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak. I am not buying food or big roll as I cannot work from home. I will shop normally.
I have prepared my home medicine cupboard, and am preparing my body for optimal health. Plenty of vitamins, and minerals, physical fitness, no alcohol, healthy eating. I have kitted out Fox jr the same. I reckon that I have about a 1% chance of not making Christmas because of COVID19, but as any gambler knows 1/100 is good odds.
Apropos the previous thread my wife’s sister’s friend sent her husband out to stock up. He came back with a tin of corned beef and some Mr Kiplings cakes. Unfortunately, by the time his wife came home, he’d eaten both.
Serious number of bloke points.....
You just know he’s going to be hearing about this for the next 20 years.
The most obvious change to make would be to reconsider the structure of the pharma industry.
Leaving aside the enormous profit margins, the incentives are wrong and we need a better system which gets us more research on the biggest health problems in a proactive fashion.
Indeed - but much easier to modify the incentives from the commissioning end. The huge disparity in drug prices between the US and here is not so much down to big pharma (though if course they take full advantage) but rather the utterly fucked up health system which is the purchaser. A similar consideration applies to both vaccines and antibiotics. No one will develop them if no one buys them (or gives rewards for developing them).
The structure of health service provisioning is the bigger - and more tractable - problem.
Never heard of this phrase before: Since the Wuhan lockdown began, there have been tensions between local government and the central organs of the state. There is a phrase in China for the way such tensions are manifested: when everyone denies all responsibility and tries to shift the blame back onto the blamer, they are busy ‘throwing woks’. ...
I checked the John Hopkins daily cases dataset yesterday and looked at the time series for Italy. Plotting log 10 (cases) against time, I could see a slight downward curvature in the graph.
Using a well known spreadsheet I fitted a quadratic curve to this plot and there appeared to be a good fit. It is of course risky to extrapolate this model into the future, but the spreadsheet provided the equation of the curve. A quadratic has a maximum/minumum and I calculated that this would happen around Thursday 12th March at a value of 3.842, equivalent to 6950 new cases per day. Let's see how that projection turns out. I cannot yet see any corresponding downward curvature in the UK figures for log (cases).
Has anyone started doing similar work on deaths? Which would possibly begin to make sense if the numbers are large enough. And of course deaths (once you get to large enough numbers) will be more reliable indicators as they are less susceptible to variations in testing regimes (although still susceptible to variations in how deaths are reported)
I just recalculated the plot using the daily new cases figures instead of the total number of cases (i.e. total cases (day n) - total cases (day n-1)). I now get the maximum on 25th March at 4800 cases per day, but the curvature of the plot is much less and if there was no curvature there would be no maximum. This is not intended to be a serious piece of analysis, but I have not seen this anywhere else. There are many hazards in building models in statistics, especially with extrapolating them far into the future based on samples with only a few data points.
There are two problems with using data from deaths. 1) There is much less data as most cases result in recovery. 2) There is a significant time lag of days or weeks between diagnosis and outcome in some cases, meaning that the data for confirmed cases is more up to date. The number of deaths has to be roughly proportional to the number of cases.
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
I thought this was a really astute point: 'Fernand Braudel hypothesised that crises such as the South Sea Bubble and the Wall Street Crash marked the passing of the baton from one dominant economy to another.'
The US has been exposed by this and is heading for an absolute disaster. Those of us who know the country, by which I mean those of us not immunised inside our 4x4's: the real America, the one where down and outs are now the dominant population in city centres, where the social and healthcare structures have disintegrated, the one where a few are immensely successful at the expense of everyone else, those of us who know this America are now watching in horror as the edifice comes crashing down a thousand times more viscerally than the twin towers.
Utter mince, now you are an American, verbal diarrhoea does not cover it.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
I checked the John Hopkins daily cases dataset yesterday and looked at the time series for Italy. Plotting log 10 (cases) against time, I could see a slight downward curvature in the graph.
Using a well known spreadsheet I fitted a quadratic curve to this plot and there appeared to be a good fit. It is of course risky to extrapolate this model into the future, but the spreadsheet provided the equation of the curve. A quadratic has a maximum/minumum and I calculated that this would happen around Thursday 12th March at a value of 3.842, equivalent to 6950 new cases per day. Let's see how that projection turns out. I cannot yet see any corresponding downward curvature in the UK figures for log (cases).
That supports my suspicion about this being relatively short term. Italy is maybe 3-4 weeks ahead of us suggesting a peak mid April and declining trends thereafter. The worst case exponential maths models won’t be close to being borne out but it will be bad enough. There may be a second or even third wave of course like with Spanish flu. Very bad but not cataclysmic is my current guess.
It is possible to write virtually any story about how Covid will play out. Alastair has some very good points. But whilst working from home is definitely one output I think it is on the trivial end of the scale.
In my view the implications are going to be comparable to a world war. In 1914 or 1939 could anyone predict what the world would like after a war? With difficulty because it was so dependent on how the war played out. This is similar. However, my gut feeling is that the world will remain within the 21st century but opinions and politics will shift back in time.
Internationally I'd expect a closing down of borders. Globalisation will be in serious retreat. Expect nationalism and extremism to grow. Take Italy as an example. What will this do to their politics? I would be surprised if the winners will be centrists. Difficulties ensue with the EU about borders, policy, currency etc.
On a more mundane level and something I noted three weeks ago. UK universities are currently working on a business model which includes a large number of Chinese students. In every University city high rise luxury towers are being thrown up, paid for by private finance to house these students. Bad news for those investors and for universities I'm afraid.
So that's some of the bad. But remember, WW2 brought us the NHS and the welfare state more broadly. Perhaps we can get some positive social improvements too. The US might catch up with a welfare state, after 70 years, for example.
I don't reckon it will change that much. Some travel and hospitality industries will go to the wall, and there may be some more home working this spring. There may also be some rethinking about NHS capacity issues, but by and large things will be all over by Christmas with a return to normal. There will be a quick bounce back, and many individual tragedies, but life goes on.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak. I am not buying food or big roll as I cannot work from home. I will shop normally.
I have prepared my home medicine cupboard, and am preparing my body for optimal health. Plenty of vitamins, and minerals, physical fitness, no alcohol, healthy eating. I have kitted out Fox jr the same. I reckon that I have about a 1% chance of not making Christmas because of COVID19, but as any gambler knows 1/100 is good odds.
I wish you all the best, Foxy. No alcohol is smart. I’m also trying to get more sleep.
In theory I can do a lot of my work remotely. I have a large quantity of good legal resources a available online, most of my instructions come by email and nearly all of my product is sent back the same way. I also do what amounts to piece work so my productivity and how long I choose to spend on PB is my concern, not an employer’s. And yet going to Edinburgh makes me more productive even allowing for a lot of travelling time. It is more sociable. I get to discuss my work with pals who do the same in kind. There is a qualitative difference between a consultation in person and one remotely. Even in pretty optimal circumstances I use the working at home option maybe one day a week.
I don't think that's exactly fundamental, I think it's to do with how everybody's communicating.
I have one client that's quite traditional (not tech) and although in theory I can do everything with them remotely, I find if I don't go in and talk to them I find people try to work around problems I could have solved for them, and often that results in them escalating so they're bigger problems when I finally find out about them. It's not so much the distance that hurts as the *perception* of distance.
But that dynamic changes if *everyone* is online, and also people adopt tools that work better. So for a lot of my other stuff the collaboration is international, everyone is remote and most people only meet face-to-face for conferences, and all the communication happens on offline channels like Discord. When that happens the perception of distance doesn't matter so much, so you much more of the little things are accessible and you don't miss out on as much.
This is really hard to phase in, because you need everybody to be using the remote tools, even for things that don't feel like they even absolutely need to be communicated. I can certainly see that covid19 could provide the kick to get a lot of organizations off the local maximum they've been stuck on.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
I checked the John Hopkins daily cases dataset yesterday and looked at the time series for Italy. Plotting log 10 (cases) against time, I could see a slight downward curvature in the graph.
Using a well known spreadsheet I fitted a quadratic curve to this plot and there appeared to be a good fit. It is of course risky to extrapolate this model into the future, but the spreadsheet provided the equation of the curve. A quadratic has a maximum/minumum and I calculated that this would happen around Thursday 12th March at a value of 3.842, equivalent to 6950 new cases per day. Let's see how that projection turns out. I cannot yet see any corresponding downward curvature in the UK figures for log (cases).
Has anyone started doing similar work on deaths? Which would possibly begin to make sense if the numbers are large enough. And of course deaths (once you get to large enough numbers) will be more reliable indicators as they are less susceptible to variations in testing regimes (although still susceptible to variations in how deaths are reported)
I just recalculated the plot using the daily new cases figures instead of the total number of cases (i.e. total cases (day n) - total cases (day n-1)). I now get the maximum on 25th March at 4800 cases per day, but the curvature of the plot is much less and if there was no curvature there would be no maximum. This is not intended to be a serious piece of analysis, but I have not seen this anywhere else. There are many hazards in building models in statistics, especially with extrapolating them far into the future based on samples with only a few data points.
There are two problems with using data from deaths. 1) There is much less data as most cases result in recovery. 2) There is a significant time lag of days or weeks between diagnosis and outcome in some cases, meaning that the data for confirmed cases is more up to date. The number of deaths has to be roughly proportional to the number of cases.
Are you related to foxy?
Isn’t the real issue that - if the doom mongers are right and we are heading for billions of infections within a matter of months - then the data points we have are from the tiny beginning end of the curve, and it simply isn’t possible, mathematically or otherwise, to project a dataset running from zero to a hundred thousand forward into the billions with any degree of accuracy.
Not least because, even if the worst case scenario, the curve will eventually be constrained by the number of uninfected people available and their accessibility, yet this constraint won’t bear on the data at all at the moment, when most of the world has tiny handfuls of cases only.
It'll be interesting to see what happens now in Thailand. March-April are the hottest months in Bangkok so we await with bated so see if the bastard virus loses its grip.
You having your annual visit there this year or have the wobblies forced you to give it a miss.
Never heard of this phrase before: Since the Wuhan lockdown began, there have been tensions between local government and the central organs of the state. There is a phrase in China for the way such tensions are manifested: when everyone denies all responsibility and tries to shift the blame back onto the blamer, they are busy ‘throwing woks’. ...
I am a huge admirer of China. I am not bothered at all by the US losing its world leader status to China whenever it happens. But. Whilst they still care what the rest of the world thinks, we need to get them to get rid of these disgusting markets. It is not acceptable. Threaten huge tariffs if they don't.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence?
You think they are intended as a subsidy? Or that they don't do what they are supposed to do? Given the Pharmaceutical industry is hugely profitable, what other purpose can research grants form, other than to incentivise research in potentially non-profitable and/or risky areas? Or that they are offered in the UK as a quid pro quo to maintaining reasonable prices in the NHS? (which would mean withholding them would presumably have the opposite effect to what Corbyn intended)
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
I thought this was a really astute point: 'Fernand Braudel hypothesised that crises such as the South Sea Bubble and the Wall Street Crash marked the passing of the baton from one dominant economy to another.'
The US has been exposed by this and is heading for an absolute disaster. Those of us who know the country, by which I mean those of us not immunised inside our 4x4's: the real America, the one where down and outs are now the dominant population in city centres, where the social and healthcare structures have disintegrated, the one where a few are immensely successful at the expense of everyone else, those of us who know this America are now watching in horror as the edifice comes crashing down a thousand times more viscerally than the twin towers.
Utter mince, now you are an American, verbal diarrhoea does not cover it.
It’s hysterical nonsense, best evidenced by this, evidence free, claim - “the real America, the one where down and outs are now the dominant population in city centres”.
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
I thought this was a really astute point: 'Fernand Braudel hypothesised that crises such as the South Sea Bubble and the Wall Street Crash marked the passing of the baton from one dominant economy to another.'
The US has been exposed by this and is heading for an absolute disaster. Those of us who know the country, by which I mean those of us not immunised inside our 4x4's: the real America, the one where down and outs are now the dominant population in city centres, where the social and healthcare structures have disintegrated, the one where a few are immensely successful at the expense of everyone else, those of us who know this America are now watching in horror as the edifice comes crashing down a thousand times more viscerally than the twin towers.
Writing crap like that, you should apply to become a speechwriter for Jeremy Corbyn....
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence?
You think they are intended as a subsidy? Or that they don't do what they are supposed to do? Given the Pharmaceutical industry is hugely profitable, what other purpose can research grants form, other than to incentivise research in potentially non-profitable and/or risky areas? Or that they are offered in the UK as a quid pro quo to maintaining reasonable prices in the NHS? (which would mean withholding them would presumably have the opposite effect to what Corbyn intended)
You've outlined the desired way the system works. I'm asking for any evidence you have that the research grant mechanism actually works in the desired way.
A very interesting article - overall more upsides than down. potentially very good for the physical environment.
But not necessarily for people’s mental environment. Still, unlike Susskind, this isn’t indifferently written and suffused with “look how clever I am”.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence?
You think they are intended as a subsidy? Or that they don't do what they are supposed to do? Given the Pharmaceutical industry is hugely profitable, what other purpose can research grants form, other than to incentivise research in potentially non-profitable and/or risky areas? Or that they are offered in the UK as a quid pro quo to maintaining reasonable prices in the NHS? (which would mean withholding them would presumably have the opposite effect to what Corbyn intended)
You've outlined the desired way the system works. I'm asking for any evidence you have that the research grant mechanism actually works in the desired way.
Why not do some of your own work ? We’re not a paid team of researchers for you to direct as you please.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence?
You think they are intended as a subsidy? Or that they don't do what they are supposed to do? Given the Pharmaceutical industry is hugely profitable, what other purpose can research grants form, other than to incentivise research in potentially non-profitable and/or risky areas? Or that they are offered in the UK as a quid pro quo to maintaining reasonable prices in the NHS? (which would mean withholding them would presumably have the opposite effect to what Corbyn intended)
You've outlined the desired way the system works. I'm asking for any evidence you have that the research grant mechanism actually works in the desired way.
Why not do some of your own work ? We’re not a paid team of researchers for you to direct as you please.
Indeed, but if someone makes a statement they can't support, it is going to lack credibility.
Never heard of this phrase before: Since the Wuhan lockdown began, there have been tensions between local government and the central organs of the state. There is a phrase in China for the way such tensions are manifested: when everyone denies all responsibility and tries to shift the blame back onto the blamer, they are busy ‘throwing woks’. ...
I am a huge admirer of China. I am not bothered at all by the US losing its world leader status to China whenever it happens. But. Whilst they still care what the rest of the world thinks, we need to get them to get rid of these disgusting markets. It is not acceptable. Threaten huge tariffs if they don't.
I think that living in Chinese society would be genuinely horrific, barely human. I find anyone admiring their vicious and inhuman control freakery really quite disturbing. An independent out of the box thinker like you would have almost no chance of survival. Be careful what you wish for.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence?
You think they are intended as a subsidy? Or that they don't do what they are supposed to do? Given the Pharmaceutical industry is hugely profitable, what other purpose can research grants form, other than to incentivise research in potentially non-profitable and/or risky areas? Or that they are offered in the UK as a quid pro quo to maintaining reasonable prices in the NHS? (which would mean withholding them would presumably have the opposite effect to what Corbyn intended)
You've outlined the desired way the system works. I'm asking for any evidence you have that the research grant mechanism actually works in the desired way.
Why not do some of your own work ? We’re not a paid team of researchers for you to direct as you please.
Indeed, but if someone makes a statement they can't support, it is going to lack credibility.
If something is supposed to work in a particular way, then I think those saying that it doesn’t are the ones who need to provide evidence.
Edit: for example I don’t think Corbyn is being controlled by the French, but I couldn’t provide you with any evidence for that statement. Does that mean we should assume he is?
It is possible to write virtually any story about how Covid will play out. Alastair has some very good points. But whilst working from home is definitely one output I think it is on the trivial end of the scale.
I don't reckon it will change that much. Some travel and hospitality industries will go to the wall, and there may be some more home working this spring. There may also be some rethinking about NHS capacity issues, but by and large things will be all over by Christmas with a return to normal. There will be a quick bounce back, and many individual tragedies, but life goes on.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak. I am not buying food or big roll as I cannot work from home. I will shop normally.
I have prepared my home medicine cupboard, and am preparing my body for optimal health. Plenty of vitamins, and minerals, physical fitness, no alcohol, healthy eating. I have kitted out Fox jr the same. I reckon that I have about a 1% chance of not making Christmas because of COVID19, but as any gambler knows 1/100 is good odds.
I wish you all the best, Foxy. No alcohol is smart. I’m also trying to get more sleep.
I don't think the peak will be simultaneous everywhere, and there may be an uptick in the autumn when control measures are relaxed, but nationally a peak in end April/early May is on the cards. How high that peak is depends in large part on how soon control measures get rolled out.
We reach the limit of hospital ICU capacity at about 100 prevalent cases per 100 000 population, that is an important threshold. We need to implement the lockdown control measures at a lower threshold than that, probably somewhere in the 25-50 per 100 000 range.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence?
You think they are intended as a subsidy? Or that they don't do what they are supposed to do? Given the Pharmaceutical industry is hugely profitable, what other purpose can research grants form, other than to incentivise research in potentially non-profitable and/or risky areas? Or that they are offered in the UK as a quid pro quo to maintaining reasonable prices in the NHS? (which would mean withholding them would presumably have the opposite effect to what Corbyn intended)
You've outlined the desired way the system works. I'm asking for any evidence you have that the research grant mechanism actually works in the desired way.
Why not do some of your own work ? We’re not a paid team of researchers for you to direct as you please.
Indeed, but if someone makes a statement they can't support, it is going to lack credibility.
If something is supposed to work in a particular way, then I think those saying that it doesn’t are the ones who need to provide evidence.
Edit: for example I don’t think Corbyn is being controlled by the French, but I couldn’t provide you with any evidence for that statement. Does that mean we should assume he is?
It feels as though i'm being asked to prove a negative. Anyway, if the system is not working as intended, then it should be scrapped, not doubled down upon as Corbyn's proposals would imply.
It is possible to write virtually any story about how Covid will play out. Alastair has some very good points. But whilst working from home is definitely one output I think it is on the trivial end of the scale.
I don't reckon it will change that much. Some travel and hospitality industries will go to the wall, and there may be some more home working this spring. There may also be some rethinking about NHS capacity issues, but by and large things will be all over by Christmas with a return to normal. There will be a quick bounce back, and many individual tragedies, but life goes on.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak. I am not buying food or big roll as I cannot work from home. I will shop normally.
I have prepared my home medicine cupboard, and am preparing my body for optimal health. Plenty of vitamins, and minerals, physical fitness, no alcohol, healthy eating. I have kitted out Fox jr the same. I reckon that I have about a 1% chance of not making Christmas because of COVID19, but as any gambler knows 1/100 is good odds.
I wish you all the best, Foxy. No alcohol is smart. I’m also trying to get more sleep.
I don't think the peak will be simultaneous everywhere, and there may be an uptick in the autumn when control measures are relaxed, but nationally a peak in end April/early May is on the cards. How high that peak is depends in large part on how soon control measures get rolled out.
We reach the limit of hospital ICU capacity at about 100 prevalent cases per 100 000 population, that is an important threshold. We need to implement the lockdown control measures at a lower threshold than that, probably somewhere in the 25-50 per 100 000 range.
All projections are also utterly reliant on no mutation happening...
Re: Ferrari. I've just read that the "lock down" includes a clause for "Exceptional professional circumstances" aka as characterised as "the Ferrari exemption".
Never heard of this phrase before: Since the Wuhan lockdown began, there have been tensions between local government and the central organs of the state. There is a phrase in China for the way such tensions are manifested: when everyone denies all responsibility and tries to shift the blame back onto the blamer, they are busy ‘throwing woks’. ...
I am a huge admirer of China. I am not bothered at all by the US losing its world leader status to China whenever it happens. But. Whilst they still care what the rest of the world thinks, we need to get them to get rid of these disgusting markets. It is not acceptable. Threaten huge tariffs if they don't.
I would be as happy as anyone to protect wildlife from Chinese gourmet, but the problem is not exclusive to them.
COVID19 emerged in Wuhan, probably via the live food market, but ebola made the jump from monkeys in africa. This is thought to be from the bushmeat trade. HIV probably the same way in the rainforests of the Congo in the Seventies. Before we get too prissy about these things, we created BSE by our own eating habits on these very shores.
It is almost as if meat eating is the root of the problem.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence?
You think they are intended as a subsidy? Or that they don't do what they are supposed to do? Given the Pharmaceutical industry is hugely profitable, what other purpose can research grants form, other than to incentivise research in potentially non-profitable and/or risky areas? Or that they are offered in the UK as a quid pro quo to maintaining reasonable prices in the NHS? (which would mean withholding them would presumably have the opposite effect to what Corbyn intended)
You've outlined the desired way the system works. I'm asking for any evidence you have that the research grant mechanism actually works in the desired way.
Why not do some of your own work ? We’re not a paid team of researchers for you to direct as you please.
It is possible to write virtually any story about how Covid will play out. Alastair has some very good points. But whilst working from home is definitely one output I think it is on the trivial end of the scale.
I don't reckon it will change that much. Some travel and hospitality industries will go to the wall, and there may be some more home working this spring. There may also be some rethinking about NHS capacity issues, but by and large things will be all over by Christmas with a return to normal. There will be a quick bounce back, and many individual tragedies, but life goes on.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak. I am not buying food or big roll as I cannot work from home. I will shop normally.
I have prepared my home medicine cupboard, and am preparing my body for optimal health. Plenty of vitamins, and minerals, physical fitness, no alcohol, healthy eating. I have kitted out Fox jr the same. I reckon that I have about a 1% chance of not making Christmas because of COVID19, but as any gambler knows 1/100 is good odds.
I wish you all the best, Foxy. No alcohol is smart. I’m also trying to get more sleep.
I don't think the peak will be simultaneous everywhere, and there may be an uptick in the autumn when control measures are relaxed, but nationally a peak in end April/early May is on the cards. How high that peak is depends in large part on how soon control measures get rolled out.
We reach the limit of hospital ICU capacity at about 100 prevalent cases per 100 000 population, that is an important threshold. We need to implement the lockdown control measures at a lower threshold than that, probably somewhere in the 25-50 per 100 000 range.
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
I thought this was a really astute point: 'Fernand Braudel hypothesised that crises such as the South Sea Bubble and the Wall Street Crash marked the passing of the baton from one dominant economy to another.'
The US has been exposed by this and is heading for an absolute disaster. Those of us who know the country, by which I mean those of us not immunised inside our 4x4's: the real America, the one where down and outs are now the dominant population in city centres, where the social and healthcare structures have disintegrated, the one where a few are immensely successful at the expense of everyone else, those of us who know this America are now watching in horror as the edifice comes crashing down a thousand times more viscerally than the twin towers.
Writing crap like that, you should apply to become a speechwriter for Jeremy Corbyn....
Never heard of this phrase before: Since the Wuhan lockdown began, there have been tensions between local government and the central organs of the state. There is a phrase in China for the way such tensions are manifested: when everyone denies all responsibility and tries to shift the blame back onto the blamer, they are busy ‘throwing woks’. ...
I am a huge admirer of China. I am not bothered at all by the US losing its world leader status to China whenever it happens. But. Whilst they still care what the rest of the world thinks, we need to get them to get rid of these disgusting markets. It is not acceptable. Threaten huge tariffs if they don't.
I would be as happy as anyone to protect wildlife from Chinese gourmet, but the problem is not exclusive to them.
COVID19 emerged in Wuhan, probably via the live food market, but ebola made the jump from monkeys in africa. This is thought to be from the bushmeat trade. HIV probably the same way in the rainforests of the Congo in the Seventies. Before we get too prissy about these things, we created BSE by our own eating habits on these very shores.
It is almost as if meat eating is the root of the problem.
I thought BSE was caused by the eating habits of cattle?
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
I thought this was a really astute point: 'Fernand Braudel hypothesised that crises such as the South Sea Bubble and the Wall Street Crash marked the passing of the baton from one dominant economy to another.'
The US has been exposed by this and is heading for an absolute disaster. Those of us who know the country, by which I mean those of us not immunised inside our 4x4's: the real America, the one where down and outs are now the dominant population in city centres, where the social and healthcare structures have disintegrated, the one where a few are immensely successful at the expense of everyone else, those of us who know this America are now watching in horror as the edifice comes crashing down a thousand times more viscerally than the twin towers.
Writing crap like that, you should apply to become a speechwriter for Jeremy Corbyn....
Has morning really broken on PB.com without Mysticrose’s anti American rant being posted ?
Anyway Salmonds rape trial starts tomorrow - spotlight on the Scottish justice system..
Re: Ferrari. I've just read that the "lock down" includes a clause for "Exceptional professional circumstances" aka as characterised as "the Ferrari exemption".
The Ferrari exception. I love it. So Italian. So stupid.
Never heard of this phrase before: Since the Wuhan lockdown began, there have been tensions between local government and the central organs of the state. There is a phrase in China for the way such tensions are manifested: when everyone denies all responsibility and tries to shift the blame back onto the blamer, they are busy ‘throwing woks’. ...
I am a huge admirer of China. I am not bothered at all by the US losing its world leader status to China whenever it happens. But. Whilst they still care what the rest of the world thinks, we need to get them to get rid of these disgusting markets. It is not acceptable. Threaten huge tariffs if they don't.
I think that living in Chinese society would be genuinely horrific, barely human. I find anyone admiring their vicious and inhuman control freakery really quite disturbing. An independent out of the box thinker like you would have almost no chance of survival. Be careful what you wish for.
I said I admire China. That doesn't mean I admire China's political system or ruling party. I admire their work ethic, their resilience, determination to improve their lot and their status as a country, how far they've come in such a short space of time. The rest, you've put on me.
A very interesting article - overall more upsides than down. potentially very good for the physical environment.
But not necessarily for people’s mental environment. Still, unlike Susskind, this isn’t indifferently written and suffused with “look how clever I am”.
I think people will adapt - as it won't last for ever. The emphasis on mental health issues in the media has created as much nonsense in this field as the media does with almost everything else. I'm all for moderation and balance in all things.
It is possible to write virtually any story about how Covid will play out. Alastair has some very good points. But whilst working from home is definitely one output I think it is on the trivial end of the scale.
I don't reckon it will change that much. Some travel and hospitality industries will go to the wall, and there may be some more home working this spring. There may also be some rethinking about NHS capacity issues, but by and large things will be all over by Christmas with a return to normal. There will be a quick bounce back, and many individual tragedies, but life goes on.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak. I am not buying food or big roll as I cannot work from home. I will shop normally.
I have prepared my home medicine cupboard, and am preparing my body for optimal health. Plenty of vitamins, and minerals, physical fitness, no alcohol, healthy eating. I have kitted out Fox jr the same. I reckon that I have about a 1% chance of not making Christmas because of COVID19, but as any gambler knows 1/100 is good odds.
I wish you all the best, Foxy. No alcohol is smart. I’m also trying to get more sleep.
I don't think the peak will be simultaneous everywhere, and there may be an uptick in the autumn when control measures are relaxed, but nationally a peak in end April/early May is on the cards. How high that peak is depends in large part on how soon control measures get rolled out.
We reach the limit of hospital ICU capacity at about 100 prevalent cases per 100 000 population, that is an important threshold. We need to implement the lockdown control measures at a lower threshold than that, probably somewhere in the 25-50 per 100 000 range.
Which is pretty well what Italy just did.
And we get to see if it works. The figures in Wuhan seem pretty credible. The figures in surrounding provinces rather less so.
I checked the John Hopkins daily cases dataset yesterday and looked at the time series for Italy. Plotting log 10 (cases) against time, I could see a slight downward curvature in the graph.
Using a well known spreadsheet I fitted a quadratic curve to this plot and there appeared to be a good fit. It is of course risky to extrapolate this model into the future, but the spreadsheet provided the equation of the curve. A quadratic has a maximum/minumum and I calculated that this would happen around Thursday 12th March at a value of 3.842, equivalent to 6950 new cases per day. Let's see how that projection turns out. I cannot yet see any corresponding downward curvature in the UK figures for log (cases).
That supports my suspicion about this being relatively short term. Italy is maybe 3-4 weeks ahead of us suggesting a peak mid April and declining trends thereafter. The worst case exponential maths models won’t be close to being borne out but it will be bad enough. There may be a second or even third wave of course like with Spanish flu. Very bad but not cataclysmic is my current guess.
I am a huge admirer of China. I am not bothered at all by the US losing its world leader status to China whenever it happens. But. Whilst they still care what the rest of the world thinks, we need to get them to get rid of these disgusting markets. It is not acceptable. Threaten huge tariffs if they don't.
Things don't end well for your boy Putin under a Chinese hegemony.
Optimists are studying English. Pessimists are studying Chinese. Realists are studying AK-47s. As the Russian joke goes...
Never heard of this phrase before: Since the Wuhan lockdown began, there have been tensions between local government and the central organs of the state. There is a phrase in China for the way such tensions are manifested: when everyone denies all responsibility and tries to shift the blame back onto the blamer, they are busy ‘throwing woks’. ...
I am a huge admirer of China. I am not bothered at all by the US losing its world leader status to China whenever it happens. But. Whilst they still care what the rest of the world thinks, we need to get them to get rid of these disgusting markets. It is not acceptable. Threaten huge tariffs if they don't.
I think that living in Chinese society would be genuinely horrific, barely human. I find anyone admiring their vicious and inhuman control freakery really quite disturbing. An independent out of the box thinker like you would have almost no chance of survival. Be careful what you wish for.
I said I admire China. That doesn't mean I admire China's political system or ruling party. I admire their work ethic, their resilience, determination to improve their lot and their status as a country, how far they've come in such a short space of time. The rest, you've put on me.
Internationally I'd expect a closing down of borders. Globalisation will be in serious retreat. Expect nationalism and extremism to grow. Take Italy as an example. What will this do to their politics? I would be surprised if the winners will be centrists. Difficulties ensue with the EU about borders, policy, currency etc.
There will certainly be lots of temporary border closures, and we're already seeing a big impact on travel because even if you're not worried about the disease you never know if you'll end up stuck somewhere. But if everyone is going remote then that actually erases an advantage to being local and makes you more likely to choose to work with people elsewhere on the globe.
As far as trade goes I don't think it's obvious that everything localizes. A lot of the time it's just not practical to make stuff locally, and if we're seeing a lot of shutdowns but staggered depending what breaks out where, there may be times when a lot of your local production stops, but logistics are still working, and you're actually more dependent on imports. Like remote working this may shuffle the pack and jolt people off a local maximum, moving production permanently from one place to another, which may well be from local production to somewhere overseas.
Finally, I think it's really hard to tell what the political effect will be. It's certainly plausible to see panic, fear of outsiders, economic collapse leading you to fascism. OTOH the countries that are screwing things up really badly right now are the populist-run ones: The US and Italy. I don't know much about Italian politics but as far as the US goes the obvious outcome is for Trump to lose the election to someone who looks less incompetent. So it could just as easily be the jolt that makes people pay attention to reality-based politicians instead of reality-TV ones. Or maybe we get both those trends in different directions, in different places.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence?
You think they are intended as a subsidy? Or that they don't do what they are supposed to do? Given the Pharmaceutical industry is hugely profitable, what other purpose can research grants form, other than to incentivise research in potentially non-profitable and/or risky areas? Or that they are offered in the UK as a quid pro quo to maintaining reasonable prices in the NHS? (which would mean withholding them would presumably have the opposite effect to what Corbyn intended)
You've outlined the desired way the system works. I'm asking for any evidence you have that the research grant mechanism actually works in the desired way.
Why not do some of your own work ? We’re not a paid team of researchers for you to direct as you please.
Indeed, but if someone makes a statement they can't support, it is going to lack credibility.
If something is supposed to work in a particular way, then I think those saying that it doesn’t are the ones who need to provide evidence.
Edit: for example I don’t think Corbyn is being controlled by the French, but I couldn’t provide you with any evidence for that statement. Does that mean we should assume he is?
Er, no. Corbyn was strongly criticised for wanting to tie research grants to more reasonable prices for pharmaceutical products. The reason for this criticism is that 'obviously' research grants are given in furtherance of the cause of beneficial but low profit research. I asked for any evidence that this was actually what happens in practise. None has been forthcoming. I make that one nil for Corbyn.
Working from home is great - and for most people the cost of some desk space is dwarfed by commuting costs (I stick £200 of petrol through my car most months, mainly to commute to work).
The major problem has more to do with what happens in a lock down to all those who physically need to be at work to do their jobs (e.g. I spend some of most working days putting physical bits of metal together. One of my best friends spends half her time at work in a fume hood doing synthetic organic chemistry for early stage drug development). Do I get paid to sit at home, and if so by whom? Who pays my employer's rent and rates if we can't get into our workshop to use it?
I've no idea how the Italian scenario is playing out, but unless they are very careful it could result in an enormous economic collapse.
Edited extra bit: just broken that Bahrain is to go ahead, but behind closed doors.
Phew, I had a lucky escape there. Decided on Friday against booking flights and tickets to Bahrain. There will be tens of thousands who have though, and lots of catering and hospitality booked.
Ticket sales are the only way the promoter has to make back the massive hosting fee paid to F1 for the rights to hold the race, presumably lots of talks with governments and insurers are going on at the moment.
I don’t see any possible way that Vietnam goes ahead with a crowd either, I’m not sure a Grand Prix has ever happened with closed doors before. International sport is going to end up severely curtailed this spring, no government is going to want a massive crowd from all over the world turning up in town.
Presumably the Italian participants are all going to fly from Melbourne to Bahrain without going home, sitting it out for a fortnight to avoid Bahraini quarantine.
Never heard of this phrase before: Since the Wuhan lockdown began, there have been tensions between local government and the central organs of the state. There is a phrase in China for the way such tensions are manifested: when everyone denies all responsibility and tries to shift the blame back onto the blamer, they are busy ‘throwing woks’. ...
I am a huge admirer of China. I am not bothered at all by the US losing its world leader status to China whenever it happens. But. Whilst they still care what the rest of the world thinks, we need to get them to get rid of these disgusting markets. It is not acceptable. Threaten huge tariffs if they don't.
I would be as happy as anyone to protect wildlife from Chinese gourmet, but the problem is not exclusive to them.
COVID19 emerged in Wuhan, probably via the live food market, but ebola made the jump from monkeys in africa. This is thought to be from the bushmeat trade. HIV probably the same way in the rainforests of the Congo in the Seventies. Before we get too prissy about these things, we created BSE by our own eating habits on these very shores.
It is almost as if meat eating is the root of the problem.
In most of those cases (I don't know about all) , something was changed as a result. Certainly this was the case with BSE. I'm suggested a desirable change that should come about from this outbreak.
Edited extra bit: the Chinese postponement/cancellation might come in handy, allowing Ferrari to actually get parts without falling foul of quarantine.
I've no idea how the Italian scenario is playing out, but unless they are very careful it could result in an enormous economic collapse.
The EU will probably do what they do best, and fudge the numbers. They'll issue stats on what the economies WOULD have been if it weren't for Coronavirus.....
Why do people come up with their own estimates for things like the peak or the number of deaths when the government has some of our finest minds, with the data, working on the modelling for this? All we have to do is just listen to what they say.
Chris Witty told us the scenario last week based on what they know so far. From widespread local transmission there will be 3 months to the peak, then 3 months downwards again. We are not yet at widespread local transmission but very close. There is your timeline then.
Re: Ferrari. I've just read that the "lock down" includes a clause for "Exceptional professional circumstances" aka as characterised as "the Ferrari exemption".
The Ferrari exception. I love it. So Italian. So stupid.
Malpensa and Linate still appear to be operating normally. Unless every flight arriving or departing is empty.
Working from home is great - and for most people the cost of some desk space is dwarfed by commuting costs (I stick £200 of petrol through my car most months, mainly to commute to work).
The major problem has more to do with what happens in a lock down to all those who physically need to be at work to do their jobs (e.g. I spend some of most working days putting physical bits of metal together. One of my best friends spends half her time at work in a fume hood doing synthetic organic chemistry for early stage drug development). Do I get paid to sit at home, and if so by whom? Who pays my employer's rent and rates if we can't get into our workshop to use it?
I've no idea how the Italian scenario is playing out, but unless they are very careful it could result in an enormous economic collapse.
The current Japanese status is that working from home is recommended where practical, while people who need to put physical bits of metal together carry on doing it as normal, albeit with warnings about hand-washing etc. Once you go into full China-style lockdown mode I guess you just stop the factories, but it doesn't seem practical to do that for any length of time, and I doubt a lot of countries will.
Working from home is great - and for most people the cost of some desk space is dwarfed by commuting costs (I stick £200 of petrol through my car most months, mainly to commute to work).
Working from home is great - and for most people the cost of some desk space is dwarfed by commuting costs (I stick £200 of petrol through my car most months, mainly to commute to work).
The major problem has more to do with what happens in a lock down to all those who physically need to be at work to do their jobs (e.g. I spend some of most working days putting physical bits of metal together. One of my best friends spends half her time at work in a fume hood doing synthetic organic chemistry for early stage drug development). Do I get paid to sit at home, and if so by whom? Who pays my employer's rent and rates if we can't get into our workshop to use it?
I've no idea how the Italian scenario is playing out, but unless they are very careful it could result in an enormous economic collapse.
The Italian economy is in a truly desperate place. I really cannot see it shrinking less than 5% this year. The ECB figures are wildly optimistic. Given that they have never got back to their 2008 peak we are talking of 2 lost decades rather than 1. The stress that will put on social cohesion is immense.
I am a huge admirer of China. I am not bothered at all by the US losing its world leader status to China whenever it happens. But. Whilst they still care what the rest of the world thinks, we need to get them to get rid of these disgusting markets. It is not acceptable. Threaten huge tariffs if they don't.
Things don't end well for your boy Putin under a Chinese hegemony.
Optimists are studying English. Pessimists are studying Chinese. Realists are studying AK-47s. As the Russian joke goes...
It's very unlikely that there will be an anyone hegemony, and that's why I look forward to it. It's that hegemony that I see as the issue. When Britannia ruled the waves, it was the most powerful, but was actually quite constrained by a large selection of other great powers. That was a good thing.
A good piece, Alastair, although I'm not succumbing to the attempt to rebrand the virus as Covid-19. No one cares about the technical correctness. It's coronavirus - the name stuck and it's with us for good.
Fine, but what will you call the next novel coronavirus that comes along in a few years time? “Coronavirus 2”? “Coronavirus returns”? “Coronavirus with a Vengeance”?
Dunno and don't care. There will only ever be one coronavirus now.
Covid-19 is not the virus. Covid-19 is the disease. It is an acronym for corona virus disease (which emerged in the year) 2019 so the question should ask what would happen if a second appeared in the same year. The virus is sars-cov-2. Corona virus is the family of viruses; sars breaks it down further to the same sort of virus that caused the sars (severe acute respiratory distress syndrome) outbreak 20 or so years ago, as opposed to mers (Middle East r s). (Can you tell I watched a Youtube video about this last night?)
Working from home is great - and for most people the cost of some desk space is dwarfed by commuting costs (I stick £200 of petrol through my car most months, mainly to commute to work).
Utilities bills go through the roof though.
Why ? no need for lights, keep most of them off except in one room at a time. if its cold, put a jumper on , if it is really cold, put another one on. When I was a child in 62-63 the windows froze on the inside..
Why do people come up with their own estimates for things like the peak or the number of deaths when the government has some of our finest minds, with the data, working on the modelling for this? All we have to do is just listen to what they say.
Chris Witty told us the scenario last week based on what they know so far. From widespread local transmission there will be 3 months to the peak, then 3 months downwards again. We are not yet at widespread local transmission but very close. There is your timeline then.
My guesses are based on the government’s estimates. Which are a million miles from exponential Armageddon. Sorry if I gave the impression otherwise.
Getting the Pharmaceutical industry to investigate non-profitable areas is the whole point of research grants. That was why Corbyn's idea during the election of threatening to make such grants contingent on playing ball with drugs prices was so incoherent/nonsensical. Grants are given for the benefit of public health, not (as he seemed to think) as a subsidy to/for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence?
You think they are intended as a subsidy? Or that they don't do what they are supposed to do? Given the Pharmaceutical industry is hugely profitable, what other purpose can research grants form, other than to incentivise research in potentially non-profitable and/or risky areas? Or that they are offered in the UK as a quid pro quo to maintaining reasonable prices in the NHS? (which would mean withholding them would presumably have the opposite effect to what Corbyn intended)
You've outlined the desired way the system works. I'm asking for any evidence you have that the research grant mechanism actually works in the desired way.
Why not do some of your own work ? We’re not a paid team of researchers for you to direct as you please.
Indeed, but if someone makes a statement they can't support, it is going to lack credibility.
If something is supposed to work in a particular way, then I think those saying that it doesn’t are the ones who need to provide evidence.
Edit: for example I don’t think Corbyn is being controlled by the French, but I couldn’t provide you with any evidence for that statement. Does that mean we should assume he is?
Er, no. Corbyn was strongly criticised for wanting to tie research grants to more reasonable prices for pharmaceutical products. The reason for this criticism is that 'obviously' research grants are given in furtherance of the cause of beneficial but low profit research. I asked for any evidence that this was actually what happens in practise. None has been forthcoming. I make that one nil for Corbyn.
Comments
- Air travel is over
- RL conferences are over
- Offices are over
- Commuting is over
- None of the above will be missed
To which I would add that Jeff Bezos will get half.
And shepherd's huts.
I thought this was a really astute point: 'Fernand Braudel hypothesised that crises such as the South Sea Bubble and the Wall Street Crash marked the passing of the baton from one dominant economy to another.'
The US has been exposed by this and is heading for an absolute disaster. Those of us who know the country, by which I mean those of us not immunised inside our 4x4's: the real America, the one where down and outs are now the dominant population in city centres, where the social and healthcare structures have disintegrated, the one where a few are immensely successful at the expense of everyone else, those of us who know this America are now watching in horror as the edifice comes crashing down a thousand times more viscerally than the twin towers.
Leaving aside the enormous profit margins, the incentives are wrong and we need a better system which gets us more research on the biggest health problems in a proactive fashion.
Home just long enough to re-pack for skiing in Switzerland I hope to be OK.
I have cancelled all other holidays, and cancelled a new car purchase. Lucky I chose Switzerland for skiing and not Italy.
It will be the economic problems that will hurt if everyone else does like me and stops spending and travelling.
Areas that rely on tourism, like Spanish Costas, will have a torrid time.
Using a well known spreadsheet I fitted a quadratic curve to this plot and there appeared to be a good fit. It is of course risky to extrapolate this model into the future, but the spreadsheet provided the equation of the curve. A quadratic has a maximum/minumum and I calculated that this would happen around Thursday 12th March at a value of 3.842, equivalent to 6950 new cases per day. Let's see how that projection turns out. I cannot yet see any corresponding downward curvature in the UK figures for log (cases).
In my view the implications are going to be comparable to a world war. In 1914 or 1939 could anyone predict what the world would like after a war? With difficulty because it was so dependent on how the war played out. This is similar. However, my gut feeling is that the world will remain within the 21st century but opinions and politics will shift back in time.
Internationally I'd expect a closing down of borders. Globalisation will be in serious retreat. Expect nationalism and extremism to grow. Take Italy as an example. What will this do to their politics? I would be surprised if the winners will be centrists. Difficulties ensue with the EU about borders, policy, currency etc.
On a more mundane level and something I noted three weeks ago. UK universities are currently working on a business model which includes a large number of Chinese students. In every University city high rise luxury towers are being thrown up, paid for by private finance to house these students. Bad news for those investors and for universities I'm afraid.
So that's some of the bad. But remember, WW2 brought us the NHS and the welfare state more broadly. Perhaps we can get some positive social improvements too. The US might catch up with a welfare state, after 70 years, for example.
In theory I can do a lot of my work remotely. I have a large quantity of good legal resources a available online, most of my instructions come by email and nearly all of my product is sent back the same way. I also do what amounts to piece work so my productivity and how long I choose to spend on PB is my concern, not an employer’s. And yet going to Edinburgh makes me more productive even allowing for a lot of travelling time. It is more sociable. I get to discuss my work with pals who do the same in kind. There is a qualitative difference between a consultation in person and one remotely. Even in pretty optimal circumstances I use the working at home option maybe one day a week.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak. I am not buying food or big roll as I cannot work from home. I will shop normally.
I have prepared my home medicine cupboard, and am preparing my body for optimal health. Plenty of vitamins, and minerals, physical fitness, no alcohol, healthy eating. I have kitted out Fox jr the same. I reckon that I have about a 1% chance of not making Christmas because of COVID19, but as any gambler knows 1/100 is good odds.
The huge disparity in drug prices between the US and here is not so much down to big pharma (though if course they take full advantage) but rather the utterly fucked up health system which is the purchaser.
A similar consideration applies to both vaccines and antibiotics. No one will develop them if no one buys them (or gives rewards for developing them).
The structure of health service provisioning is the bigger - and more tractable - problem.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n05/wang-xiuying/the-word-from-wuhan
Never heard of this phrase before:
Since the Wuhan lockdown began, there have been tensions between local government and the central organs of the state. There is a phrase in China for the way such tensions are manifested: when everyone denies all responsibility and tries to shift the blame back onto the blamer, they are busy ‘throwing woks’. ...
There are two problems with using data from deaths. 1) There is much less data as most cases result in recovery. 2) There is a significant time lag of days or weeks between diagnosis and outcome in some cases, meaning that the data for confirmed cases is more up to date. The number of deaths has to be roughly proportional to the number of cases.
No alcohol is smart. I’m also trying to get more sleep.
I have one client that's quite traditional (not tech) and although in theory I can do everything with them remotely, I find if I don't go in and talk to them I find people try to work around problems I could have solved for them, and often that results in them escalating so they're bigger problems when I finally find out about them. It's not so much the distance that hurts as the *perception* of distance.
But that dynamic changes if *everyone* is online, and also people adopt tools that work better. So for a lot of my other stuff the collaboration is international, everyone is remote and most people only meet face-to-face for conferences, and all the communication happens on offline channels like Discord. When that happens the perception of distance doesn't matter so much, so you much more of the little things are accessible and you don't miss out on as much.
This is really hard to phase in, because you need everybody to be using the remote tools, even for things that don't feel like they even absolutely need to be communicated. I can certainly see that covid19 could provide the kick to get a lot of organizations off the local maximum they've been stuck on.
Isn’t the real issue that - if the doom mongers are right and we are heading for billions of infections within a matter of months - then the data points we have are from the tiny beginning end of the curve, and it simply isn’t possible, mathematically or otherwise, to project a dataset running from zero to a hundred thousand forward into the billions with any degree of accuracy.
Not least because, even if the worst case scenario, the curve will eventually be constrained by the number of uninfected people available and their accessibility, yet this constraint won’t bear on the data at all at the moment, when most of the world has tiny handfuls of cases only.
F1: bizarre that the special on Racing Point winning a race is down to 2.75.
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1235963670255071237
Best guess is that summer might slow it, but won’t stop it.
https://twitter.com/Adrian_Bourne/status/1236397406050226177
Edited extra bit: just broken that Bahrain is to go ahead, but behind closed doors.
We’re not a paid team of researchers for you to direct as you please.
Edit: for example I don’t think Corbyn is being controlled by the French, but I couldn’t provide you with any evidence for that statement. Does that mean we should assume he is?
https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1236372854171750400
We reach the limit of hospital ICU capacity at about 100 prevalent cases per 100 000 population, that is an important threshold. We need to implement the lockdown control measures at a lower threshold than that, probably somewhere in the 25-50 per 100 000 range.
COVID19 emerged in Wuhan, probably via the live food market, but ebola made the jump from monkeys in africa. This is thought to be from the bushmeat trade. HIV probably the same way in the rainforests of the Congo in the Seventies. Before we get too prissy about these things, we created BSE by our own eating habits on these very shores.
It is almost as if meat eating is the root of the problem.
Anyway Salmonds rape trial starts tomorrow - spotlight on the Scottish justice system..
Optimists are studying English. Pessimists are studying Chinese. Realists are studying AK-47s. As the Russian joke goes...
https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1236371358910726144
Coronavirus: Six dead in China quarantine hotel collapse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51787936
As far as trade goes I don't think it's obvious that everything localizes. A lot of the time it's just not practical to make stuff locally, and if we're seeing a lot of shutdowns but staggered depending what breaks out where, there may be times when a lot of your local production stops, but logistics are still working, and you're actually more dependent on imports. Like remote working this may shuffle the pack and jolt people off a local maximum, moving production permanently from one place to another, which may well be from local production to somewhere overseas.
Finally, I think it's really hard to tell what the political effect will be. It's certainly plausible to see panic, fear of outsiders, economic collapse leading you to fascism. OTOH the countries that are screwing things up really badly right now are the populist-run ones: The US and Italy. I don't know much about Italian politics but as far as the US goes the obvious outcome is for Trump to lose the election to someone who looks less incompetent. So it could just as easily be the jolt that makes people pay attention to reality-based politicians instead of reality-TV ones. Or maybe we get both those trends in different directions, in different places.
The major problem has more to do with what happens in a lock down to all those who physically need to be at work to do their jobs (e.g. I spend some of most working days putting physical bits of metal together. One of my best friends spends half her time at work in a fume hood doing synthetic organic chemistry for early stage drug development). Do I get paid to sit at home, and if so by whom? Who pays my employer's rent and rates if we can't get into our workshop to use it?
I've no idea how the Italian scenario is playing out, but unless they are very careful it could result in an enormous economic collapse.
Ticket sales are the only way the promoter has to make back the massive hosting fee paid to F1 for the rights to hold the race, presumably lots of talks with governments and insurers are going on at the moment.
I don’t see any possible way that Vietnam goes ahead with a crowd either, I’m not sure a Grand Prix has ever happened with closed doors before. International sport is going to end up severely curtailed this spring, no government is going to want a massive crowd from all over the world turning up in town.
Presumably the Italian participants are all going to fly from Melbourne to Bahrain without going home, sitting it out for a fortnight to avoid Bahraini quarantine.
Edited extra bit: the Chinese postponement/cancellation might come in handy, allowing Ferrari to actually get parts without falling foul of quarantine.
Chris Witty told us the scenario last week based on what they know so far. From widespread local transmission there will be 3 months to the peak, then 3 months downwards again. We are not yet at widespread local transmission but very close. There is your timeline then.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/08/russian-jets-heading-to-uk-airspace-intercepted-by-raf-typhoons
Knock yourself out...