I just don't know what to say about the idiot behaviour on display. It was like yesterday the footage of big queues of people waiting to get refunds for their lift passes in Italy. What is more important, you health or 200 euro you spent on a lift pass (and the fact you are there in the first place suggests that amount of money is peanuts to you).
Its human nature.
That's why the government's scientists are advising against shutting everything down at the moment, because they know that even if we did that people would react like this. Because they understand how people think.
If you tell people they aren't infected but have two weeks off then what did you expect them to do? Go home and read a book and watch Netflix? No, that's not what they're going to do.
People need to be educated FIRST and then you can consider telling them to stay at home, once you think they'll actually listen to you. You can't put the cart before the horse.
I just don't know what to say about the idiot behaviour on display. It was like yesterday the footage of big queues of people waiting to get refunds for their lift passes in Italy. What is more important, you health or 200 euro you spent on a lift pass (and the fact you are there in the first place suggests that amount of money is peanuts to you).
Aside from triage, the policy wrt age should be that older people self isolate as far as possible, and no particular exhortation be addressed to those born after about 1960 other than hand-washing. The more herd immunity they build up with their functioning immune systems the better for everyone.
Is there any herd immunity? I thought no one was immune from it.
I think those that get infected generate antibodies which makes them immune.
Haven't there been cases of people getting it twice? But perhaps that was another strain or something.
There were some reports, but most people put it down to a false report on a test, leading to them being released too early.
In Japan, the British couple of the cruise liner, say you have to have 2 negative tests in a row before they will consider releasing them.
Did you not hear? We want a government that is going to GET IT DONE.
Until we don't of course.
Can it Get Coronavirus Done, please.
That would be nice. If I was a newspaper editor I would be holding the front page until after the 7pm statement. It may prove more dramatic than the budget.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
A Barclays employee has tested positive for coronavirus in its 5 North Colonnade office in London’s Canary Wharf financial district, the bank has confirmed.
An employee on the ninth floor of the building, which mainly houses Barclays investment bank workers, tested positive for the disease, the bank said.
The OBR predicts that house price inflation will hit 7.5% in the third quarter of 2021, then to ease back to 4.1% by 2024.
Overall, the watchdog expect house prices to rise by 23% between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2024. It had previously expected a 17% increase, before today’s measures were taken into account.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
Am I the only one that was astonished that the cost of basically cancelling commercial rates for small businesses for a year was....£1bn? Or, to put it another way, government spending for a morning? It seems an incredible amount of grief for such a small sum of money. I wonder if this might become permanent, especially if it fills up some gaps on the High Street.
Interesting header from Ms Cyclefree. Cultural complacency is a big problem in Britain, even more so when having an unwritten constitution requires you *not* to be complacent at all times.
Re ; current events, I can see an interesting scenario where southern countries' cultural differences and so greater exposure to the virus give the EU political cover to provide the kind of stimuli, over and above emergency, that they didn't last time ; in the same way the virus seems to have given political cover for Boris Johnson to return to Keynesianism. In that event the virus could have the unlikely effect of strengthening both the EU and Britain's integrity.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
Same way other businesses get assessed presumably. With hefty penalties if evasion is discovered to encourage honest reporting.
One would assume that British companies paying Google to advertise to British consumers should be relatively easy to figure out. Multinationals advertising across Europe etc might be a bit harder to figure out.
I wonder whether the democracy vs authoritarianism argument might work in unpredictable ways. Perhaps President Trump’s reaction to coronavirus, along with its consequences, will help U.S. citizens (some of them) to see that they should be on the side of democracy, whereas P.M. Johnson’s reaction might encourage U.K. citizens (some of them) to stick on the side of our would-be authoritarian government.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
Am I the only one that was astonished that the cost of basically cancelling commercial rates for small businesses for a year was....£1bn? Or, to put it another way, government spending for a morning? It seems an incredible amount of grief for such a small sum of money. I wonder if this might become permanent, especially if it fills up some gaps on the High Street.
I agree completely. Its a massively damaging tax for many businesses that must be paid whether taking revenues or not. Why not eliminate it, which would be great news.
While they are sometimes annoying, the fact that we have a small army of very bright lawyers who enjoy nothing more than using the system to ensure that our courts do the job of requiring government to obey the law (the bright lawyers enriching themselves in the process) is not insignificant.
That, the ballot box and the British hatred of theory, ideas and systematised beliefs of any description is our imperfect but best defence.
BREAKING: A Viking river cruise in Cambodia has been quarantined because a British passenger tested positive for Corona
I think cruise liner business are going to go the way the same way as after the titanic disaster.
Well, it was a "ferry" service at the time and went from strength to strength until the advent of the jet airliner - finally overtaking seaborne North Atlantic passenger numbers in 1958.....46 years later
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
I bet they do know themselves.
I am sure that they can produce accounts showing anything from a loss to a profit of a billion. How will we know if they are right? We cannot audit them. Its not like buying a takeaway and seeing if it shows up in the VAT return.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
Its clear why...we all have a certain level of immunity to the flu, thus the body had a head start when we pick it up. With this, nobody has encountered it before, so for a good week or so, it appears the body is totally unaware there is an issue, then another week where it tries to fight it. Its seems 90%, either never show large outward symptoms or their body eventually is able to win the battle.
The problem is the 10%...they go downhill rapidly and of those at least 5% will die without assisted breathing before the body gets any chance to win the fight.
Signs of problems to come. A lot of Tory MP's looked a bit dazzled and surprised to be waking up in a very kind of different political dawn this lunchtime, screwing up their eyes. The dazzlement is probably positive for now.
On topic, a sign of how illiberal a Government would like to be is the laws they pass to allow that to happen. I would cite in support of this the Civil Contingencies Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, both passed by the Blair Government, both of which give huge powers to the Government to ride roughshod over people's rights and the democratic process.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
On the flipside, one positive take is also be that a large proportion of the population have some inbuilt level of immunity to it.
A city of 11 million people all in high density housing had this freely spreading for nearly 2 months, and even if we don't fully believe the Chinese figures, it was still only fraction of the residents.
Signs of problems to come. A lot of Tory MP's looked a bit dazzled and surprised to be waking up in a very kind of different political dawn this lunchtime, screwing up their eyes. The dazzlement is probably positive for now.
It's a bit of a sugar rush, with hangover to follow, to mix metaphors....
I just don't know what to say about the idiot behaviour on display. It was like yesterday the footage of big queues of people waiting to get refunds for their lift passes in Italy. What is more important, you health or 200 euro you spent on a lift pass (and the fact you are there in the first place suggests that amount of money is peanuts to you).
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
I bet they do know themselves.
I am sure that they can produce accounts showing anything from a loss to a profit of a billion. How will we know if they are right? We cannot audit them. Its not like buying a takeaway and seeing if it shows up in the VAT return.
Is it not? With Making Tax Digital don't the government have all sorts of information it never used to have?
Takeaway reports it in its VAT return that they've paid Google.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
I bet they do know themselves.
I am sure that they can produce accounts showing anything from a loss to a profit of a billion. How will we know if they are right? We cannot audit them. Its not like buying a takeaway and seeing if it shows up in the VAT return.
It says it's based on revenue. Which is much much harder to fiddle.
On top of the moral issue, these are supposed be intelligent connected people who will have all seen the footage from China and Italy...and yet they still think this is like some minister having got caught sending a dodgy tweet and thus must doorstep them.
If somebody have Ebola would they even entertain that idea? No
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
On the flipside, one positive take is also be that a large proportion of the population have some inbuilt level of immunity to it.
A city of 11 million people all in high density housing had this freely spreading for nearly 2 months, and even if we don't fully believe the Chinese figures, it was still only fraction of the residents.
Maybe, maybe not. Assuming 5 days to double, and saying the day where 10 people were infected as day 0, by day 60 you have... 33,750 cases. All evidence is that China went into lockdown at the critical point.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
On the flipside, one positive take is also be that a large proportion of the population have some inbuilt level of immunity to it.
A city of 11 million people all in high density housing had this freely spreading for nearly 2 months, and even if we don't fully believe the Chinese figures, it was still only fraction of the residents.
Maybe maybe not. Assuming 5 days to double, and saying the day where 10 people were infected as day 0, by day 60 you have... 33,750 cases.
But it was nearly 3 months before the lockdown. People had this at least back in November.
Signs of problems to come. A lot of Tory MP's looked a bit dazzled and surprised to be waking up in a very kind of different political dawn this lunchtime, screwing up their eyes. The dazzlement is probably positive for now.
Boris should be fine. Most of the Tories who are likely to feel aggrieved still see him as a hero who delivered Brexit against all the odds. They owe him everything.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
But as I understand it this isn’t an antibody test - which shows whether you have ever carried the virus. The test shows positive when the virus is active, then goes negative once you are considered ‘cured’. Yet you still have the antibodies.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
I bet they do know themselves.
I am sure that they can produce accounts showing anything from a loss to a profit of a billion. How will we know if they are right? We cannot audit them. Its not like buying a takeaway and seeing if it shows up in the VAT return.
Is it not? With Making Tax Digital don't the government have all sorts of information it never used to have?
Takeaway reports it in its VAT return that they've paid Google.
Google doesn't report the income in its return.
Google has an issue that HMRC can investigate.
Or is the system not that clever?
I don't think it is now but the Chancellor did give a boost to HMRC in pursuit of "aggressive" tax avoidance. Hopefully they will not spend it all on IR35 cases.
On top of the moral issue, these are supposed be intelligent connected people who will have all seen the footage from China and Italy...and yet they still think this is like some minister having got caught sending a dodgy tweet and thus must doorstep them.
If somebody have Ebola would they even entertain that idea? No
Whoever doorstepped Nadine should be sent to Italy to observe one of their many ICU wards. I don't think they'd ever doorstep anyone ever again. Absolute scum.
I don't like this continued "its very mild for lots of people" message. I know it is to calm, but even among the 80-90% that don't need to go near a hospital, many people have reported it as imagine the absolute worst flu you have ever had and some even with small amount of pneumonia.
You are making it sound like every young person should have a Corona party....
With Making Tax Digital don't the government have all sorts of information it never used to have?
Takeaway reports it in its VAT return that they've paid Google.
Google doesn't report the income in its return.
Google has an issue that HMRC can investigate.
Or is the system not that clever?
The methodology to get to those numbers has to be from accounts packages extractions (Or direct from software). In our case, Gov't has exactly the same info as before. If they requested an inspection they'd wade through loads of .csv files to get that info now.
Mr. Oracle, Boris Johnson enjoys buying headlines to try and make himself popular.
The current crisis may require more spending, and it's been amusing to watch the shift in criticism from the Government not doing enough in the morning to overdoing it in the afternoon, but whatever happens I expect this splurging to continue.
Perhaps like Henry IV, his prosperity and comfort in his private life has led him to misunderstand to nature of public finances to the detriment of the nation.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
But as I understand it this isn’t an antibody test - which shows whether you have ever carried the virus. The test shows positive when the virus is active, then goes negative once you are considered ‘cured’. Yet you still have the antibodies.
Yep, however these were samples from the flu centres. Almost everybody with symptoms will have gone there for testing.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
On the flipside, one positive take is also be that a large proportion of the population have some inbuilt level of immunity to it.
A city of 11 million people all in high density housing had this freely spreading for nearly 2 months, and even if we don't fully believe the Chinese figures, it was still only fraction of the residents.
Maybe maybe not. Assuming 5 days to double, and saying the day where 10 people were infected as day 0, by day 60 you have... 33,750 cases.
But it was nearly 3 months before the lockdown. People had this at least back in November.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
On the flipside, one positive take is also be that a large proportion of the population have some inbuilt level of immunity to it.
A city of 11 million people all in high density housing had this freely spreading for nearly 2 months, and even if we don't fully believe the Chinese figures, it was still only fraction of the residents.
Maybe maybe not. Assuming 5 days to double, and saying the day where 10 people were infected as day 0, by day 60 you have... 33,750 cases.
But it was nearly 3 months before the lockdown. People had this at least back in November.
Then at day 0 being the day the first person caught it, 5.5 days to double (still below what a decent amount of epidemiologists are saying), 90 days in you have... 70,000 people infected.
The evidence and the maths simply doesn't support the idea of an iceberg effect.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
I don't like this continued "its very mild for lots of people" message. I know it is to calm, but even among the 80-90% that don't need to go near a hospital, many people have reported it as imagine the absolute worst flu you have ever had and some even with small amount of pneumonia.
You are making it sound like every young person should have a Corona party....
How many is many people? If it's a handful, perhaps they should be going to the hospital?
I don't like this continued "its very mild for lots of people" message. I know it is to calm, but even among the 80-90% that don't need to go near a hospital, many people have reported it as imagine the absolute worst flu you have ever had and some even with small amount of pneumonia.
You are making it sound like every young person should have a Corona party....
How many is many people? If it's a handful, perhaps they should be going to the hospital?
Discworld Trolls teach us that 'many' means 4. As in 1 2 3 many, many 1...
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
Eadric has yet to explain what is the point of his orange rubber gloves.
Two purposes: they will prevent you picking up the virus on your physical hands, which is helpful (tho of course you mus ttake the gloves on and off properly).
More important is the psychological effect (and this applies to masks, as well). If you are wearing gloves you are constantly aware that hands are an issue. And when you get back you want to take the gloves off, and you are smartly reminded that you then have to wash your hands again.
If you are still touching your face, then it doesn't matter what you are wearing on your hands. Same applies if you are not touching your face. Probably why it isn't recommended, because the most important thing is just to stop touching your face!
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
Eadric has yet to explain what is the point of his orange rubber gloves.
Two purposes: they will prevent you picking up the virus on your physical hands, which is helpful (tho of course you mus ttake the gloves on and off properly).
More important is the psychological effect (and this applies to masks, as well). If you are wearing gloves you are constantly aware that hands are an issue. And when you get back you want to take the gloves off, and you are smartly reminded that you then have to wash your hands again.
If you are still touching your face, then it doesn't matter what you are wearing on your hands. Same applies if you are not touching your face. Probably why it isn't recommended, because the most important thing is just to stop touching your face!
READ WHAT I WROTE
If you are wearing bright orange gloves you keep looking at them and thinking, er, what, and then you remember: Eeeek, Virus. DO NOT TOUCH YOUR FACE.
I don't know about others, but I find not touching my face quite hard. We do it all the time. These gloves remind me.
Fuck it, others may differ. We all have to survive the way that is best for us.
Alternatively, you could wear one of those giant cones that we put on pets. That'd stop us from touching our face.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
On the flipside, one positive take is also be that a large proportion of the population have some inbuilt level of immunity to it.
A city of 11 million people all in high density housing had this freely spreading for nearly 2 months, and even if we don't fully believe the Chinese figures, it was still only fraction of the residents.
Not sure I understand the Guangdong numbers - 0.47 percent of 320,000 is 1504 positive tests. Yet there seem to have been only 8 deaths in Guangdong so maybe they didn't find an iceberg effect in Guangdong, but they also didn't find anything like 3.4% mortality rate in Guangdong. It would surely have been surprising to find an iceberg effect in a place where the mortality rate amongst confirmed cases is 0.5%? Wouldn't it make more sense to look for an iceberg effect in places where the mortality rate is very high? Like Hubei, or Italy.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What's it matter? They have air-conditioning going full blast. It tells you absolutely nothing about the effect of winter ending in temperate climates.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
So here's some news from senior folk at the NHS (in Wales).
They must know this is going to leak very soon, so I don't think I am breaking some injunction.
All ICU staff and many NHS staff have been told to go home and order 3 weeks worth of food. The government is going to impose a lockdown in 7-10 days.
If this rumour is correct (and the source is reliable) it's coming quickly now.
7pm tonight.
This is really dumb to announce a lockdown in x days. You do it at 2-3am then and there.
No way, they'll need to go through a middle phase first. Tonight we may be told stock up and prepare just in case you need to self isolate. Then when most people have the food, that's when it happens.
So here's some news from senior folk at the NHS (in Wales).
They must know this is going to leak very soon, so I don't think I am breaking some injunction.
All ICU staff and many NHS staff have been told to go home and order 3 weeks worth of food. The government is going to impose a lockdown in 7-10 days.
If this rumour is correct (and the source is reliable) it's coming quickly now.
7pm tonight.
This is really dumb to announce a lockdown in x days. You do it at 2-3am then and there.
No way, they'll need to go through a middle phase first. Tonight we may be told stock up and prepare just in case you need to self isolate. Then when most people have the food, that's when it happens.
I think you are right.
I said the other day, this all feels like nudge theory in action. Boris sort of let it slip that he had been speaking to psychologists in an answer to a question on Monday.
If you are going to call a lockdown though, it has to be immediate, otherwise you watch 10,000s of people stream out of London.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
I do agree that it’s worse than the flu (obviously) but I do think we need to be careful on mortality rate. We only know of cases where someone has felt wretched enough (or concerned enough) to get tested. We hear that a number of people will get a very mild infection and there must be a good chance that those who have a day or two in bed or lazing around with a “bad cold” might not even bother to ring 111. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about this virus, but it is a point to bear in mind.
On the flipside, China tested 320,000 samples, and found that there was no iceberg effect, and that the mortality was closer to 3.4%, including those with minimal to mild symptoms.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
But as I understand it this isn’t an antibody test - which shows whether you have ever carried the virus. The test shows positive when the virus is active, then goes negative once you are considered ‘cured’. Yet you still have the antibodies.
Yep, however these were samples from the flu centres. Almost everybody with symptoms will have gone there for testing.
Unless they do a large scale random serology study in the community, it's more or less guesswork.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
And how do we collect/assess this exactly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that the mainly US internet giants are parasitical, feeding off our society but putting very little back. I am just not sure how we audit what Google earns off search engines in the UK. They may not even know themselves.
I bet they do know themselves.
I am sure that they can produce accounts showing anything from a loss to a profit of a billion. How will we know if they are right? We cannot audit them. Its not like buying a takeaway and seeing if it shows up in the VAT return.
Is it not? With Making Tax Digital don't the government have all sorts of information it never used to have?
Takeaway reports it in its VAT return that they've paid Google.
Google doesn't report the income in its return.
Google has an issue that HMRC can investigate.
Or is the system not that clever?
I don't think it is now but the Chancellor did give a boost to HMRC in pursuit of "aggressive" tax avoidance. Hopefully they will not spend it all on IR35 cases.
The Government have killed contracting across large swathes of business.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
So you think all those medical experts (not politicians) are lying? Interesting. I hadn't taken you for a conspiracy nut.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Well, quite. if they don't work, then why is the government so desperate to stop us buying them so they can reserve them for, uh, health workers?
Why are all those silly nurses and doctors in Italy and China wearing them?
The ones treating people aren't wearing masks, they are wearing full protective hazmat type suits.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
So you think all those medical experts (not politicians) are lying? Interesting. I hadn't taken you for a conspiracy nut.
Even the WHO don't recommend them, so this conspiracy must go all the way to the top.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Well, quite. if they don't work, then why is the government so desperate to stop us buying them so they can reserve them for, uh, health workers?
Why are all those silly nurses and doctors in Italy and China wearing them?
Because working in close proximity all day to infected people is different than passing quickly by a random person in the street?
So here's some news from senior folk at the NHS (in Wales).
They must know this is going to leak very soon, so I don't think I am breaking some injunction.
All ICU staff and many NHS staff have been told to go home and order 3 weeks worth of food. The government is going to impose a lockdown in 7-10 days.
If this rumour is correct (and the source is reliable) it's coming quickly now.
7pm tonight.
This is really dumb to announce a lockdown in x days. You do it at 2-3am then and there.
No way, they'll need to go through a middle phase first. Tonight we may be told stock up and prepare just in case you need to self isolate. Then when most people have the food, that's when it happens.
Surely Johnson would front a national lockdown instruction not Hancock?
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Ah, so it's all a conspiracy?
You might consider it a conspiracy. You might consider it selective information for the greater good. Just as the government might be slowly drip-feeding information into the public consciousness so we don't have carnage down the local supermarkets over night. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
Eadric has yet to explain what is the point of his orange rubber gloves.
Two purposes: they will prevent you picking up the virus on your physical hands, which is helpful (tho of course you mus ttake the gloves on and off properly).
More important is the psychological effect (and this applies to masks, as well). If you are wearing gloves you are constantly aware that hands are an issue. And when you get back you want to take the gloves off, and you are smartly reminded that you then have to wash your hands again.
If you are still touching your face, then it doesn't matter what you are wearing on your hands. Same applies if you are not touching your face. Probably why it isn't recommended, because the most important thing is just to stop touching your face!
READ WHAT I WROTE
If you are wearing bright orange gloves you keep looking at them and thinking, er, what, and then you remember: Eeeek, Virus. DO NOT TOUCH YOUR FACE.
I don't know about others, but I find not touching my face quite hard. We do it all the time. These gloves remind me.
Fuck it, others may differ. We all have to survive the way that is best for us.
Alternatively, you could wear one of those giant cones that we put on pets. That'd stop us from touching our face.
They would actually be quite helpful. I thought that today.
Awkward when you want to savour the Châteauneuf-du-Pape, though.
So the experts say facemasks are not helpful unless you actually have the disease to protect others. What do the armchair epidemiologists think?
So even from that comment we can conclude that they are helpful then?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Helpful if you have it. Not helpful, and maybe even an additional risk, if you don't.
So given that spreaders and super-spreaders typically don't know they have it until it's too late.. do you not think if everyone wore the mask as part of their routine then that might reduce spread by a few percentage points?
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Because the extra risk of getting infected because we don't know how to use the things (as explained in the video) is far greater than any beneficial effect?
What extra risk? That's just ludicrous.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Ah, so it's all a conspiracy?
You might consider it a conspiracy. You might consider it selective information for the greater good. Just as the government might be slowly drip-feeding information into the public consciousness so we don't have carnage down the local supermarkets over night. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.
I don't think face masks have ever been recommended to protect people from catching the flu, even when there was no risk to global supply.
Comments
Until we don't of course.
That's why the government's scientists are advising against shutting everything down at the moment, because they know that even if we did that people would react like this. Because they understand how people think.
If you tell people they aren't infected but have two weeks off then what did you expect them to do? Go home and read a book and watch Netflix? No, that's not what they're going to do.
People need to be educated FIRST and then you can consider telling them to stay at home, once you think they'll actually listen to you. You can't put the cart before the horse.
In Japan, the British couple of the cruise liner, say you have to have 2 negative tests in a row before they will consider releasing them.
And given the oaf across the pond, simply doing it but not making a big deal about it could be a smart move.
Eliminating business rates but having a tax like this replace it is massively productive and beneficial.
https://twitter.com/PARLYapp/status/1237760217951207425?s=20
An employee on the ninth floor of the building, which mainly houses Barclays investment bank workers, tested positive for the disease, the bank said.
The OBR predicts that house price inflation will hit 7.5% in the third quarter of 2021, then to ease back to 4.1% by 2024.
Overall, the watchdog expect house prices to rise by 23% between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2024. It had previously expected a 17% increase, before today’s measures were taken into account.
Death Duty windfall coming the way of the CoTE?
Re ; current events, I can see an interesting scenario where southern countries' cultural differences and so greater exposure to the virus give the EU political cover to provide the kind of stimuli, over and above emergency, that they didn't last time ; in the same way the virus seems to have given political cover for Boris Johnson to return to Keynesianism. In that event the virus could have the unlikely effect of strengthening both the EU and Britain's integrity.
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1237760454191185925?s=20
One would assume that British companies paying Google to advertise to British consumers should be relatively easy to figure out. Multinationals advertising across Europe etc might be a bit harder to figure out.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1237760976482598913
Boris Johnson asks Deputy Chief Medical Officer about Coronavirus 19.
That, the ballot box and the British hatred of theory, ideas and systematised beliefs of any description is our imperfect but best defence.
WHO: More of a surprise, and this is something we still don’t understand, is how little virus there was in the much broader community. Everywhere we went, we tried to find and understand how many tests had been done, how many people were tested, and who were they.
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/2/21161067/coronavirus-covid19-china
Assuming an iceberg effect when there is *no* evidence of one so far could be a very costly example of normalcy bias.
The problem is the 10%...they go downhill rapidly and of those at least 5% will die without assisted breathing before the body gets any chance to win the fight.
A city of 11 million people all in high density housing had this freely spreading for nearly 2 months, and even if we don't fully believe the Chinese figures, it was still only fraction of the residents.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1237706850788945921
What the hell is the DM journalist playing at ?
Takeaway reports it in its VAT return that they've paid Google.
Google doesn't report the income in its return.
Google has an issue that HMRC can investigate.
Or is the system not that clever?
If the toilet paper shortage continues, there might finally be a worthwhile use for their product.
If somebody have Ebola would they even entertain that idea? No
You are making it sound like every young person should have a Corona party....
The current crisis may require more spending, and it's been amusing to watch the shift in criticism from the Government not doing enough in the morning to overdoing it in the afternoon, but whatever happens I expect this splurging to continue.
Perhaps like Henry IV, his prosperity and comfort in his private life has led him to misunderstand to nature of public finances to the detriment of the nation.
https://twitter.com/vaughanbell/status/1237743124107100163
The evidence and the maths simply doesn't support the idea of an iceberg effect.
How's the temperature in Doha?
Given people are often asymptomatic for the disease early doors and yet people can still spread when asymptomatic then wearing a mask would then be helpful if everyone did it. But we haven't got enough so they aren't recommending it. Fair enough.
In terms of the effectiveness for protecting the wearer, I've studied the review in the BMJ and noted that there is evidence of effectiveness in a community setting. What do you make of the review in the BMJ?
Very rich third world country.
https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1237728184663183361
This is really dumb to announce a lockdown in x days. You do it at 2-3am then and there.
Why are we so much cleverer than the Chinese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese etc etc. who are used to dealing with pandemics?
Wouldn't it make more sense to look for an iceberg effect in places where the mortality rate is very high?
Like Hubei, or Italy.
I said the other day, this all feels like nudge theory in action. Boris sort of let it slip that he had been speaking to psychologists in an answer to a question on Monday.
If you are going to call a lockdown though, it has to be immediate, otherwise you watch 10,000s of people stream out of London.
If you were around in the 1940s you'd be telling everyone the official government information that carrots improved your eyesight. It's true because the government tells you so!
In times of war, government tells BIG LIES for the greater good. The calculation here is that we'd have a BOG ROLL situation with face-masks because we don't have enough. Fine but don't try and kid me they don't work.
Their own estimates when they prepared the changes were that about 66% of existing contractors were legitimately outside IR35 and 34% inside. The aim was (quite rightly) to catch the 34%.
The end user companies who are now responsible have taken one look at the penalties they would be liable to pay if they incorrectly assess someone as being outside when they should be in and have thought 'bugger that'.
As a result the companies have now said that only 14% of contractors are legitimately outside IR35 and have pulled 86% of them inside. This has often involved going against the advice of the specialist accountancy and legal firms like Qdos who are there to assess all the contractors.
Worse still they have said that those contractors who are inside IR35 will be deducted not only the employees PAYE and NI but also the employers as well.
It is a real cluster and will cost HMRC a very large amount of revenue.
Edit, worth pointing out that I have been assessed as being outside so I am one of the lucky few.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/opinion/biden-sanders-michigan-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Khan romping home in May?