I’ve very disappointed that a number of posters here haven’t offered their services to the government FOC. The government is sorely lacking people who can scrape opinions from Twitter and present them with a “let’s do this” flourish of insight.
Opinions are like arseholes - you have one, too. Just like the rest of us.
I’ve very disappointed that a number of posters here haven’t offered their services to the government FOC. The government is sorely lacking people who can scrape opinions from Twitter and present them with a “let’s do this” flourish of insight.
I believe the chief of staff was looking for some of those last month.
I’ve very disappointed that a number of posters here haven’t offered their services to the government FOC. The government is sorely lacking people who can scrape opinions from Twitter and present them with a “let’s do this” flourish of insight.
I feel sorry for my Foxy and my father.
Both of them spent years training to be doctors, plus all those decades treating patients, but they don't know as much as the likes of eadric and mysticrose.
Rory Stewart seems to be betting his mayoral campaign on the chance of being able to say “I told you so” and using the virus to get airtime. In doing this, he seems not to care about causing panic. He was a Cabinet Minister not so long ago and should know better. What a cock.
Can I ask a possibly naive question - why should I be worried about using cafe wifi, e.g. for accessing https sites like mobile banking?
What can go wrong and how likely is it to happen?
If you've got an HTTPS conection (the little padlock in the address bar that every site except pb has nowadays) then in theory you shouldn't have to trust the network. If you're very careful to connect to the bank's site, and not some other one, you should generally be OK.
However, any time you connect to a website without using HTTPS, the admin of the wifi, or whoever hacked it, because they're often badly secured, can switch the website you think you're looking at for another one. They may be able to use that to trick you into connecting to a different website and entering your bank password, or they might send some hacker code in another tab, and exploit some other bug in the browser.
So you reduce your risk by using a network you trust (assuming your *home* router hasn't been hacked) and it's better to do that if possible. If you do have to connect on a public network, you might want to use a different browser to the one you use for everything else just for internet banking, as this closes off some of the ways the network could be used to screw with you.
What about apps? Are they ok?
It's a similar situation: In general apps, especially banking ones, should be designed to work safely over an insecure network, and if they don't then somebody screwed up. But sometimes people screw up, so a secure network is better.
Thanks - interesting and useful. What about a 4G connection?
Then you're generally trusting your phone provider, I guess that's more likely to be secure than cafe wifi unless your adversary is the telco or the government. Someone else probably knows better than me but I think I'd prefer that over cafe wifi for secure stuff. I vaguely recall there being ways to trick your phone into connecting to the attacker's phone connection instead of the regular tower, but I might have imagined it, and in any case it has to be much less common than someone hacking cafe wifi.
I really don't know how bad and high that peak will be. Government action/inaction will affect that. I would anticipate 5 figure mortalities, but that is just a guess.
Thanks for the info Foxy. Some colleagues in the US (who work in flu detection and are at the absolute front line of this epidemiologically) think this is not 1918 but definitely substantially worse than a normal flu season, which would fit with your numbers. Let's see...
You'd have to be pretty pessimistic to think this could ever be worse than 1918. Certainly seems worse than anything we've experienced for a long time though. SARs never really exploded, and if I recall Swine flu did actually have a low mortality rate like regular flu.
Agreed. It is worse than we've seen in a long time, but also important to try and put a little perspective on the numbers, as the superficial figures are really terrifying. This is still going to be very bad of course - ~0.3-1% CFR overall seems the best estimate so far...
It increasingly troubles me that with over 73K closed cases worldwide the death rate remains at 6%, where it has been for 3 weeks now. I would have expected this to be too high at the start because many vulnerable people would get the virus, die quickly and distort the figures but there are only 55K known active cases in the world at the moment so 73K is a very significant figure.
The 6% really should have been falling by now. Some individual countries, notably Italy and increasingly Spain have a staggeringly high death/closed rates. Others, such as the Nordic countries have an incredibly good rate. But overall I fear that the CFR is going to be a lot higher than 1%.
I'm not sure anyone who didn't figure that out a long time ago is going to notice that now. Tacking from "It's all a Democrat hoax to try and attack my economic miracle" to "Democrats are trying to help those foreigners to kill you with their foreign viruses" is likely to be a depressingly effective tactic among anyone who was ever likely to vote for the arse.
and whatever happens he will, like Bush Jr, declare Victory over the Foreign Virus, except wearing a doctor's coat and a stethoscope instead of military uniform.
I really don't know how bad and high that peak will be. Government action/inaction will affect that. I would anticipate 5 figure mortalities, but that is just a guess.
Thanks for the info Foxy. Some colleagues in the US (who work in flu detection and are at the absolute front line of this epidemiologically) think this is not 1918 but definitely substantially worse than a normal flu season, which would fit with your numbers. Let's see...
You'd have to be pretty pessimistic to think this could ever be worse than 1918. Certainly seems worse than anything we've experienced for a long time though. SARs never really exploded, and if I recall Swine flu did actually have a low mortality rate like regular flu.
Agreed. It is worse than we've seen in a long time, but also important to try and put a little perspective on the numbers, as the superficial figures are really terrifying. This is still going to be very bad of course - ~0.3-1% CFR overall seems the best estimate so far...
It increasingly troubles me that with over 73K closed cases worldwide the death rate remains at 6%, where it has been for 3 weeks now. I would have expected this to be too high at the start because many vulnerable people would get the virus, die quickly and distort the figures but there are only 55K known active cases in the world at the moment so 73K is a very significant figure.
The 6% really should have been falling by now. Some individual countries, notably Italy and increasingly Spain have a staggeringly high death/closed rates. Others, such as the Nordic countries have an incredibly good rate. But overall I fear that the CFR is going to be a lot higher than 1%.
It is a testing bias. With limiting testing capacity, medical authorities are naturally testing for those they think have the virus because they are exhibiting the more severe symptoms. Furthermore, RT-PCR cannot detect those who've had and recovered from COVID, it only detects the RNA of viruses currently in the patient, so will miss all those who've had it. We need antibody-based testing to discover just how many have indeed recovered without having been identified by PCR.
I’ve very disappointed that a number of posters here haven’t offered their services to the government FOC. The government is sorely lacking people who can scrape opinions from Twitter and present them with a “let’s do this” flourish of insight.
You can listen to John Aston if you want, but he made a basic GCSE mistake in statistics over the Sir Roy Meadows case.
Have a feeling you have got mixed up with Horton at the Lancet, who's also been on the warpath recently?
You are quite right. Apologies.
In fact, I got doubled mixed up, as it is Prof John Ashton (not Prof John Aston).
I don't know Prof John Ashton -- is he anyone reliable?
I don't like his analogy, as I am sure it is unfair to describe the Govt scientists (or "our lot" as he calls them) as nineteenth century colonialists and part-time cricketers.
You can listen to John Aston if you want, but he made a basic GCSE mistake in statistics over the Sir Roy Meadows case.
Have a feeling you have got mixed up with Horton at the Lancet, who's also been on the warpath recently?
You are quite right. Apologies.
In fact, I got doubled mixed up, as it is Prof John Ashton (not Prof John Aston).
I don't know Prof John Ashton -- is he anyone reliable?
I don't like his analogy, as I am sure it is unfair to describe the Govt scientists (or "our lot" as he calls them) as nineteenth century colonialists and part-time cricketers.
I really don't know how bad and high that peak will be. Government action/inaction will affect that. I would anticipate 5 figure mortalities, but that is just a guess.
Thanks for the info Foxy. Some colleagues in the US (who work in flu detection and are at the absolute front line of this epidemiologically) think this is not 1918 but definitely substantially worse than a normal flu season, which would fit with your numbers. Let's see...
You'd have to be pretty pessimistic to think this could ever be worse than 1918. Certainly seems worse than anything we've experienced for a long time though. SARs never really exploded, and if I recall Swine flu did actually have a low mortality rate like regular flu.
Agreed. It is worse than we've seen in a long time, but also important to try and put a little perspective on the numbers, as the superficial figures are really terrifying. This is still going to be very bad of course - ~0.3-1% CFR overall seems the best estimate so far...
It increasingly troubles me that with over 73K closed cases worldwide the death rate remains at 6%, where it has been for 3 weeks now. I would have expected this to be too high at the start because many vulnerable people would get the virus, die quickly and distort the figures but there are only 55K known active cases in the world at the moment so 73K is a very significant figure.
The 6% really should have been falling by now. Some individual countries, notably Italy and increasingly Spain have a staggeringly high death/closed rates. Others, such as the Nordic countries have an incredibly good rate. But overall I fear that the CFR is going to be a lot higher than 1%.
It is a testing bias. With limiting testing capacity, medical authorities are naturally testing for those they think have the virus because they are exhibiting the more severe symptoms. Furthermore, RT-PCR cannot detect those who've had and recovered from COVID, it only detects the RNA of viruses currently in the patient, so will miss all those who've had it. We need antibody-based testing to discover just how many have indeed recovered without having been identified by PCR.
Pro-rata said: And that information, one would hope, will be coming in the next weeks from Wuhan. (Apologies for quote error showing TimT's contribution as mine - too deeply embedded to unwind in 1-2 minutes)
You can listen to John Aston if you want, but he made a basic GCSE mistake in statistics over the Sir Roy Meadows case.
Have a feeling you have got mixed up with Horton at the Lancet, who's also been on the warpath recently?
You are quite right. Apologies.
In fact, I got doubled mixed up, as it is Prof John Ashton (not Prof John Aston).
I don't know Prof John Ashton -- is he anyone reliable?
I don't like his analogy, as I am sure it is unfair to describe the Govt scientists (or "our lot" as he calls them) as nineteenth century colonialists and part-time cricketers.
Ashton who had "developed a no-nonsense reputation" in his 13 years in the job was regarded as "outspoken" and described himself as "fed up with government red tape."
Comments
Both of them spent years training to be doctors, plus all those decades treating patients, but they don't know as much as the likes of eadric and mysticrose.
Too many people on thread: please disperse
It increasingly troubles me that with over 73K closed cases worldwide the death rate remains at 6%, where it has been for 3 weeks now. I would have expected this to be too high at the start because many vulnerable people would get the virus, die quickly and distort the figures but there are only 55K known active cases in the world at the moment so 73K is a very significant figure.
The 6% really should have been falling by now. Some individual countries, notably Italy and increasingly Spain have a staggeringly high death/closed rates. Others, such as the Nordic countries have an incredibly good rate. But overall I fear that the CFR is going to be a lot higher than 1%.
and whatever happens he will, like Bush Jr, declare Victory over the Foreign Virus, except wearing a doctor's coat and a stethoscope instead of military uniform.
Dow feels way too high compared to FTSE now.
This seems like a plan for making sure old people don't die but younger people with health problems get fucked.
The 6% really should have been falling by now. Some individual countries, notably Italy and increasingly Spain have a staggeringly high death/closed rates. Others, such as the Nordic countries have an incredibly good rate. But overall I fear that the CFR is going to be a lot higher than 1%.
It is a testing bias. With limiting testing capacity, medical authorities are naturally testing for those they think have the virus because they are exhibiting the more severe symptoms. Furthermore, RT-PCR cannot detect those who've had and recovered from COVID, it only detects the RNA of viruses currently in the patient, so will miss all those who've had it. We need antibody-based testing to discover just how many have indeed recovered without having been identified by PCR.
In fact, I got doubled mixed up, as it is Prof John Ashton (not Prof John Aston).
I don't know Prof John Ashton -- is he anyone reliable?
I don't like his analogy, as I am sure it is unfair to describe the Govt scientists (or "our lot" as he calls them) as nineteenth century colonialists and part-time cricketers.
https://tinyurl.com/v57ao5c
The 6% really should have been falling by now. Some individual countries, notably Italy and increasingly Spain have a staggeringly high death/closed rates. Others, such as the Nordic countries have an incredibly good rate. But overall I fear that the CFR is going to be a lot higher than 1%.
It is a testing bias. With limiting testing capacity, medical authorities are naturally testing for those they think have the virus because they are exhibiting the more severe symptoms. Furthermore, RT-PCR cannot detect those who've had and recovered from COVID, it only detects the RNA of viruses currently in the patient, so will miss all those who've had it. We need antibody-based testing to discover just how many have indeed recovered without having been identified by PCR.
Pro-rata said: And that information, one would hope, will be coming in the next weeks from Wuhan.
(Apologies for quote error showing TimT's contribution as mine - too deeply embedded to unwind in 1-2 minutes)
Mmmmm.
Now for the inane and stupid questions from the political media.