That still leaves the lying cheating thick bell end leading us.
"Us"... I knew there'd be silver linings! Countries do pull together in times like these
Merely an acknowledgment of constitutional reality. However if you want to turn 'Iet's all get behind the lying cheating thick bell end' as a clarion call for unity, go for it.
No no, no opinion on anything like that from me. Just surprised you addressed Sturgeon in those terms, then realised you were using ‘us’ as ‘us Brits’
Actually, I think that must make a fourfold increase in those healed per day in Italy, a reduction in new intensive care cases, and a reduction in deaths per day.
The number of cases is increasing but the prognosis seems to be going in the opposite direction and getting better.
The exponential growth in Italy does seem to have stopped. The number of cases are still increasing though.
Thought we had a graph posted here which showed Italy cases still progressing on a straight line against a logarithmic scale, thus exponentially?
< Italy seems to be taking a harder, earlier intervention approach.
If I understand the counter-argument properly, Italy's approach may slow things down now but it is not sustainable and as soon as they relax the restrictions case numbers will soar again. >
The thing that interests me is that case numbers are still rising pretty substantially, though- it's the outcomes that seem to be getting better.
My reading is that Italy locked down Lombardy because its health services were being overwhelmed and they realised that they should have acted sooner in that region.
But they failed to enforce the lockdown and people from Lombardy started fleeing all over the country.
In a panic response they then declared quarantine for the rest of the country. Which saves them the hassle of trying to stop people leaving Lombardy, whilst achieving SFA, since most of Italy is at a similar position to ourselves.
One thing not much commented on when discussing U.K. versus other countries. I have seen very few other major countries with such a single command and control function across the country. Or in England certainly - the situation in Scotland/wales is complicated because the levers to pull are shared.
That puts us in a much better position to follow a plan and act quickly, consistently and decisively in reaction (or pro action) to changing circumstances. Other countries seem far more mixed in having local leaders taking decisions and potentially undermining national strategy. Although in the US I think they are doing it out of desperation.
I disagree it is important for different Regions to react to their local conditions. What’s right for London May not be right fo Cornwall. It need an overall view but not one size fits all
One thing not much commented on when discussing U.K. versus other countries. I have seen very few other major countries with such a single command and control function across the country. Or in England certainly - the situation in Scotland/wales is complicated because the levers to pull are shared.
That puts us in a much better position to follow a plan and act quickly, consistently and decisively in reaction (or pro action) to changing circumstances. Other countries seem far more mixed in having local leaders taking decisions and potentially undermining national strategy. Although in the US I think they are doing it out of desperation.
I disagree it is important for different Regions to react to their local conditions. What’s right for London May not be right fo Cornwall. It need an overall view but not one size fits all
Even with a cenralised system the action can still be tailored to the locality.
Actually, I think that must make a fourfold increase in those healed per day in Italy, a reduction in new intensive care cases, and a reduction in deaths per day.
The number of cases is increasing but the prognosis seems to be going in the opposite direction and getting better.
The exponential growth in Italy does seem to have stopped. The number of cases are still increasing though.
Thought we had a graph posted here which showed Italy cases still progressing on a straight line against a logarithmic scale, thus exponentially?
< Italy seems to be taking a harder, earlier intervention approach.
If I understand the counter-argument properly, Italy's approach may slow things down now but it is not sustainable and as soon as they relax the restrictions case numbers will soar again. >
The thing that interests me is that case numbers are still rising pretty substantially, though- it's the outcomes that seem to be getting better.
My reading is that Italy locked down Lombardy because its health services were being overwhelmed and they realised that they should have acted sooner in that region.
But they failed to enforce the lockdown and people from Lombardy started fleeing all over the country.
In a panic response they then declared quarantine for the rest of the country. Which saves them the hassle of trying to stop people leaving Lombardy, whilst achieving SFA, since most of Italy is at a similar position to ourselves.
This doesn't really explain to me why numbers such as those healed should be increasing in Lombardy, though. The lockdown and organisational change has been in place for several days now and today, as well as seeing a decrease in deaths, saw a three to fourfold increase in those healed.
I'm no epidemiologist and defer to those who are, but presumably if treatments are still so ineffective against the disease and at the early experimental stages, that may be to do with the disease itself.
Lots of Americans warned me of all the obese people I would encounter once I drove west into the red states. But I was surprised to find very few.
I began to realise that hiking the trails up mountains in the State Parks, exercising my dog in city dog parks, and eating in the better restaurants in town probably wasn’t the best way of meeting such folks.
Huge call by the government today. It’s evidently based on medical advice but you can easily see how it could go horribly wrong.
The Prime Minister has been brave.
Indeed, although... if it becomes clear that the approach is wrong HMG can quickly switch to lock-down mode and say 'we made the right decision earlier but now, as flagged, we are ramping up'.
The real truth will only emerge in years to come when a full post-mortem is conducted.
That still leaves the lying cheating thick bell end leading us.
Johnson is a chancer and a charlatan, but he is not Trump. Johnson wants to save lives and will defer to expertise. Trump doesn’t care about anyone or anything but himself.
I think it is worse now with Trump, he is just shit scared and powerless.
Lots of Americans warned me of all the obese people I would encounter once I drove west into the red states. But I was surprised to find very few.
I began to realise that hiking the trails up mountains in the State Parks, exercising my dog in city dog parks, and eating in the better restaurants in town probably wasn’t the best way of meeting such folks.
< Italy seems to be taking a harder, earlier intervention approach.
If I understand the counter-argument properly, Italy's approach may slow things down now but it is not sustainable and as soon as they relax the restrictions case numbers will soar again. >
The thing that interests me is that case numbers are still rising pretty substantially, though- it's the outcomes that seem to be getting better.
My reading is that Italy locked down Lombardy because its health services were being overwhelmed and they realised that they should have acted sooner in that region.
But they failed to enforce the lockdown and people from Lombardy started fleeing all over the country.
In a panic response they then declared quarantine for the rest of the country. Which saves them the hassle of trying to stop people leaving Lombardy, whilst achieving SFA, since most of Italy is at a similar position to ourselves.
This doesn't really explain to me why numbers such as those healed should be increasing in Lombardy, though. The lockdown and organisational change has been in place several days now and today, as well as seeing a decrease in deaths, saw a a three to fourfold increase in those healed.
I'm no epidemiologist and defer to those who are, but presumably if treatments are still so ineffective against the disease and at the early stages, that may be to do with the disease itself.
But why, when almost all infected younger people will survive?
< Italy seems to be taking a harder, earlier intervention approach.
If I understand the counter-argument properly, Italy's approach may slow things down now but it is not sustainable and as soon as they relax the restrictions case numbers will soar again. >
The thing that interests me is that case numbers are still rising pretty substantially, though- it's the outcomes that seem to be getting better.
My reading is that Italy locked down Lombardy because its health services were being overwhelmed and they realised that they should have acted sooner in that region.
But they failed to enforce the lockdown and people from Lombardy started fleeing all over the country.
In a panic response they then declared quarantine for the rest of the country. Which saves them the hassle of trying to stop people leaving Lombardy, whilst achieving SFA, since most of Italy is at a similar position to ourselves.
This doesn't really explain to me why numbers such as those healed should be increasing in Lombardy, though. The lockdown and organisational change has been in place several days now and today, as well as seeing a decrease in deaths, saw a a three to fourfold increase in those healed.
I'm no epidemiologist and defer to those who are, but presumably if treatments are still so ineffective against the disease and at the early stages, that may be to do with the disease itself.
But why, when almost all infected younger people will survive?
But we're talking about the numbers seriously ill, then healed, aren't we ? Presumably these would have been previous deaths.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
Huge call by the government today. It’s evidently based on medical advice but you can easily see how it could go horribly wrong.
The Prime Minister has been brave.
This is probably one of the most ballsy calls for decades. The politically safe thing to do is stay in the herd, but we've ran away from it.
If he really believes sticking to the science, he is going to have also endure terrible stories of deaths and sick piling up, for the greater good in mind. The media pressure is going to be astronomical to simply follow another country.
< Italy seems to be taking a harder, earlier intervention approach.
If I understand the counter-argument properly, Italy's approach may slow things down now but it is not sustainable and as soon as they relax the restrictions case numbers will soar again. >
The thing that interests me is that case numbers are still rising pretty substantially, though- it's the outcomes that seem to be getting better.
My reading is that Italy locked down Lombardy because its health services were being overwhelmed and they realised that they should have acted sooner in that region.
But they failed to enforce the lockdown and people from Lombardy started fleeing all over the country.
In a panic response they then declared quarantine for the rest of the country. Which saves them the hassle of trying to stop people leaving Lombardy, whilst achieving SFA, since most of Italy is at a similar position to ourselves.
This doesn't really explain to me why numbers such as those healed should be increasing in Lombardy, though. The lockdown and organisational change has been in place for several days now and today, as well as seeing a decrease in deaths, saw a three to fourfold increase in those healed.
I'm no epidemiologist and defer to those who are, but presumably if treatments are still so ineffective against the disease and at the early experimental stages, that may be to do with the disease itself.
?? Am struggling to understand this comment. Obviously the majority of cases (thankfully) will convert to recovered after a few weeks.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
They could both be right for their current state. We are 1-4 weeks behind the European countries who are taking stronger action. In 4 weeks time Id imagine we are taking similar actions.
Spain's health service is devolved down to regional level, so there is currently no countrywide response. It's becoming a real problem, but the constitution did not foresee a problem like this - or the rise of Catalan and, to a lesser extent, Basque nationalism, both of which make it much harder for Madrid to get a central coordinating role.
Perhaps we need coronavirus summer camps for young people who can infect themselves without any danger of inflicting it on the more vulnerable, and then go back into the community with immunity.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
...all the other European countries except France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland...
Huge call by the government today. It’s evidently based on medical advice but you can easily see how it could go horribly wrong.
The Prime Minister has been brave.
This is probably one of the most ballsy calls for decades. The politically safe thing to do is stay in the herd, but we've ran away from it.
If he really believes sticking to the science, he is going to have also endure terrible stories of deaths and sick piling up, for the greater good in mind. The media pressure is going to be astronomical to simply follow another country.
The government will be getting it in the neck from every loudmouth on social media and the press for many months to come. Hopefully it will ignore every one of them.
"Londoners looking to pick up a hard-earned £3,507 ($4,588) will have an excellent opportunity to do so, and the only catch is that they'll have to get sick and maybe (but probably not) die.
Those desperate enough for that type of cash can volunteer themselves to be human guinea pigs for the Queen Mary BioEnterprises Innovation Centre in London, as two dozen volunteers are being sought to be injected with the coronavirus and then take part in a flu camp.
The ultimate goal is for a company called hVIVO to try and find a vaccine for the disease which has, thus far, killed nearly 4,000 people worldwide. "
< Italy seems to be taking a harder, earlier intervention approach.
If I understand the counter-argument properly, Italy's approach may slow things down now but it is not sustainable and as soon as they relax the restrictions case numbers will soar again. >
The thing that interests me is that case numbers are still rising pretty substantially, though- it's the outcomes that seem to be getting better.
My reading is that Italy locked down Lombardy because its health services were being overwhelmed and they realised that they should have acted sooner in that region.
But they failed to enforce the lockdown and people from Lombardy started fleeing all over the country.
In a panic response they then declared quarantine for the rest of the country. Which saves them the hassle of trying to stop people leaving Lombardy, whilst achieving SFA, since most of Italy is at a similar position to ourselves.
This doesn't really explain to me why numbers such as those healed should be increasing in Lombardy, though. The lockdown and organisational change has been in place for several days now and today, as well as seeing a decrease in deaths, saw a three to fourfold increase in those healed.
I'm no epidemiologist and defer to those who are, but presumably if treatments are still so ineffective against the disease and at the early experimental stages, that may be to do with the disease itself.
?? Am struggling to understand this comment. Obviously the majority of cases (thankfully) will convert to recovered after a few weeks.
The figure is for those declared healed *that day*, though - does this mean people who either have been intubated or have been in intensive care and are now declared recovered, or people who merely showed the early symptoms and then recovered ? I'd expect it to be the former, as presumably fewer of the people who only displayed the early symptoms will have been admitted to hospital in the first place.
This needs some expert medical perspective, I think.
Spain's health service is devolved down to regional level, so there is currently no countrywide response. It's becoming a real problem, but the constitution did not foresee a problem like this - or the rise of Catalan and, to a lesser extent, Basque nationalism, both of which make it much harder for Madrid to get a central coordinating role.
Still, I'm sure that there's lots of residual goodwill to help them out.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
They`ll no doubt be concerned about the impact of lockdowns on the economy and the public from an economic perspective. How on earth can folk be expected to stay at home on statutory sick pay and even remotely have a chance of covering their bills? In time there may prove to be a big competitive advantage in taking the approach that they are, and I support the way the UK government is handling this.
Today I have demonstrated that spread betting is a risky business. My sell positions were about £1000 up overnight, and I made another £1200 as markets began to fall after London open. Since then, buoyed by confidence in my success to date, I have tried to trade today’s wild swings, and managed mostly to be on the wrong side of them.
I still have my overnight gains but have frittered away most of this mornings winnings. And it is impossible to decide whether tomorrow will see a big rebound or whether the sink will continue.
The sensible thing, which I will do, is to close out most of my positions overnight.
Short term, I am sure the trend is down, on the back of ongoing bad medical news, particularly when the scale of the crisis in the US finally hits the headlines. So I will keep open a small sell position. But it is clear that a lot of people see the current market levels as buying opportunity, and tomorrow could easily be a rebound day.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
Even if it were all other european countries, and it isn't, it's one thing to have doubts because there are various scientific opinions and a diversity of different systems and situations which means it is possible that our government has chosen the wrong approach, and another thing to go 'others are right, we are wrong' which is the extent of most such opinion. We could be getting things wrong, but for some reason most of those suggesting that very real possibility, express utter certainty that those doing other things cannot possibly be wrong, when of course that is also a possibility.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
Do they think 95% will get it?
No. 80% was considered worst case if unchecked. Already we are washing hands more and self isolating so worst case now probably a fair bit lower.
Perhaps we need coronavirus summer camps for young people who can infect themselves without any danger of inflicting it on the more vulnerable, and then go back into the community with immunity.
"Londoners looking to pick up a hard-earned £3,507 ($4,588) will have an excellent opportunity to do so, and the only catch is that they'll have to get sick and maybe (but probably not) die.
Those desperate enough for that type of cash can volunteer themselves to be human guinea pigs for the Queen Mary BioEnterprises Innovation Centre in London, as two dozen volunteers are being sought to be injected with the coronavirus and then take part in a flu camp.
The ultimate goal is for a company called hVIVO to try and find a vaccine for the disease which has, thus far, killed nearly 4,000 people worldwide. "
Spain's health service is devolved down to regional level, so there is currently no countrywide response. It's becoming a real problem, but the constitution did not foresee a problem like this - or the rise of Catalan and, to a lesser extent, Basque nationalism, both of which make it much harder for Madrid to get a central coordinating role.
Being on the ground the schools are only closing where there is a significant problem. Have just started getting town hall advice, sports activities cancelled, where they involve outside teams. Cultural and other outdoor activities continue, schools remain open and there is a request to cancel all indoor events involving more than 25 people. More will follow
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
They`ll no doubt be concerned about the impact of lockdowns on the economy and the public from an economic perspective. How on earth can folk be expected to stay at home on statutory sick pay and even remotely have a chance of covering their bills? In time there may prove to be a big competitive advantage in taking the approach that they are, and I support the way the UK government is handling this.
Indeed. Try living on the UC weekly allowance of £73.34.
I don't know how I could manage but plenty of people are going to lose their jobs and have to rely on UC for a time this year imo.
Perhaps we need coronavirus summer camps for young people who can infect themselves without any danger of inflicting it on the more vulnerable, and then go back into the community with immunity.
Its way out there but not a bad solution! Run Glastonbury free all summer for healthy under 40s but they have to do quarantine to return to wider society.
Just to clarify those saying 95% will get it, that isn't what the model is. It is 95% of all those that will contract will get it in a 3 month period of which 50% will be in a 3 week period.
This is independent of the total % of the population who will be infected.
Just to clarify those saying 95% will get it, that isn't what the model is. It is 95% of all those that will contract will get it in a 3 month period of which 50% will be in a 3 week period.
This is independent of the total % of the population who will be infected.
Even the worst case is 70-80%. There are always hermits in village cottages who realistically aren’t going to catch it from anyone.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
They`ll no doubt be concerned about the impact of lockdowns on the economy and the public from an economic perspective. How on earth can folk be expected to stay at home on statutory sick pay and even remotely have a chance of covering their bills? In time there may prove to be a big competitive advantage in taking the approach that they are, and I support the way the UK government is handling this.
Indeed. Try living on the UC weekly allowance of £73.34.
I don't know how I could manage but plenty of people are going to lose their jobs and have to rely on UC for a time this year imo.
That would just abour cover my council tax and house insurance - and that`s it. The majority of families in the UK have no savings to speak of to fall back on.
In a lib democracy you can only make people isolate by law. I can`t see the UK taking the Italy route which I think is enforced by decree.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
They`ll no doubt be concerned about the impact of lockdowns on the economy and the public from an economic perspective. How on earth can folk be expected to stay at home on statutory sick pay and even remotely have a chance of covering their bills? In time there may prove to be a big competitive advantage in taking the approach that they are, and I support the way the UK government is handling this.
The level of SSP is a disgrace. Cant think of a good reason it shouldnt be minimum wage. And paid for in full by employers for up to 1 month.
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
We are taking a fundamentally different approach. That's fine but everyone should understand that.
Today I have demonstrated that spread betting is a risky business. My sell positions were about £1000 up overnight, and I made another £1200 as markets began to fall after London open. Since then, buoyed by confidence in my success to date, I have tried to trade today’s wild swings, and managed mostly to be on the wrong side of them.
I still have my overnight gains but have frittered away most of this mornings winnings. And it is impossible to decide whether tomorrow will see a big rebound or whether the sink will continue.
The sensible thing, which I will do, is to close out most of my positions overnight.
Short term, I am sure the trend is down, on the back of ongoing bad medical news, particularly when the scale of the crisis in the US finally hits the headlines. So I will keep open a small sell position. But it is clear that a lot of people see the current market levels as buying opportunity, and tomorrow could easily be a rebound day.
If you still think the trend is still downwards you should stick with your sell positions. I`m not a fan of closing out. Each bet should be taken on its own merits with no notice being taken of bets already made. And each bet has a trading cost of course. Bookies love people closing out.
We're being ruled by those who can't be bothered to isolate and do what is necessary. I really can't believe what I'm hearing.
These guys are trying to model the behaviour of millions of people.
What do they know? They only have a staff of dozens/hundreds and a budget of millions. I'm sure @ukpaul has the same resources at his fingertips.
So you're happy to run the risk of serious illness just because a bunch of people think it's just a bit of the flu and the kids won't take any notice anyway?
I think Johnson's first words were "this is not flu".
Ah, I'm not referring to the government, I'm referring to the mass of people who are dismissing the whole thing as being 'hyped'. Government by the slowest to catch on. It's not exactly Churchillian is it?
In your original comment you were talking about who we were being ruled by. Aren't we ruled by the government?
Perhaps we need coronavirus summer camps for young people who can infect themselves without any danger of inflicting it on the more vulnerable, and then go back into the community with immunity.
My lovely wife said exactly the same thing about an hour ago. I think I will be forced to admit that in this instance clearly great minds think alike.
"Londoners looking to pick up a hard-earned £3,507 ($4,588) will have an excellent opportunity to do so, and the only catch is that they'll have to get sick and maybe (but probably not) die.
Those desperate enough for that type of cash can volunteer themselves to be human guinea pigs for the Queen Mary BioEnterprises Innovation Centre in London, as two dozen volunteers are being sought to be injected with the coronavirus and then take part in a flu camp.
The ultimate goal is for a company called hVIVO to try and find a vaccine for the disease which has, thus far, killed nearly 4,000 people worldwide. "
Absolute nonsense. They are not going to be injected with "the coronavirus." They are going to be infected with two different coronaviruses, which just cause variants of the common cold.
Perhaps we need coronavirus summer camps for young people who can infect themselves without any danger of inflicting it on the more vulnerable, and then go back into the community with immunity.
My lovely wife said exactly the same thing about an hour ago. I think I will be forced to admit that in this instance clearly great minds think alike.
If you gave it a sort of "Love Island for Coronavirus" approach, it might catch on.
Perhaps we need coronavirus summer camps for young people who can infect themselves without any danger of inflicting it on the more vulnerable, and then go back into the community with immunity.
My lovely wife said exactly the same thing about an hour ago. I think I will be forced to admit that in this instance clearly great minds think alike.
I'm picking up a 1968 vibe. Let's just let it all out there.
One thing not much commented on when discussing U.K. versus other countries. I have seen very few other major countries with such a single command and control function across the country. Or in England certainly - the situation in Scotland/wales is complicated because the levers to pull are shared.
That puts us in a much better position to follow a plan and act quickly, consistently and decisively in reaction (or pro action) to changing circumstances. Other countries seem far more mixed in having local leaders taking decisions and potentially undermining national strategy. Although in the US I think they are doing it out of desperation.
I disagree it is important for different Regions to react to their local conditions. What’s right for London May not be right fo Cornwall. It need an overall view but not one size fits all
Even with a cenralised system the action can still be tailored to the locality.
Quite - I wasn't suggesting a single national approach. But local actions guided by national approach. As opposed to local actions, based on uncertain advice and potentially at disagreement with national politicians.
Of course this is more viable in certain countries where the 'local' is still quite clear and local actions can be truly independent without undermining the national approach severely if wrong (most obvious example I can think of being somewhere like Australia). The problem (and I alluded to this with Scotland/Wales) is that you potentially get into situations where local leaders have the powers to influence what happens in their area, but not a complete set of levers to pull (because some are retained at national level). Much better all the levers are in one place IMO.
Can I work from home yet or will I still need to commute for three hours a day on public transport to do the same job I could do at home?
I bet 95% plus can`t work from home! It`s bollox as Malc would say.
I know, I'm fortunate my job involves tapping away at a keyboard and thinking mainly.
Can I do that at home or will I have to don my predator outfit next week to get to work just because the government can't provide nuanced guidance?
Think of all the factory workers, cleaners and shelf stackers. They can`t work at home FFS. And people like that won`t have savings. People who CAN work from home mostly have well remunerated jobs anyway. The lockdown thing is for the birds. We`ve got to live with this thing until a vaccine is found - and I`ve thought that from day one.
Carry on raping wasnt one of the funniest though Malc
There are no charges of rape, typical unionist bollox.
Just attempted rape and intent to rape
Listen to yourself Malcolm
It's bad, and the conspiracy theories defending Salmond on Twitter are worse. I think he'll be found Not Proven or something though. Corroboration is going to be difficult. So the conspiracy theories will get worse. I'm not making a judgement on his guilt or otherwise by typing this, just what it all means. Previous to the trial, someone I thought was clued-up on things inside the SNP was telling me that stories flying round were that it was all one woman who was unwell, he was surprised when I told him it was 10.
I quit on the midnight before the trial begun. I got a nice automatic email from Peter Murrell the next morning. I feel sad.
I am a harsh critic, but I was impressed by Johnson today. It was good to see him use his undoubted communication skills for a good purpose.
As others have said, this is also crying out for the persuasive, campaigning powers of Cummings to be used for the national good. Though we’d have to ensure no one knows it’s him.
We're being ruled by those who can't be bothered to isolate and do what is necessary. I really can't believe what I'm hearing.
These guys are trying to model the behaviour of millions of people.
What do they know? They only have a staff of dozens/hundreds and a budget of millions. I'm sure @ukpaul has the same resources at his fingertips.
So you're happy to run the risk of serious illness just because a bunch of people think it's just a bit of the flu and the kids won't take any notice anyway?
I think Johnson's first words were "this is not flu".
Ah, I'm not referring to the government, I'm referring to the mass of people who are dismissing the whole thing as being 'hyped'. Government by the slowest to catch on. It's not exactly Churchillian is it?
In your original comment you were talking about who we were being ruled by. Aren't we ruled by the government?
We're being ruled by those who can't be bothered to isolate and do what is necessary. I really can't believe what I'm hearing.
These guys are trying to model the behaviour of millions of people.
What do they know? They only have a staff of dozens/hundreds and a budget of millions. I'm sure @ukpaul has the same resources at his fingertips.
So you're happy to run the risk of serious illness just because a bunch of people think it's just a bit of the flu and the kids won't take any notice anyway?
I think Johnson's first words were "this is not flu".
Ah, I'm not referring to the government, I'm referring to the mass of people who are dismissing the whole thing as being 'hyped'. Government by the slowest to catch on. It's not exactly Churchillian is it?
In your original comment you were talking about who we were being ruled by. Aren't we ruled by the government?
Erm I think Elizabeth Windsor wants a word...
She might do - but it won’t the simple fact that a powerless figurehead doesn’t rule over me or anyone else.
Huge call by the government today. It’s evidently based on medical advice but you can easily see how it could go horribly wrong.
The Prime Minister has been brave.
Naive to think that "medical advice" would consist of "This is the best thing to do. Do it."
Any advice worthy of the name would be a list of options and likely consequences - in terms of loss of life and other factors such as impact on the economy.
The government has made it very clear it is trying to strike a "balance."
Perhaps we need coronavirus summer camps for young people who can infect themselves without any danger of inflicting it on the more vulnerable, and then go back into the community with immunity.
Like pox parties?
I'm sure it wasn't semi serious but it's actually quite possibly the best solution to the crisis.
It could even secure a few votes amongst the elderly by calling it "national service"
I am a harsh critic, but I was impressed by Johnson today. It was good to see him use his undoubted communication skills for a good purpose.
He really shows up the shit PM's doesn't he. Cleverest since Wilson at least. I was watching some old film of Wilson doing TV interviews and messing around with his pipe to stall for time to come up with an answer, and somehow it reminded me of Boris. God, Cameron was shit!
As we discussed this morning the key to the government approach is the belief that the spread of this virus cannot be stopped. If it can't everything they are doing to smooth the curve and delay the peak until summer makes perfect sense.
But if the east Asia countries show that belief is wrong we are facing an unnecessary tragedy. Their worst case scenario is 520k dead (65m x 0.8 x 1%). I mean, fuck.
China is currently just over 3k deaths. Are they really saying on the same basis that ultimately 9.6m Chinese may die of this despite all their efforts? It's mindblowing and not supported by the current evidence.
Its a massive call. But the scientists are impressive and measured, there is no denying that. If they are right then China's numbers are likely to start increasing again at some point as they try to return to anything like normal. We shall see.
It's indeed really a tough call - I don't envy them, but do trust that the scientists who are in charge of this are extremely smart and well briefed (Whitty is indeed an expert in this area). Doesn't mean they might not be wrong of course but they are very qualified and smart people advising the government through this.
One other point that does factor into your calculation re number of deaths is the number of asymptomatic cases. Remember they said that they think children do indeed catch the disease but do not really present symptoms - that's already >20% of the population of the UK off the bat. I think these asymptomatic cases will all reduce the death rate somewhat (I think the CMO said 1% or less, right?) The confidence interval from Roy Anderson was 0.3-1% so consistent with this, and potentially suggesting it might be on the lower end as TimT also suggested earlier.
I have no idea either. But i'm struck by the markedly different approaches being taken in britain and most Continental countries. Our view seems to be that we'll all (95%) get it, and indeed need to get it so as to develop immunity, so the focus should be on avoiding us all getting it at once. The Continentals may agree, but they evidently think that banning large gatherings, closing schools, etc. is helpful in flattening the curve.
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
They`ll no doubt be concerned about the impact of lockdowns on the economy and the public from an economic perspective. How on earth can folk be expected to stay at home on statutory sick pay and even remotely have a chance of covering their bills? In time there may prove to be a big competitive advantage in taking the approach that they are, and I support the way the UK government is handling this.
Indeed. Try living on the UC weekly allowance of £73.34.
I don't know how I could manage but plenty of people are going to lose their jobs and have to rely on UC for a time this year imo.
Perhaps this will be the time to introduce UI (Universal Income).
Just to clarify those saying 95% will get it, that isn't what the model is. It is 95% of all those that will contract will get it in a 3 month period of which 50% will be in a 3 week period.
This is independent of the total % of the population who will be infected.
Even the worst case is 70-80%. There are always hermits in village cottages who realistically aren’t going to catch it from anyone.
Can I work from home yet or will I still need to commute for three hours a day on public transport to do the same job I could do at home?
I bet 95% plus can`t work from home! It`s bollox as Malc would say.
I know, I'm fortunate my job involves tapping away at a keyboard and thinking mainly.
Can I do that at home or will I have to don my predator outfit next week to get to work just because the government can't provide nuanced guidance?
Think of all the factory workers, cleaners and shelf stackers. They can`t work at home FFS. And people like that won`t have savings. People who CAN work from home mostly have well remunerated jobs anyway. The lockdown thing is for the birds. We`ve got to live with this thing until a vaccine is found - and I`ve thought that from day one.
Both my barber and my dog trainer today were very fearful about the implications of a prolonged quarantine for their businesses.
Front pages are going to be interesting tonight. How many are going to go for Johnson over his science-based plan for the next stage?
I hope the Government are meeting with newspaper editors and actually reminding themselves of the responsibilities that they used to take seriously at times of national crisis. I don't see why newspapers have to be sensationalist to sell copy - sometimes people might actually crave factual detail. It might be a novel approach, but there's definitely a gap in the market to be exploited.
It would certainly be sensible for the Government to commission slots in the papers to explain their approach, to at a minimum secure a measure of balance if the papers won't play ball.
Front pages are going to be interesting tonight. How many are going to go for Johnson over his science-based plan for the next stage?
I hope the Government are meeting with newspaper editors and actually reminding themselves of the responsibilities that they used to take seriously at times of national crisis.
To achieve the same aim, sadly they might have more success phoning the multi-billionaire owners and reminding them of the state of the stock market.
Can I work from home yet or will I still need to commute for three hours a day on public transport to do the same job I could do at home?
I bet 95% plus can`t work from home! It`s bollox as Malc would say.
I know, I'm fortunate my job involves tapping away at a keyboard and thinking mainly.
Can I do that at home or will I have to don my predator outfit next week to get to work just because the government can't provide nuanced guidance?
Think of all the factory workers, cleaners and shelf stackers. They can`t work at home FFS. And people like that won`t have savings. People who CAN work from home mostly have well remunerated jobs anyway. The lockdown thing is for the birds. We`ve got to live with this thing until a vaccine is found - and I`ve thought that from day one.
Yes, but reducing the numbers by having those who can work at home makes sense. It need not be all or nothing in this regard.
May not be as high as 95% but I don`t beliebve that survey - what do they mean by flexible working? They don`t mean working from home all the time in most cases, I`m sure. My wife was offered flexible working once, it involved having some control over her start and end times and the ability to work from home one day per week.
Can I work from home yet or will I still need to commute for three hours a day on public transport to do the same job I could do at home?
I bet 95% plus can`t work from home! It`s bollox as Malc would say.
I know, I'm fortunate my job involves tapping away at a keyboard and thinking mainly.
Can I do that at home or will I have to don my predator outfit next week to get to work just because the government can't provide nuanced guidance?
Think of all the factory workers, cleaners and shelf stackers. They can`t work at home FFS. And people like that won`t have savings. People who CAN work from home mostly have well remunerated jobs anyway. The lockdown thing is for the birds. We`ve got to live with this thing until a vaccine is found - and I`ve thought that from day one.
Both my barber and my dog trainer today were very fearful about the implications of a prolonged quarantine for their businesses.
If they cant afford 3 months without income they are probably struggling. If they can get through that they should be fine.
Comments
The association between county political inclination and obesity: Results from the 2012 presidential election in the United States
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692249/
Italy, Ireland, Austria, Turkey and Norway, have closed all schools. Do we know which other countries have done this?
Which countries have banned large public gatherings?
But they failed to enforce the lockdown and people from Lombardy started fleeing all over the country.
In a panic response they then declared quarantine for the rest of the country. Which saves them the hassle of trying to stop people leaving Lombardy, whilst achieving SFA, since most of Italy is at a similar position to ourselves.
The Prime Minister has been brave.
Albania, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Slovenia
Note that the scientifically strongest countries in Europe (so their governments are likely to be getting the best advice) are
France, German, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, UK
None of them have full closure of schools, though France and Switzerland have partial closures.
I'm no epidemiologist and defer to those who are, but presumably if treatments are still so ineffective against the disease and at the early experimental stages, that may be to do with the disease itself.
I began to realise that hiking the trails up mountains in the State Parks, exercising my dog in city dog parks, and eating in the better restaurants in town probably wasn’t the best way of meeting such folks.
The real truth will only emerge in years to come when a full post-mortem is conducted.
(Edit: excuse the poor-taste pun)
There is a map here
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/how-do-coronavirus-containment-measures-vary-across-europe
I thought Johnson and the advisors were impressively serious and focused. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right and all the other European countries are wrong.
Those desperate enough for that type of cash can volunteer themselves to be human guinea pigs for the Queen Mary BioEnterprises Innovation Centre in London, as two dozen volunteers are being sought to be injected with the coronavirus and then take part in a flu camp.
The ultimate goal is for a company called hVIVO to try and find a vaccine for the disease which has, thus far, killed nearly 4,000 people worldwide. "
https://www.complex.com/life/2020/03/human-guinea-pigs-wanted-for-coronavirus-and-theyre-paying-4600
This needs some expert medical perspective, I think.
I still have my overnight gains but have frittered away most of this mornings winnings. And it is impossible to decide whether tomorrow will see a big rebound or whether the sink will continue.
The sensible thing, which I will do, is to close out most of my positions overnight.
Short term, I am sure the trend is down, on the back of ongoing bad medical news, particularly when the scale of the crisis in the US finally hits the headlines. So I will keep open a small sell position. But it is clear that a lot of people see the current market levels as buying opportunity, and tomorrow could easily be a rebound day.
I don't know how I could manage but plenty of people are going to lose their jobs and have to rely on UC for a time this year imo.
This is independent of the total % of the population who will be infected.
In a lib democracy you can only make people isolate by law. I can`t see the UK taking the Italy route which I think is enforced by decree.
Listen to yourself Malcolm
Soliciting personal aid from a foreign power is.
Can I do that at home or will I have to don my predator outfit next week to get to work just because the government can't provide nuanced guidance?
Of course this is more viable in certain countries where the 'local' is still quite clear and local actions can be truly independent without undermining the national approach severely if wrong (most obvious example I can think of being somewhere like Australia). The problem (and I alluded to this with Scotland/Wales) is that you potentially get into situations where local leaders have the powers to influence what happens in their area, but not a complete set of levers to pull (because some are retained at national level). Much better all the levers are in one place IMO.
I quit on the midnight before the trial begun. I got a nice automatic email from Peter Murrell the next morning. I feel sad.
I will be working at home for the foreseeable future, with any meetings by zoom.
He is delegating well.
Any advice worthy of the name would be a list of options and likely consequences - in terms of loss of life and other factors such as impact on the economy.
The government has made it very clear it is trying to strike a "balance."
It could even secure a few votes amongst the elderly by calling it "national service"
Utter garbage.
https://www.powwownow.co.uk/smarter-working/flexible-working-statistics-2017/
It would certainly be sensible for the Government to commission slots in the papers to explain their approach, to at a minimum secure a measure of balance if the papers won't play ball.