If any of these 3 assumptions are wrong, there will be a much worse outcome for Britons than countries doing more aggressive measures.
Yeah, it's enormously high risk. I also question the ability of the UK Govt to get to the 60% level. Things are already shutting down big time. The fact that we're so heavily service based will make it even harder.
As an economist my question for Italy's government: just how many lockdowns can you fund?
I can't see how Italy and Greece (at the very least) aren't going to need bailing out by the EU.
Italian 10 year government bonds are currently yielding 0.9%.
Now... putting my cynical hat on for a second, I suspect that the ECB may be... ummm... ensuring an... ummm... orderly market there.
These arguments about our scientists vs other scientists. People are going to die en masse. That is a given. My parents are old, frail and f**ked so it's not me saying it ok for other people to die. They might die.
The question that is gripping the powers that be isn't how to stop my parents dying. It's how to stop everyone's parents dying and half the businesses in the country folding and taking 5m jobs with them. It's a Shit Job and personally I'm happy to cede decision-making to them rather than to be them.
Look, only 11 people have died so far in the UK. Let's take it one day at a time and hope that it's better than expected.
imho the people peddling this line that we must go into our houses and not leave until it has passed are talking bollocks (and I include leading scientists in this).
Most people will not stick it for more than a few weeks. Not the three or four or even six months required.
Especially when faced with eating that crappy dried pasta for the 90th day running...
If any of these 3 assumptions are wrong, there will be a much worse outcome for Britons than countries doing more aggressive measures.
Yeah, it's enormously high risk. I also question the ability of the UK Govt to get to the 60% level. Things are already shutting down big time. The fact that we're so heavily service based will make it even harder.
As an economist my question for Italy's government: just how many lockdowns can you fund?
I can't see how Italy and Greece (at the very least) aren't going to need bailing out by the EU.
And Spain.
Spain doesn't have Italian or Greek levels of government debt, it has British levels. They'll be hammered by the lack of tourism this summer, but their government has room to spend in a way that the Greeks and Italians don't.
If any of these 3 assumptions are wrong, there will be a much worse outcome for Britons than countries doing more aggressive measures.
Yeah, it's enormously high risk. I also question the ability of the UK Govt to get to the 60% level. Things are already shutting down big time. The fact that we're so heavily service based will make it even harder.
As an economist my question for Italy's government: just how many lockdowns can you fund?
I can't see how Italy and Greece (at the very least) aren't going to need bailing out by the EU.
Italian 10 year government bonds are currently yielding 0.9%.
Now... putting my cynical hat on for a second, I suspect that the ECB may be... ummm... ensuring an... ummm... orderly market there.
Are you saying they would have to pay you a tad more to lend to the Italian government at the moment?
Man U manager and a prominent former Man U player calling for the season to be annulled. For Bury, for example do they have a bobby in the shower moment?
The reality is... we won't know for about 18 months.
We will look really stupid if:
(1) numbers spike before we implement our lockdown, resulting in an overloaded NHS and lots of deaths (2) a vaccine/cure is developed this year, in which case our herd immunity benefits will have been for nothing
On the other hand, we'll look really smart if:
(1) we have one medium sized peak in summer, and no significant flare ups after (2) other countries have subsequent large scale incidences, while we're broadly untouched
We won't know which one will be the case for some time. I suspect, by the way, that the chart showing others having a big second peak are simply wrong: instead there will be lots of little peaks, probably resulting in more economic damage but fewer dead overall.
I guess the UK has a bit of a unique situation among developed countries of having an extremely shitty healthcare system that can barely cope with a normal winter, but everybody has to tiptoe around that because the British have created a primitive religion around it.
And because of the politicisation of the annual winter strains on the NHS which mean that instead of addressing very real problems, governments merely accuse critics of crying wolf.
For herd immunity to work do we need 60% infection of under 60s by next winter? That would mean about 1m per week but somehow keeping vulnerable group infections close to zero. Sounds a tough sweet spot to hit.
If a million people have it, tens of millions will have it the following week.
So how high is the peak these graphs are estimating for the uk? If were getting say 30m cases the peak week has to be over 1m doesnt it? If 1% need ICU are we just about coping?
If 30 million people are to get it over about four months, with half getting it in the peak month, and people being in intensive care for two weeks (which is probably low), then you will need 800,000 intensive care beds (assuming 10% require ICU).
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, because I really want to know what I am missing here.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago: - through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively. - cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible - people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people - we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded. - rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics). In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
We might not even need to wait a year or more for a vaccine. For example, suppose this 10-minute test works. Let's use the next few months to massively ramp up production, distribute them, and ask or require every person to take a test each morning. If positive, then you stay at home and call for help. This alone should allow all other social restrictions to be lifted whilst containing the virus.
There seems to be so much scope for fighting this epidemic in so many novel ways. Why are so many people (especially of a conservative bent) willing to accept the big-state line: the government scientist and our state plan say it cannot be done, so there is no point trying? Where is our belief in a modern dynamic and innovative Britain, ready to face the future and rise to previously-insurmountable challenges? Wasn't that what we were promised?
If any of these 3 assumptions are wrong, there will be a much worse outcome for Britons than countries doing more aggressive measures.
Yeah, it's enormously high risk. I also question the ability of the UK Govt to get to the 60% level. Things are already shutting down big time. The fact that we're so heavily service based will make it even harder.
As an economist my question for Italy's government: just how many lockdowns can you fund?
I can't see how Italy and Greece (at the very least) aren't going to need bailing out by the EU.
And Spain.
Covid-19 represents a massive dose of gamma radiation delivered to the entire global tourism and hospitality sector, and Spain is even more reliant on that industry than Italy is. The implications of that for the economies of the Eurozone periphery are catastrophic, even if (rightly and understandably) they are mostly going undiscussed at the moment because everyone is frightened of the death toll from this thing.
However, one has to seriously question whether the EU is willing to bail out economies of this size (both due to the fundamentally dysfunctional architecture of the Eurozone and the horror of German and other creditor state taxpayers at being asked to stump up the colossal sums of money required,) or if it's able to even if it were so willing. After all, what's the total size of the Italian government debt pile alone - something like $2.5tn? A full-scale bailout of Italy would probably be the largest such rescue in the history of the world.
I'm sorry, but the EU can do exactly what the Japanese government has been doing for the last decade. It can continue to buy Italian and Greek government debt and therefore keep them afloat.
The ECB will follow the path of least resistance. And the path of least resistance is to continue to monetise debt from Greece and Italy.
Precipitating a crisis is the opposite of this and requires an active choice to do so. Christine Legarde has to *choose* to sink the Euro. Is she going to do that? Or is it easier to keep buying Italian goverment bonds?
I am still not sure the UK public have quite realized that even if it goes as well as possible we are going to still see scenes similar to Italy.
The funniest part is, these sort of things only happened to civilisations in history books who could barely understand what to make of their different types of bile, not us in the 21st Century, with our DNA mapping, quantum computing, smart phones, satellite TV, quilted bathroom tissues. If this didn’t fill lungs with gunge but turned us into flesh eating zombies, we wouldn’t be able to stop it.
The reality is... we won't know for about 18 months.
We will look really stupid if:
(1) numbers spike before we implement our lockdown, resulting in an overloaded NHS and lots of deaths (2) a vaccine/cure is developed this year, in which case our herd immunity benefits will have been for nothing
On the other hand, we'll look really smart if:
(1) we have one medium sized peak in summer, and no significant flare ups after (2) other countries have subsequent large scale incidences, while we're broadly untouched
We won't know which one will be the case for some time. I suspect, by the way, that the chart showing others having a big second peak are simply wrong: instead there will be lots of little peaks, probably resulting in more economic damage but fewer dead overall.
I guess the UK has a bit of a unique situation among developed countries of having an extremely shitty healthcare system that can barely cope with a normal winter, but everybody has to tiptoe around that because the British have created a primitive religion around it.
This is one instance where our ability to run the health system on a command and control basis could be an advantage.
These arguments about our scientists vs other scientists. People are going to die en masse. That is a given. My parents are old, frail and f**ked so it's not me saying it ok for other people to die. They might die.
The question that is gripping the powers that be isn't how to stop my parents dying. It's how to stop everyone's parents dying and half the businesses in the country folding and taking 5m jobs with them. It's a Shit Job and personally I'm happy to cede decision-making to them rather than to be them.
One also has to remember at this point that the Covid episode is not exactly a unique example of the necessity for politicians to balance economic damage versus loss of life. It takes place all the time.
After all, if all road traffic were speed limited to 5mph then the vast numbers of people killed in RTAs every year would be cut to virtually zero. Or if strict quarantine and social distancing measures were introduced every year from about October until March then deaths from Winter flu could be greatly curtailed.
The fact that neither of these policies is followed doesn't mean that nobody cares about all the people who die as a direct result of their not being implemented. It simply means that, as a society, we're only prepared to go to finite lengths to save them.
If, at the end of all this, country A has saved nearly all of its frail elderly at the cost of immiserating itself, whereas country B has experienced a short sharp recession and then moved swiftly on at the cost of waving goodbye to 200,000 grannies five years before their time, then which set of leaders has made the right decision?
If you automatically say, "well, country A of course, because the alternative is callous and immoral," then next ask yourself whether your right to get from home to work at greater than walking pace is worth the cost of so many children being flung through the air and smacking dead into a road every year, and send your car off to the scrapheap.
Quasi-fake news in the Daily Mail: photos that make London look empty when I know that just a couple of days ago it was still pretty busy. The photos aren't doctored but, as one of the Sky News paper reviewers just said, they've gone out of their way to take the photos in such a way as to give the impression of a deserted city.
Incidentally, Tom Lehrer is still alive at the age of 91 and witnessing all these events with us. Dread to think what he thinks about it all. He said back in the 80s that "I used to pick up the newspaper and laugh....But now I pick up the paper and I have to wait till breakfast is over because it’s just going to ruin it." I fear it's only got worse since then!!
Man U manager and a prominent former Man U player calling for the season to be annulled. For Bury, for example do they have a bobby in the shower moment?
There is a scenario where this season is annulled, and teams that qualified for this seasons Champions League and Europa League would be back in. That would mean Arsenal are back in the CL by virtue of finishing 5th in 18/19 and City being banned from next seasons competition
So, the chief scientific officers and chief medical officers in the rest of Europe. Bunch of fuckwits are they?
I guess they must be if ours are so brilliant in their advice.
Obviously this doesn't prove it one way or the other, but do you not think the others are - err - herding?
The reality is... we won't know for about 18 months.
We will look really stupid if:
(1) numbers spike before we implement our lockdown, resulting in an overloaded NHS and lots of deaths (2) a vaccine/cure is developed this year, in which case our herd immunity benefits will have been for nothing
On the other hand, we'll look really smart if:
(1) we have one medium sized peak in summer, and no significant flare ups after (2) other countries have subsequent large scale incidences, while we're broadly untouched
We won't know which one will be the case for some time. I suspect, by the way, that the chart showing others having a big second peak are simply wrong: instead there will be lots of little peaks, probably resulting in more economic damage but fewer dead overall.
Yes. Countries that have locked down to cut infections are likely to just repeat the process each time infections start to flare again.
Anecdote: My weekly fish and chips and pizza takeaway delivery for friday night with the family, was delivered after an hour (normal time 20 mins) by the owner who said it has gone ballistic tonight and he has had to come in and drive around himself to help out.
Hey @rcs1000 Due to my highly successful procrastination habit I've got some money in a bank account (both some pounds and some yens) that I haven't yet invested. I have a high tolerance for risk and 15-20 years until I want to spend it. Are there any screamingly great investment opportunities out there amidst all the chaos or should I wait for a bit and see how things work out?
Anecdote: My weekly fish and chips and pizza takeaway delivery for friday night with the family, was delivered after an hour (normal time 20 mins) by the owner who said it has gone ballistic tonight and he has had to come in and drive around himself to help out.
Erhhhh...if people are worried about interacting with others, is interacting with a delivery driver that goes from house to house perhaps more risky?
We might not even need to wait a year or more for a vaccine. For example, suppose this 10-minute test works. Let's use the next few months to massively ramp up production, distribute them, and ask or require every person to take a test each morning. If positive, then you stay at home and call for help. This alone should allow all other social restrictions to be lifted whilst containing the virus.
There seems to be so much scope for fighting this epidemic in so many novel ways. Why are so many people (especially of a conservative bent) willing to accept the big-state line: the government scientist and our state plan say it cannot be done, so there is no point trying? Where is our belief in a modern dynamic and innovative Britain, ready to face the future and rise to previously-insurmountable challenges? Wasn't that what we were promised?
Why is this utopian rather than realistic?
For a start, no test is 100 per cent accurate.
The 10-minute test will have some false positives and some false negatives.
I think I saw a quoted rate of 10 per cent somewhere, but let's say it is optimistically 1 per cent, then 1 per cent of 66 million is 660,000
The 660,000 false negatives will go to work/school/university and spread the virus.
Anecdote: My weekly fish and chips and pizza takeaway delivery for friday night with the family, was delivered after an hour (normal time 20 mins) by the owner who said it has gone ballistic tonight and he has had to come in and drive around himself to help out.
Erhhhh...if people are worried about interacting with others, is interacting with a delivery driver that goes from house to house perhaps more risky?
Anecdote: My weekly fish and chips and pizza takeaway delivery for friday night with the family, was delivered after an hour (normal time 20 mins) by the owner who said it has gone ballistic tonight and he has had to come in and drive around himself to help out.
Erhhhh...if people are worried about interacting with others, is interacting with a delivery driver that goes from house to house perhaps more risky?
Coronavirus or fish and chips?
Hmmmmm.
No wonder the government don't think people can last 3 months on dried pasta.
Anecdote: My weekly fish and chips and pizza takeaway delivery for friday night with the family, was delivered after an hour (normal time 20 mins) by the owner who said it has gone ballistic tonight and he has had to come in and drive around himself to help out.
If any of these 3 assumptions are wrong, there will be a much worse outcome for Britons than countries doing more aggressive measures.
Yeah, it's enormously high risk. I also question the ability of the UK Govt to get to the 60% level. Things are already shutting down big time. The fact that we're so heavily service based will make it even harder.
As an economist my question for Italy's government: just how many lockdowns can you fund?
I can't see how Italy and Greece (at the very least) aren't going to need bailing out by the EU.
Italian 10 year government bonds are currently yielding 0.9%.
Now... putting my cynical hat on for a second, I suspect that the ECB may be... ummm... ensuring an... ummm... orderly market there.
Are you saying they would have to pay you a tad more to lend to the Italian government at the moment?
Yes.
Put it like this, I think most of the people buying Italian Government Bonds might be located in one building in Frankfurt.
Hey @rcs1000 Due to my highly successful procrastination habit I've got some money in a bank account (both some pounds and some yens) that I haven't yet invested. I have a high tolerance for risk and 15-20 years until I want to spend it. Are there any screamingly great investment opportunities out there amidst all the chaos or should I wait for a bit and see how things work out?
Hey @rcs1000 Due to my highly successful procrastination habit I've got some money in a bank account (both some pounds and some yens) that I haven't yet invested. I have a high tolerance for risk and 15-20 years until I want to spend it. Are there any screamingly great investment opportunities out there amidst all the chaos or should I wait for a bit and see how things work out?
We might not even need to wait a year or more for a vaccine. For example, suppose this 10-minute test works. Let's use the next few months to massively ramp up production, distribute them, and ask or require every person to take a test each morning. If positive, then you stay at home and call for help. This alone should allow all other social restrictions to be lifted whilst containing the virus.
There seems to be so much scope for fighting this epidemic in so many novel ways. Why are so many people (especially of a conservative bent) willing to accept the big-state line: the government scientist and our state plan say it cannot be done, so there is no point trying? Where is our belief in a modern dynamic and innovative Britain, ready to face the future and rise to previously-insurmountable challenges? Wasn't that what we were promised?
Why is this utopian rather than realistic?
For a start, no test is 100 per cent accurate.
The 10-minute test will have some false positives and some false negatives.
I think I saw a quoted rate of 10 per cent somewhere, but let's say it is optimistically 1 per cent, then 1 per cent of 66 million is 660,000
The 660,000 false negatives will go to work/school/university and spread the virus.
But almost everyone they spread it to will then test positive, ending the chain.
To beat the epidemic we don't need to stop all transmission, just reduce it to about a third of its natural rate (i.e. so R_0 < 1). The disease will then decrease exponentially
We might not even need to wait a year or more for a vaccine. For example, suppose this 10-minute test works. Let's use the next few months to massively ramp up production, distribute them, and ask or require every person to take a test each morning. If positive, then you stay at home and call for help. This alone should allow all other social restrictions to be lifted whilst containing the virus.
There seems to be so much scope for fighting this epidemic in so many novel ways. Why are so many people (especially of a conservative bent) willing to accept the big-state line: the government scientist and our state plan say it cannot be done, so there is no point trying? Where is our belief in a modern dynamic and innovative Britain, ready to face the future and rise to previously-insurmountable challenges? Wasn't that what we were promised?
Why is this utopian rather than realistic?
For a start, no test is 100 per cent accurate.
The 10-minute test will have some false positives and some false negatives.
I think I saw a quoted rate of 10 per cent somewhere, but let's say it is optimistically 1 per cent, then 1 per cent of 66 million is 660,000
The 660,000 false negatives will go to work/school/university and spread the virus.
But almost everyone they spread it to will then test positive, ending the chain.
To beat the epidemic we don't need to stop all transmission, just reduce it to about a third of its natural rate (i.e. so R_0 < 1). The disease will then decrease exponentially
Depends on when the test is viable. The problem with some of the existing tests I have seen is that they do not show the virus until well into the infective phase.
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, because I really want to know what I am missing here.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago: - through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively. - cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible - people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people - we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded. - rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics). In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
Greetings richard_m. You risk being far too upbeat. eadric will be along shortly to explain where you've gone wrong!
For herd immunity to work do we need 60% infection of under 60s by next winter? That would mean about 1m per week but somehow keeping vulnerable group infections close to zero. Sounds a tough sweet spot to hit.
If a million people have it, tens of millions will have it the following week.
So how high is the peak these graphs are estimating for the uk? If were getting say 30m cases the peak week has to be over 1m doesnt it? If 1% need ICU are we just about coping?
If 30 million people are to get it over about four months, with half getting it in the peak month, and people being in intensive care for two weeks (which is probably low), then you will need 800,000 intensive care beds (assuming 10% require ICU).
Yes, but, if Vallance is right and the ICU rate is only 1% - because there's a much larger number of mild undetected cases - then you would only need 80,000 intensive care beds.
There are < 5,000 critical care beds in England, though the NHS is now trebling that number.
We might not even need to wait a year or more for a vaccine. For example, suppose this 10-minute test works. Let's use the next few months to massively ramp up production, distribute them, and ask or require every person to take a test each morning. If positive, then you stay at home and call for help. This alone should allow all other social restrictions to be lifted whilst containing the virus.
There seems to be so much scope for fighting this epidemic in so many novel ways. Why are so many people (especially of a conservative bent) willing to accept the big-state line: the government scientist and our state plan say it cannot be done, so there is no point trying? Where is our belief in a modern dynamic and innovative Britain, ready to face the future and rise to previously-insurmountable challenges? Wasn't that what we were promised?
Why is this utopian rather than realistic?
For a start, no test is 100 per cent accurate.
The 10-minute test will have some false positives and some false negatives.
I think I saw a quoted rate of 10 per cent somewhere, but let's say it is optimistically 1 per cent, then 1 per cent of 66 million is 660,000
The 660,000 false negatives will go to work/school/university and spread the virus.
But almost everyone they spread it to will then test positive, ending the chain.
To beat the epidemic we don't need to stop all transmission, just reduce it to about a third of its natural rate (i.e. so R_0 < 1). The disease will then decrease exponentially
Depends on when the test is viable. The problem with some of the existing tests I have seen is that they do not show the virus until well into the infective phase.
I believe the kit on CH4 news was exactly this, you have to be about 3 days into infection.
The Left are all over the place tonight. Screaming and wailing at Boris because he hasn't shut the whole country down today in order to stop 1000s of pensioners dying and then, in the next tweet, decrying the idea that the State will have powers to enforce self-isolation, lock downs, quarantines, closures etc etc.
The Left are all over the place tonight. Screaming and wailing at Boris because he hasn't shut the whole country down today in order to stop 1000s of pensioners dying and then, in the next tweet, decrying the idea that the State will have powers to enforce self-isolation, lock downs, quarantines, closures etc etc.
And that Boris is going to kill more people than WWII, and it is all because of Brexit.
Out of interest, anyone on here do telecoms for a living? I was wondering whether, if the lions’ share of those who can do so work from home, the residential network will cope?
Apparently kids being at home in Italy is putting severe strain on the network. Especially when an upgrade to whatever game they are playing comes up. Shares in the best networks will be valuable...
Heh, hadn’t thought of that. Getting old...
And at the other end of WFH -- can employers' VPNs cope? I suspect few if any employers have the capacity for more than a fraction of their workforce to be connected at simultaneously. It would be a waste of money (until now).
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, because I really want to know what I am missing here.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago: - through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively. - cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible - people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people - we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded. - rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics). In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
Greetings richard_m. You risk being far too upbeat. eadric will be along shortly to explain where you've gone wrong!
Eadric is obviously not getting a signal in his cave.
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, because I really want to know what I am missing here.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago: - through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively. - cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible - people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people - we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded. - rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics). In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
We will have no idea if China suggests it can be done until China decide to end the lockdown and we see if they get large scale reinfection again.
Personally I think this is inevitable as this virus will be endemic in very large parts of the world. So the only way for China to prevent reinfection will be to have large scale lockdown again. This will be economically and politically unsustainable.
The Left are all over the place tonight. Screaming and wailing at Boris because he hasn't shut the whole country down today in order to stop 1000s of pensioners dying and then, in the next tweet, decrying the idea that the State will have powers to enforce self-isolation, lock downs, quarantines, closures etc etc.
And that Boris is going to kill more people than WWII, and it is all because of Brexit.
The Left are all over the place tonight. Screaming and wailing at Boris because he hasn't shut the whole country down today in order to stop 1000s of pensioners dying and then, in the next tweet, decrying the idea that the State will have powers to enforce self-isolation, lock downs, quarantines, closures etc etc.
And that Boris is going to kill more people than WWII, and it is all because of Brexit.
Yeh, I follow the logic. Having duped the oldsters into voting on mass to reject the Luftwaffe and vote for his Brexit, Boris then decides to kill them all off before they work out that their grandkids can't travel all over europe at will.
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, because I really want to know what I am missing here.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago: - through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively. - cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible - people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people - we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded. - rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics). In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
We will have no idea if China suggests it can be done until China decide to end the lockdown and we see if they get large scale reinfection again.
Personally I think this is inevitable as this virus will be endemic in very large parts of the world. So the only way for China to prevent reinfection will be to have large scale lockdown again. This will be economically and politically unsustainable.
My point is, China shows that the epidemic can be stopped temporarily by a lockdown. Let's do that, and use the time to work out how best to lift parts of the lockdown without the disease resurging, using the new options modern tech has to offer. You seem to be assuming this can't be done - I would like to know why
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, because I really want to know what I am missing here.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago: - through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively. - cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible - people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people - we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded. - rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics). In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
Greetings richard_m. You risk being far too upbeat. eadric will be along shortly to explain where you've gone wrong!
Eadric is obviously not getting a signal in his cave.
The Left are all over the place tonight. Screaming and wailing at Boris because he hasn't shut the whole country down today in order to stop 1000s of pensioners dying and then, in the next tweet, decrying the idea that the State will have powers to enforce self-isolation, lock downs, quarantines, closures etc etc.
And that Boris is going to kill more people than WWII, and it is all because of Brexit.
Yeh, I follow the logic. Having duped the oldsters into voting on mass to reject the Luftwaffe and vote for his Brexit, Boris then decides to kill them all off before they work out that their grandkids can't travel all over europe at will.
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, because I really want to know what I am missing here.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago: - through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively. - cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible - people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people - we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded. - rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics). In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
We will have no idea if China suggests it can be done until China decide to end the lockdown and we see if they get large scale reinfection again.
Personally I think this is inevitable as this virus will be endemic in very large parts of the world. So the only way for China to prevent reinfection will be to have large scale lockdown again. This will be economically and politically unsustainable.
And although the West may have all the technologies and capabilities listed, most countries do not. The point with a pandemic is that no country will be able to isolate themselves from it indefinitely. If other countries fail to irradicate it, then no amount of technology short of an effective vaccine, will help.
My wife is a teacher. She has really struggled with motivating herself to do all the pathetic garbage at school which even at the best of times is pathetic garbage. We are hoping the education establishment sees sense
Blimey. We are having multiple religious experiences right now. That’s asking for a miracle on a par with the raising of Lazarus.
If you've seen Ofsted's statement to Schoolsweek this afternoon, I wouldn't be optimistic. It's shameful stuff.
Policy papers are supposed to be clear and straightforward. Do you want to beat around the bush so there could be confusion?
The point is Charles it is not even a question that should arise for so many reasons. It is not the clarity that is at fault, it is the basic premise.
Given that schools are vectors for just about every virus that crops up, and there is no WFH for teachers, keeping them open, at a time the government is pursuing ‘herd immunity’ via infection, puts teachers directly in the firing line without choice.
If I were a teacher over the age of fifty, I’d be seriously pissed off, to put it mildly.
I’m sleeping about three or hours maximum. My physical and mental health are crumbling.
If they don’t announce changes, such as exemptions and the choice to work remotely, I think there will be a revolt.
I very much hope you found a way to balance your health needs and your teaching obligations.
Well, my cough is improving but my blood pressure is exploding, it’s no wonder I’m catching everything with being so knackered. With my different medications it was up to 155/106 earlier today, when it was nicely controlled at 120/80 only a couple of weeks ago. That’s stage 2 hypertension closing in on stage 3 with no chance of seeing a doctor about it! I rang for a repeat prescription today and was told don’t come to the surgery, pick it up at the pharmacy. Understandable, really.
Given what you have posted hope you are off sick and not feeling under pressure to work. Hope it improves quickly.
Thanks. As all teachers will know, the pressure comes from not wanting to let students down.
I’m just trying to figure out how I can do that.
That is for your school to figure out. With your help perhaps, but primarily the ball is in their court. Your health is front back and centre.
Quite right, take care of yourself.
I'm working on the assumption that we might be running key functions e.g. exam year groups only with a skeleton staff. I don't have children to care for, and I'd rather be at work doing something useful than sitting at home. However, I am in good health at present, if you feel ill please rest.
We will have no idea if China suggests it can be done until China decide to end the lockdown and we see if they get large scale reinfection again.
Personally I think this is inevitable as this virus will be endemic in very large parts of the world. So the only way for China to prevent reinfection will be to have large scale lockdown again. This will be economically and politically unsustainable.
I'm repeating myself for about the billionth time here but Japan/SK seem to be succeeding at containment without a lockdown, and without serious disruption to the economy. If you succeed in reducing the average sufferer's transmission rate below 1 then you're not dependent on zero new cases showing up. You get new clusters but they fizzle out.
And this is in a country that's still heavily dependent on fax machines, there's loads more room to do working from home.
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, because I really want to know what I am missing here.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago: - through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively. - cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible - people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people - we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded. - rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics). In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
Greetings richard_m. You risk being far too upbeat. eadric will be along shortly to explain where you've gone wrong!
Eadric is obviously not getting a signal in his cave.
We might not even need to wait a year or more for a vaccine. For example, suppose this 10-minute test works. Let's use the next few months to massively ramp up production, distribute them, and ask or require every person to take a test each morning. If positive, then you stay at home and call for help. This alone should allow all other social restrictions to be lifted whilst containing the virus.
There seems to be so much scope for fighting this epidemic in so many novel ways. Why are so many people (especially of a conservative bent) willing to accept the big-state line: the government scientist and our state plan say it cannot be done, so there is no point trying? Where is our belief in a modern dynamic and innovative Britain, ready to face the future and rise to previously-insurmountable challenges? Wasn't that what we were promised?
Why is this utopian rather than realistic?
For a start, no test is 100 per cent accurate.
The 10-minute test will have some false positives and some false negatives.
I think I saw a quoted rate of 10 per cent somewhere, but let's say it is optimistically 1 per cent, then 1 per cent of 66 million is 660,000
The 660,000 false negatives will go to work/school/university and spread the virus.
The number of false negatives will depend on the background prevalence won't it?
If 1% false negatives = 660,000 then the 99% true negatives = 65,340,000. You've used up the whole population. Everyone is testing negative but 1% are false negatives. No one is testing positive. So the test is useless. I think?
Agree with most of that, and I'd add that although we're currently (probably) dealing with a naturally occurring disease, the tech to create biological weapons is getting cheaper and easier to set up without supervision. If any lunatic can create a killer virus in their kitchen, we're going to need to do all the kind of stuff you mentioned anyhow.
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, because I really want to know what I am missing here.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago: - through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively. - cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible - people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people - we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded. - rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics). In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
We will have no idea if China suggests it can be done until China decide to end the lockdown and we see if they get large scale reinfection again.
Personally I think this is inevitable as this virus will be endemic in very large parts of the world. So the only way for China to prevent reinfection will be to have large scale lockdown again. This will be economically and politically unsustainable.
My point is, China shows that the epidemic can be stopped temporarily by a lockdown. Let's do that, and use the time to work out how best to lift parts of the lockdown without the disease resurging, using the new options modern tech has to offer. You seem to be assuming this can't be done - I would like to know why
We will know soon enough. China seems to have started lifting lock down.
For herd immunity to work do we need 60% infection of under 60s by next winter? That would mean about 1m per week but somehow keeping vulnerable group infections close to zero. Sounds a tough sweet spot to hit.
If a million people have it, tens of millions will have it the following week.
So how high is the peak these graphs are estimating for the uk? If were getting say 30m cases the peak week has to be over 1m doesnt it? If 1% need ICU are we just about coping?
If 30 million people are to get it over about four months, with half getting it in the peak month, and people being in intensive care for two weeks (which is probably low), then you will need 800,000 intensive care beds (assuming 10% require ICU).
Yes, but, if Vallance is right and the ICU rate is only 1% - because there's a much larger number of mild undetected cases - then you would only need 80,000 intensive care beds.
There are < 5,000 critical care beds in England, though the NHS is now trebling that number.
There are < 130,000 beds in the NHS in England.
Um.
So the peak needs to be a table. Much lower but therefore much wider. Is it even possible to manage this so precisely? For herd immunity by winter the young and healthy need to catch it faster without giving it to the vulnerable. Which is why I'm resistant to working from home to avoid getting it. Work is so quiet they might appreciate a good proportion of staff isolating at home with it right now. Knowing they'd be fit again when things pick up. Outside chance of death but I like the odds.
We might not even need to wait a year or more for a vaccine. For example, suppose this 10-minute test works. Let's use the next few months to massively ramp up production, distribute them, and ask or require every person to take a test each morning. If positive, then you stay at home and call for help. This alone should allow all other social restrictions to be lifted whilst containing the virus.
There seems to be so much scope for fighting this epidemic in so many novel ways. Why are so many people (especially of a conservative bent) willing to accept the big-state line: the government scientist and our state plan say it cannot be done, so there is no point trying? Where is our belief in a modern dynamic and innovative Britain, ready to face the future and rise to previously-insurmountable challenges? Wasn't that what we were promised?
Why is this utopian rather than realistic?
For a start, no test is 100 per cent accurate.
The 10-minute test will have some false positives and some false negatives.
I think I saw a quoted rate of 10 per cent somewhere, but let's say it is optimistically 1 per cent, then 1 per cent of 66 million is 660,000
The 660,000 false negatives will go to work/school/university and spread the virus.
The number of false negatives will depend on the background prevalence won't it?
If 1% false negatives = 660,000 then the 99% true negatives = 65,340,000. You've used up the whole population. Everyone is testing negative but 1% are false negatives. No one is testing positive. So the test is useless. I think?
There is a false positive rate and a false negative rate, and a true positive rate and a true negative rate.
I think the sum of all 4 rates times the population will add up to the total population.
I don't really understand your calculation, sorry.
I think we've made the right decision in the UK if this is anything to go by.
I think we need to avoid projecting our own leanings, though. Personally I don't see a problem in being 2 months at home if some sort of food can be arranged, and I'd think that the electronic generation who mostly socialise over phones and laptops would bear up similarly. Basically people want a strong lead, and if we're told we need to stay in 6 days out of 7, say, or have a significantly higher risk of being dead, then most people will take the hint. The logistical problem of keeping the wheels turning seems to me a much bigger issue than persuading people to stay in.
I won’t be able to get through to 111 and the surgery is closed for the weekend. I don’t suppose anyone has expertise on this? If I stop taking the Ramipril my blood pressure will be high but will it take effect quickly enough to be useful?
I deal with casework for an MP and we've gone way past the point where the political pointscoring from certain politicians has become dangerous.
It's actively undermining faith in the government, the government in turn is taking advice from scientists and medical specialists, so it is undermining faith in the experts we should be listening to instead of scaremongering populist politicians.
It is incredibly depressing watching politicians who claim to be evidence based, like Rory Stewart, grasping an opportunity to criticise the government knowing that it will scare vulnerable people and create unnecessary risk.
Check the market rules. You might have wasted your stake on backing Pelosi to win the next presidential election.
12th amendment?
The Betfair market -- as I read it but DYOR and likewise for bookmaker markets -- is on the election and does not cover Pelosi becoming president if both Trump and Pence are removed by illness or incapacity before then.
I think we've made the right decision in the UK if this is anything to go by.
I think we need to avoid projecting our own leanings, though. Personally I don't see a problem in being 2 months at home if some sort of food can be arranged, and I'd think that the electronic generation who mostly socialise over phones and laptops would bear up similarly. Basically people want a strong lead, and if we're told we need to stay in 6 days out of 7, say, or have a significantly higher risk of being dead, then most people will take the hint. The logistical problem of keeping the wheels turning seems to me a much bigger issue than persuading people to stay in.
There are an awful lot of workers who need to be on the shop floor or behind the wheel. We cannot all work from home. (Perhaps this will in future be the new class divide.)
Check the market rules. You might have wasted your stake on backing Pelosi to win the next presidential election.
12th amendment?
The Betfair market -- as I read it but DYOR and likewise for bookmaker markets -- is on the election and does not cover Pelosi becoming president if both Trump and Pence are removed by illness or incapacity before then.
So you kind of need something like: * Trump and Pence both shuffle off this mortal coil, or decide they'd be better leaving a Democrat to deal with the whole shitshow and try to get power back from them in November * Pelosi is initially popular * Something untoward happens to Biden * Biden delegates decide to go with their incumbent president
There are an awful lot of workers who need to be on the shop floor or behind the wheel. We cannot all work from home. (Perhaps this will in future be the new class divide.)
This is true, but they also benefit from their colleagues working from home, for example because there are fewer people, therefore fewer sick people, on the train to work.
I deal with casework for an MP and we've gone way past the point where the political pointscoring from certain politicians has become dangerous.
It's actively undermining faith in the government, the government in turn is taking advice from scientists and medical specialists, so it is undermining faith in the experts we should be listening to instead of scaremongering populist politicians.
It is incredibly depressing watching politicians who claim to be evidence based, like Rory Stewart, grasping an opportunity to criticise the government knowing that it will scare vulnerable people and create unnecessary risk.
Indeed but there is surely a political failure by government, first not to have explained why our approach is different from some other countries', and second not to have liaised with sporting bodies who seem determined to shut down for a couple of weeks just in case.
The Left are all over the place tonight. Screaming and wailing at Boris because he hasn't shut the whole country down today in order to stop 1000s of pensioners dying and then, in the next tweet, decrying the idea that the State will have powers to enforce self-isolation, lock downs, quarantines, closures etc etc.
What do you mean *they* cut the power? How could they cut the power, man? They're viruses!
Check the market rules. You might have wasted your stake on backing Pelosi to win the next presidential election.
12th amendment?
The Betfair market -- as I read it but DYOR and likewise for bookmaker markets -- is on the election and does not cover Pelosi becoming president if both Trump and Pence are removed by illness or incapacity before then.
So you kind of need something like: * Trump and Pence both shuffle off this mortal coil, or decide they'd be better leaving a Democrat to deal with the whole shitshow and try to get power back from them in November * Pelosi is initially popular * Something untoward happens to Biden * Biden delegates decide to go with their incumbent president
Thursday: Everything will carry on as normal Friday Night: If you cough a snatch squad will pull you into a van
To be fair, we weren't told that everything would carry on for normal forever, and the measures in those headlines were just powers that may be put into a bill that hasn't passed yet and won't be called upon for some time. But I'm pretty sure you knew all that, and were commenting on tomorrow's (well today's, now) apocalyptic newspaper stories, with "police to get powers to detain virus victims" while dressed up like extras in a sci-fi film, and how that compared with reassurances we'd been given about mass events still being okay (for robust Brits at least) just a day before.
I have to say I found this post funny on a "that escalated quickly" basis and you've taken some criticism on here due to sarcasm-meters failing to fire. The shifts in tone, particularly in the media, have been as crazy as those in the financial markets.
Just a reminder this was a headline from as recently as Thursday morning and it already seems a fortnight out of date to me.
What a rollercoaster this is. You can't take your eyes off it. You can't stop it being heart-rending when it's not just statistics, it's you and your loved ones. What absolutely extraordinary times.
Many other European countries are correct to go into stronger lock down routes for 2reasons. Either they are too far gone to go for the herd immunity UK option, like Italy France and Spain, without drastic measures theey would be completely overwhelmed. Or they are countries that have only odd cases like Ukraine or Poland. These countries can snuff it out before it takes hold. Makes more sense than letting it in. Future outbreaks will be much more quickly detected because we will be on the look out for covid. So winter outbreaks can be isolated more rapidly.
This doesn't mean the UK approach is wrong either, just that many other countries aren't in its position of having a largeish number infected but with a slowish growth rate so far. The UK is growing slower than Italy so may be able to wait longer before quarantine come into effect.
Check the market rules. You might have wasted your stake on backing Pelosi to win the next presidential election.
12th amendment?
The Betfair market -- as I read it but DYOR and likewise for bookmaker markets -- is on the election and does not cover Pelosi becoming president if both Trump and Pence are removed by illness or incapacity before then.
So you kind of need something like: * Trump and Pence both shuffle off this mortal coil, or decide they'd be better leaving a Democrat to deal with the whole shitshow and try to get power back from them in November * Pelosi is initially popular * Something untoward happens to Biden * Biden delegates decide to go with their incumbent president
For 12th amendment election of Pelosi *after* the election, you'd need a hopelessly hung electoral college for a start, and even then it is not clear why you should end up with Pelosi. Even in your example, why not the running mate? So you'd have: * Trump & Pence quickly removed before the election and without time to appoint a new vice president so Pelosi is appointed president (but not for betting purposes) * Biden wins the election but he *and his running mate* then succumb * so the 12th amendment kicks in and Biden's electoral college delegates decide to stick with Pelosi
What a rollercoaster this is. You can't take your eyes off it. You can't stop it being heart-rending when it's not just statistics, it's you and your loved ones. What absolutely extraordinary times.
Or perhaps it just shows that the Mail will stick anything on the front page if they think it will sell their paper.
We might not even need to wait a year or more for a vaccine. For example, suppose this 10-minute test works. Let's use the next few months to massively ramp up production, distribute them, and ask or require every person to take a test each morning. If positive, then you stay at home and call for help. This alone should allow all other social restrictions to be lifted whilst containing the virus.
There seems to be so much scope for fighting this epidemic in so many novel ways. Why are so many people (especially of a conservative bent) willing to accept the big-state line: the government scientist and our state plan say it cannot be done, so there is no point trying? Where is our belief in a modern dynamic and innovative Britain, ready to face the future and rise to previously-insurmountable challenges? Wasn't that what we were promised?
Why is this utopian rather than realistic?
For a start, no test is 100 per cent accurate.
The 10-minute test will have some false positives and some false negatives.
I think I saw a quoted rate of 10 per cent somewhere, but let's say it is optimistically 1 per cent, then 1 per cent of 66 million is 660,000
The 660,000 false negatives will go to work/school/university and spread the virus.
The number of false negatives will depend on the background prevalence won't it?
If 1% false negatives = 660,000 then the 99% true negatives = 65,340,000. You've used up the whole population. Everyone is testing negative but 1% are false negatives. No one is testing positive. So the test is useless. I think?
There is a false positive rate and a false negative rate, and a true positive rate and a true negative rate.
I think the sum of all 4 rates times the population will add up to the total population.
I don't really understand your calculation, sorry.
You have quoted a "false negative rate" of 1% which I think you have said = 660,000 people. But that would only be the case if everyone was testing negative.
% false negative tests= (number testing negative who do have the disease)/(total number testing negative)
Your % false negative tests = 1 on Left Hand Side equation. Your numerator = 660,000 on right hand side of equation. So the denominator must be 100 x the numerator = 6.6 million. So everyone has tested negative.
Went to watch my daughter play in a youth orchestra earlier this evening. Talking to the lady next to me while waiting for it to start and between pieces. About half way through I happened to mention that I would need to dash off very quickly at the end of the concert, as I had somewhere else to go (just so I wouldn't seem rude). To which she replied that she would need to leave quickly too, to go back and check on her husband, who has been tested positive for Corona virus! Asked if he was ill, and apparently after two days of feeling really rough he is starting to feel better. I sat next to this person for an hour who is almost certainly a carrier and it seems odds-on that I will probably get it next week. Plus who knows how many people sitting around.
How many other people are walking around knowing that they are probable carriers? Why is the messaging not getting through?
Thursday: Everything will carry on as normal Friday Night: If you cough a snatch squad will pull you into a van
To be fair, we weren't told that everything would carry on for normal forever, and the measures in those headlines were just powers that may be put into a bill that hasn't passed yet and won't be called upon for some time. But I'm pretty sure you knew all that, and were commenting on tomorrow's (well today's, now) apocalyptic newspaper stories, with "police to get powers to detain virus victims" while dressed up like extras in a sci-fi film, and how that compared with reassurances we'd been given about mass events still being okay (for robust Brits at least) just a day before.
I have to say I found this post funny on a "that escalated quickly" basis and you've taken some criticism on here due to sarcasm-meters failing to fire. The shifts in tone, particularly in the media, have been as crazy as those in the financial markets.
Just a reminder this was a headline from as recently as Thursday morning and it already seems a fortnight out of date to me.
What a rollercoaster this is. You can't take your eyes off it. You can't stop it being heart-rending when it's not just statistics, it's you and your loved ones. What absolutely extraordinary times.
I was reflecting today that my generation have lived lives completely free of this kind of total threat. My parents were born at the start of the War and so were at least alive to witness similar bad times, but were too young in all honesty to know.
My grandparents lived through the aftermath of the Great War and then the Depression, before having to raise kids during WWII.
For 75 years we have had peace and relative tranquility.
For 12th amendment election of Pelosi *after* the election, you'd need a hopelessly hung electoral college for a start, and even then it is not clear why you should end up with Pelosi. Even in your example, why not the running mate?
Well, I think people tend to get behind their president, so if she's the incumbent, *and* popular (which is no small if) I think the convention would favour her over the VP if she wanted it.
But yeah, that's a huge pile of "if"s, I wouldn't take the bet.
Went to watch my daughter play in a youth orchestra earlier this evening. Talking to the lady next to me while waiting for it to start and between pieces. About half way through I happened to mention that I would need to dash off very quickly at the end of the concert, as I had somewhere else to go (just so I wouldn't seem rude). To which she replied that she would need to leave quickly too, to go back and check on her husband, who has been tested positive for Corona virus! Asked if he was ill, and apparently after two days of feeling really rough he is starting to feel better. I sat next to this person for an hour who is almost certainly a carrier and it seems odds-on that I will probably get it next week. Plus who knows how many people sitting around.
How many other people are walking around knowing that they are probable carriers? Why is the messaging not getting through?
Incredible. How stupid are these people?
Good luck though. I do hope you haven't picked this up and it certainly isn't a guarantee that you have.
Went to watch my daughter play in a youth orchestra earlier this evening. Talking to the lady next to me while waiting for it to start and between pieces. About half way through I happened to mention that I would need to dash off very quickly at the end of the concert, as I had somewhere else to go (just so I wouldn't seem rude). To which she replied that she would need to leave quickly too, to go back and check on her husband, who has been tested positive for Corona virus! Asked if he was ill, and apparently after two days of feeling really rough he is starting to feel better. I sat next to this person for an hour who is almost certainly a carrier and it seems odds-on that I will probably get it next week. Plus who knows how many people sitting around.
How many other people are walking around knowing that they are probable carriers? Why is the messaging not getting through?
Lots of people are stupid and lots of people are selfish.
Thursday: Everything will carry on as normal Friday Night: If you cough a snatch squad will pull you into a van
To be fair, we weren't told that everything would carry on for normal forever, and the measures in those headlines were just powers that may be put into a bill that hasn't passed yet and won't be called upon for some time. But I'm pretty sure you knew all that, and were commenting on tomorrow's (well today's, now) apocalyptic newspaper stories, with "police to get powers to detain virus victims" while dressed up like extras in a sci-fi film, and how that compared with reassurances we'd been given about mass events still being okay (for robust Brits at least) just a day before.
I have to say I found this post funny on a "that escalated quickly" basis and you've taken some criticism on here due to sarcasm-meters failing to fire. The shifts in tone, particularly in the media, have been as crazy as those in the financial markets.
Just a reminder this was a headline from as recently as Thursday morning and it already seems a fortnight out of date to me.
What a rollercoaster this is. You can't take your eyes off it. You can't stop it being heart-rending when it's not just statistics, it's you and your loved ones. What absolutely extraordinary times.
I was reflecting today that my generation have lived lives completely free of this kind of total threat. My parents were born at the start of the War and so were at least alive to witness similar bad times, but were too young in all honesty to know.
My grandparents lived through the aftermath of the Great War and then the Depression, before having to raise kids during WWII.
For 75 years we have had peace and relative tranquility.
My parents are 90 and 89. They are both at risk but look at the reaction of society today and ask what people have we become? Their generation would all have preferred this virus to facing WW2 - they think we have no perspective and should be ashamed of ourselves.
Thanks for the good wishes. To say I was shocked was an understatement. I guess I knew I would probably get it at some point. Of course, now I'm wondering if I should start self-isolating myself?
Comments
I have shoved the price of a coffee that way.
Now... putting my cynical hat on for a second, I suspect that the ECB may be... ummm... ensuring an... ummm... orderly market there.
Then its time for the bog roll.
We are told that we could contain the spread of disease temporarily, as China appears to have done, but all this would achieve is to delay the spread to a worse time, so best to get it over and done with now. This is supported by the "science" and by the "pandemic plan".
With the best will in the world, a government-set plan, formed many years ago and updated over time, won't reflect the capabilities of modern technology and the innovative uses they can be put to. And we have so many capabilities for dealing with the situation that we didn't have even 5 years ago:
- through phone networks we have the potential to track movements and interactions of indviduals across the entire population, and the data processing capabilities to analyse this effectively.
- cloud-computing, video-conferencing etc allow us to maintain business functionality alongside large-scale working from home in a way never before possible
- people have a greater range of leisure options in their own home than ever before, making it less intolerable to go out and mix with other people
- we have robot warehouses, automated checkouts etc forming supply chains moving foods and goods from producer to consumer with minimal human interaction along the way in many cases, and this capacity could be rapidly expanded.
- rapid genetic sequencing gives us more information about the spread of the epidemic than we would have had in previous years, and our testing capacity is astonishing (the idea of a 10-minute test would have seen miraculous to those fighting previous epidemics).
In short, we are far better placed to fight this epidemic than any previous generation in human history. So why don't we try?
If the disease cannot be contained and will quickly overwhelm us, then so be it - nothing can be done. But China suggests that it can be. So let's rise to the challenge. Shut down interactions to stop the spread, and then let loose the power of the market - how do we restore our society without letting the disease resurge? Perhaps not fully, but enough to allow normal lives until we have a more normal solution. With all the tools at our disposal, why do we assume we are doomed to failure before we try?
There seems to be so much scope for fighting this epidemic in so many novel ways. Why are so many people (especially of a conservative bent) willing to accept the big-state line: the government scientist and our state plan say it cannot be done, so there is no point trying? Where is our belief in a modern dynamic and innovative Britain, ready to face the future and rise to previously-insurmountable challenges? Wasn't that what we were promised?
Why is this utopian rather than realistic?
The ECB will follow the path of least resistance. And the path of least resistance is to continue to monetise debt from Greece and Italy.
Precipitating a crisis is the opposite of this and requires an active choice to do so. Christine Legarde has to *choose* to sink the Euro. Is she going to do that? Or is it easier to keep buying Italian goverment bonds?
After all, if all road traffic were speed limited to 5mph then the vast numbers of people killed in RTAs every year would be cut to virtually zero. Or if strict quarantine and social distancing measures were introduced every year from about October until March then deaths from Winter flu could be greatly curtailed.
The fact that neither of these policies is followed doesn't mean that nobody cares about all the people who die as a direct result of their not being implemented. It simply means that, as a society, we're only prepared to go to finite lengths to save them.
If, at the end of all this, country A has saved nearly all of its frail elderly at the cost of immiserating itself, whereas country B has experienced a short sharp recession and then moved swiftly on at the cost of waving goodbye to 200,000 grannies five years before their time, then which set of leaders has made the right decision?
If you automatically say, "well, country A of course, because the alternative is callous and immoral," then next ask yourself whether your right to get from home to work at greater than walking pace is worth the cost of so many children being flung through the air and smacking dead into a road every year, and send your car off to the scrapheap.
The 10-minute test will have some false positives and some false negatives.
I think I saw a quoted rate of 10 per cent somewhere, but let's say it is optimistically 1 per cent, then 1 per cent of 66 million is 660,000
The 660,000 false negatives will go to work/school/university and spread the virus.
Hmmmmm.
Put it like this, I think most of the people buying Italian Government Bonds might be located in one building in Frankfurt.
I can still shudder and recall having to eat spam and salad for days on end as school dinner in mid 1970s because there was no gas supply.
"Hospitals could stop treating the most severely ill coronavirus victims if the outbreak escalates.
Patients with a poor prognosis may even be taken off ventilators in favour of those with better survival chances.
Intensive care experts are drafting new triage guidelines ahead of an expected surge in urgent cases.
Hospitals are rapidly increasing their intensive care capacity and doctors say wards already look like 'war zones' as they fill up with patients."
To beat the epidemic we don't need to stop all transmission, just reduce it to about a third of its natural rate (i.e. so R_0 < 1). The disease will then decrease exponentially
There are < 5,000 critical care beds in England, though the NHS is now trebling that number.
There are < 130,000 beds in the NHS in England.
Um.
https://twitter.com/laurelchor/status/1238472301328433154
https://twitter.com/laurelchor/status/1238472302825746433
Personally I think this is inevitable as this virus will be endemic in very large parts of the world. So the only way for China to prevent reinfection will be to have large scale lockdown again. This will be economically and politically unsustainable.
Or something like that...
Does he know that is where this all began?
I'm working on the assumption that we might be running key functions e.g. exam year groups only with a skeleton staff. I don't have children to care for, and I'd rather be at work doing something useful than sitting at home. However, I am in good health at present, if you feel ill please rest.
And this is in a country that's still heavily dependent on fax machines, there's loads more room to do working from home.
If 1% false negatives = 660,000 then the 99% true negatives = 65,340,000. You've used up the whole population. Everyone is testing negative but 1% are false negatives. No one is testing positive. So the test is useless. I think?
I think the sum of all 4 rates times the population will add up to the total population.
I don't really understand your calculation, sorry.
I was trying to find out about the ACE inhibitor factor as well as Calcium channel blockers.
Good news and bad news. Calcium Channel blockers are no problem (I take Amlodipine).
ACE inhibitors, however, are a big problem (i take Ramipril, max dose). Read this and then hide behind the sofa.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanres/PIIS2213-2600(20)30116-8.pdf
In short, help!
I won’t be able to get through to 111 and the surgery is closed for the weekend. I don’t suppose anyone has expertise on this? If I stop taking the Ramipril my blood pressure will be high but will it take effect quickly enough to be useful?
It's actively undermining faith in the government, the government in turn is taking advice from scientists and medical specialists, so it is undermining faith in the experts we should be listening to instead of scaremongering populist politicians.
It is incredibly depressing watching politicians who claim to be evidence based, like Rory Stewart, grasping an opportunity to criticise the government knowing that it will scare vulnerable people and create unnecessary risk.
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca
* Trump and Pence both shuffle off this mortal coil, or decide they'd be better leaving a Democrat to deal with the whole shitshow and try to get power back from them in November
* Pelosi is initially popular
* Something untoward happens to Biden
* Biden delegates decide to go with their incumbent president
https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1238618623964524544
Apparently it is also good to infect the nation. If you comment on the 1% - 3% mortality rate then you are, apparently, an idiot.
We need to ensure that when the outbreak is over we restore our community values
BY POLLY MACKENZIE"
https://unherd.com/2020/03/coronavirus-will-break-down-our-social-bonds/
I have to say I found this post funny on a "that escalated quickly" basis and you've taken some criticism on here due to sarcasm-meters failing to fire. The shifts in tone, particularly in the media, have been as crazy as those in the financial markets.
Just a reminder this was a headline from as recently as Thursday morning and it already seems a fortnight out of date to me.
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1237873160990547968
And it feels a whole world away, because this was just 24 hours later.
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1238228600966524930
What a rollercoaster this is. You can't take your eyes off it. You can't stop it being heart-rending when it's not just statistics, it's you and your loved ones. What absolutely extraordinary times.
This doesn't mean the UK approach is wrong either, just that many other countries aren't in its position of having a largeish number infected but with a slowish growth rate so far. The UK is growing slower than Italy so may be able to wait longer before quarantine come into effect.
* Trump & Pence quickly removed before the election and without time to appoint a new vice president so Pelosi is appointed president (but not for betting purposes)
* Biden wins the election but he *and his running mate* then succumb
* so the 12th amendment kicks in and Biden's electoral college delegates decide to stick with Pelosi
I'd want more than 1,000 to 1.
% false negative tests= (number testing negative who do have the disease)/(total number testing negative)
Your % false negative tests = 1 on Left Hand Side equation. Your numerator = 660,000 on right hand side of equation. So the denominator must be 100 x the numerator = 6.6 million. So everyone has tested negative.
I think!
About half way through I happened to mention that I would need to dash off very quickly at the end of the concert, as I had somewhere else to go (just so I wouldn't seem rude). To which she replied that she would need to leave quickly too, to go back and check on her husband, who has been tested positive for Corona virus! Asked if he was ill, and apparently after two days of feeling really rough he is starting to feel better.
I sat next to this person for an hour who is almost certainly a carrier and it seems odds-on that I will probably get it next week. Plus who knows how many people sitting around.
How many other people are walking around knowing that they are probable carriers? Why is the messaging not getting through?
My grandparents lived through the aftermath of the Great War and then the Depression, before having to raise kids during WWII.
For 75 years we have had peace and relative tranquility.
But yeah, that's a huge pile of "if"s, I wouldn't take the bet.
Good luck though. I do hope you haven't picked this up and it certainly isn't a guarantee that you have.
Hope things go well for you.