@eadric@Foxy did you see the story from Iceland earlier that was discussed this morning? In a random sample of the population, 1% of individuals had the coronavirus, but, of those, 50% were asymptomatic and 50% had a mild cold. The individuals were not considered to be of high risk (those at risk are being processed separately). This could suggest that the majority of cases are very mild indeed (they have 0.05% of those sampled from risk zones as positive) and might reduce the burden on the health system a bit as it suggests that a sizeable fraction of those infected might display almost no symptoms at all.
Yes, I think the prevalence in Iceland is higher than Italy, per capita. A 1% prevalence in 1000 tested would be a small sample though, even on several consecutive days.
What we really need is a validated test that can show antibodies, rather than active virus. That way we can tell the difference between the asymptomatic cases, and the merely lucky.
Agreed - serology will tell us much more. interestingly, 1% of their entire population is 3000 samples, so it's a decent sample in that sense! But what I found encouraging is that it means that those who present symptoms severe enough to get to the hospital will hopefully be a lot lower than 80% as it suggests 10 or 20 times as many cases in the population than those that require treatment... But let's see...
I thought it was 1% of the 3000, so 30 cases virus positive, but maybe I misunderstood.
I guess I'll keep turning up to work until I get infected, then get over it and go back to work. I'm not that concerned for my 80 year old mum, and my 74 year old father in law with his knackered lungs as we have a plan to keep them going. I'm more concerned about my wife, as she recovers from her breast cancer. She's now back at work a couple of hours a day as a teaching assistant and with her immune system being low, I really don't want her to get it but part of me thinks it'd be better for her to get it now before the country goes batshit!
Yes, my attitude too.
I will lob my Mothers day present to my mum from a safe distance and wave from the end of the driveway. Then back to work, I am no shirker.
I think our plan will be to keep as many pumps on the run as possible, keeping them close to the city, but maybe have a one out in the sticks to cover Melton/Oakham, and maybe one for the North for Coalhole and Donnington. It could be arse twitching time if you live in a rural village and you have a house fire at the same time as a city job though.
@eadric@Foxy did you see the story from Iceland earlier that was discussed this morning? In a random sample of the population, 1% of individuals had the coronavirus, but, of those, 50% were asymptomatic and 50% had a mild cold. The individuals were not considered to be of high risk (those at risk are being processed separately). This could suggest that the majority of cases are very mild indeed (they have 0.05% of those sampled from risk zones as positive) and might reduce the burden on the health system a bit as it suggests that a sizeable fraction of those infected might display almost no symptoms at all.
Yes, potentially good news.
Inshallah!
And now to other things...
Later.
If the Icelandic data is correct, then this will probably all blow over relatively quickly, and our government will be vindicated.
Re. the markets, I don't think we will bottom out until late autumn and possibly into next year. There will be mini lifts but the overall trend will be bear market as the full impact begins to hit and we go into global recession (inevitable).
Stocks won't return to end 2019 levels for at least 2 years.
There are some really good opportunities of course. A few companies are going to rocket. If you can get on whoever develops the vaccine (Gilead?) then bingo.
Do you have any advice for what I should do, if I am worried about inflation?
All my assets are now in cash, in various forms: ISAs, Premium Bonds, basic Savings Accounts, etc. I sold all my shares just in time.
But now what? There could be a hefty dollop of inflation coming down the line. Gold looks incredibly risky and volatile. I don't understand "index linked bonds" - are they liquid, can you just sell them any time like shares?
@eadric@Foxy did you see the story from Iceland earlier that was discussed this morning? In a random sample of the population, 1% of individuals had the coronavirus, but, of those, 50% were asymptomatic and 50% had a mild cold. The individuals were not considered to be of high risk (those at risk are being processed separately). This could suggest that the majority of cases are very mild indeed (they have 0.05% of those sampled from risk zones as positive) and might reduce the burden on the health system a bit as it suggests that a sizeable fraction of those infected might display almost no symptoms at all.
Yes, I think the prevalence in Iceland is higher than Italy, per capita. A 1% prevalence in 1000 tested would be a small sample though, even on several consecutive days.
What we really need is a validated test that can show antibodies, rather than active virus. That way we can tell the difference between the asymptomatic cases, and the merely lucky.
Agreed - serology will tell us much more. interestingly, 1% of their entire population is 3000 samples, so it's a decent sample in that sense! But what I found encouraging is that it means that those who present symptoms severe enough to get to the hospital will hopefully be a lot lower than 80% as it suggests 10 or 20 times as many cases in the population than those that require treatment... But let's see...
I thought it was 1% of the 3000, so 30 cases virus positive, but maybe I misunderstood.
No - you're correct. But of those 30 cases, all were random samples in the population and none had serious symptoms. It just means that if 80% do get infected 8% or so might be tested as they display more serious symptoms, with maybe 5% of these needing hospital treatment (so 0.4% of the population). That's still a very large number but would be better than the worst case scenarios. Or am I misunderstanding your query?
@eadric@Foxy did you see the story from Iceland earlier that was discussed this morning? In a random sample of the population, 1% of individuals had the coronavirus, but, of those, 50% were asymptomatic and 50% had a mild cold. The individuals were not considered to be of high risk (those at risk are being processed separately). This could suggest that the majority of cases are very mild indeed (they have 0.05% of those sampled from risk zones as positive) and might reduce the burden on the health system a bit as it suggests that a sizeable fraction of those infected might display almost no symptoms at all.
Yes, I think the prevalence in Iceland is higher than Italy, per capita. A 1% prevalence in 1000 tested would be a small sample though, even on several consecutive days.
What we really need is a validated test that can show antibodies, rather than active virus. That way we can tell the difference between the asymptomatic cases, and the merely lucky.
Agreed - serology will tell us much more. interestingly, 1% of their entire population is 3000 samples, so it's a decent sample in that sense! But what I found encouraging is that it means that those who present symptoms severe enough to get to the hospital will hopefully be a lot lower than 80% as it suggests 10 or 20 times as many cases in the population than those that require treatment... But let's see...
I thought it was 1% of the 3000, so 30 cases virus positive, but maybe I misunderstood.
No - you're correct. But of those 30 cases, all were random samples in the population and none had serious symptoms. It just means that if 80% do get infected 8% or so might be tested as they display more serious symptoms, with maybe 5% of these needing hospital treatment (so 0.4% of the population). That's still a very large number but would be better than the worst case scenarios. Or am I misunderstanding your query?
Yes, it is hopeful, and may well explain why China has got on top of it. The Standard Error on that sample must be quite wide though.
The high infection rate on the Diamond Princess may well contradict the Iceland findings though. Time will tell, but my hunch is for a severe but short lived epidemic.
Re. the markets, I don't think we will bottom out until late autumn and possibly into next year. There will be mini lifts but the overall trend will be bear market as the full impact begins to hit and we go into global recession (inevitable).
Stocks won't return to end 2019 levels for at least 2 years.
There are some really good opportunities of course. A few companies are going to rocket. If you can get on whoever develops the vaccine (Gilead?) then bingo.
Do you have any advice for what I should do, if I am worried about inflation?
All my assets are now in cash, in various forms: ISAs, Premium Bonds, basic Savings Accounts, etc. I sold all my shares just in time.
But now what? There could be a hefty dollop of inflation coming down the line. Gold looks incredibly risky and volatile. I don't understand "index linked bonds" - are they liquid, can you just sell them any time like shares?
Well done for moving into cash at exactly the right time, a lot of us didn't. I'd suggest getting back in just before it bounces back, but will you be able to get that right too?
I wonder if we could get a situation where , after greater testing, and a very large number of people found to be both asymptomatic but nevertheless obliviously having the virus, the virus advice fo those people might then presumably switch to only keeping very significant distance from specific groups, rather than self-isolating.
And the point is that lockdown, etc., quickly lower the number of true new cases. Italy will almost certainly be seeing lower true new infections already, it's just going to take some time before the official numbers reflect that, because of the 7-10 gap between infection and recognition of the issue.
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I wonder whether I have a weird version of the lurgy. No cough or temperature. Had an extremely mild sore throat last weekend.
But struggling for breath today and never had that in my life. My spo2 monitor showing sub 95%. Could be the virus or a panic attack.
A panic attack can cause difficulty breathing, but shouldn't drop saturation. Take it seriously, if a consistent finding on repeat measurements.
Indeed, the light headedness with a panic attack is due to low CO2 from over breathing, and the O2 sats should be in the very high nineties.
I would recommend a pulse oximeter for every home COVID19 kit, alongside the thermometer. £15-20 on Amazon, with next day delivery. A peak flow meter for another tenner too.
Government borrowing is going to go through the roof. What with all these privatisations, bailing the banks out, underwriting Lloyds names and buying Covid-19 pharmaceuticals from the Trump organisation.
Terrifying to think what state the public finances will be in a few years from now. Not just here either. I see the US defaulting and the world economy as we know it coming to an end.
And I used to think I was sometimes a bit pessimistic
It's worth noting that even the Black Death did not destroy the world economy and return Europe to pre-literate caveman life.
One thing is certain, the big state is now back and austerity is dead
Blimey. That's quite a statement coming from a true-Conservative like you.
@HYUFD is a true Conservative - he adapts to the situation he is facing.
@HYUFD is a true Conservative - he adapts to the policy his party is currently pursuing.
@eadric@Foxy did you see the story from Iceland earlier that was discussed this morning? In a random sample of the population, 1% of individuals had the coronavirus, but, of those, 50% were asymptomatic and 50% had a mild cold. The individuals were not considered to be of high risk (those at risk are being processed separately). This could suggest that the majority of cases are very mild indeed (they have 0.05% of those sampled from risk zones as positive) and might reduce the burden on the health system a bit as it suggests that a sizeable fraction of those infected might display almost no symptoms at all.
Yes, I think the prevalence in Iceland is higher than Italy, per capita. A 1% prevalence in 1000 tested would be a small sample though, even on several consecutive days.
What we really need is a validated test that can show antibodies, rather than active virus. That way we can tell the difference between the asymptomatic cases, and the merely lucky.
Agreed - serology will tell us much more. interestingly, 1% of their entire population is 3000 samples, so it's a decent sample in that sense! But what I found encouraging is that it means that those who present symptoms severe enough to get to the hospital will hopefully be a lot lower than 80% as it suggests 10 or 20 times as many cases in the population than those that require treatment... But let's see...
.
They were screening a random sample of the general population outside the "risk" group - i.e. *not* people who had been in contact with known cases etc.
Using google translate - "510 people on Friday, entered 1049 yesterday and plans to have a thousand samples taken today. About 700 of these samples have been screened. Kári says half of those who were found to have been asymptomatic."
I take this to mean - 510 samples Friday, 1049 Saturday and planning to take 100 0 Sunday. 700 of these sample have been screened - meaning they found 6-7 cases.
Half of those found to be infected were asymptomatic.
The Icelandic population is 364K - so this suggests that 3.64K are infected currently as opposed to 138 cases actually confirmed. Note that the confirmed cases include people who did not need hospital treatment.
This suggests that cases that attract testing are 4% of the real number infected.
If we multiply that by the WHO 3.4% death rate per identified case we get 0.136% death rate for the real number infected.
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
He says the RIGHT thing to do, as an individual, is panic - ie react over cautiously. The more people that do this, the lower the risk to the system as a whole.
I met Taleb in 2007 at a conference in Japan. He explained to me that every twenty or so years, every major banking sector has a crisis that wipes out all the profits made in the previous two decades. He was very compelling.
His advice saved my customers hundreds of millions. I just wish I'd sold all by banking shares, and not just 90% of them.
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
To be fair, if I was from Iceland I'd spend an awful lot of time abroad.
Government borrowing is going to go through the roof. What with all these privatisations, bailing the banks out, underwriting Lloyds names and buying Covid-19 pharmaceuticals from the Trump organisation.
Terrifying to think what state the public finances will be in a few years from now. Not just here either. I see the US defaulting and the world economy as we know it coming to an end.
And I used to think I was sometimes a bit pessimistic
It's worth noting that even the Black Death did not destroy the world economy and return Europe to pre-literate caveman life.
One thing is certain, the big state is now back and austerity is dead
Return of the Big Society?
It may be the End of Days, but things aren't THAT bad.....
Government borrowing is going to go through the roof. What with all these privatisations, bailing the banks out, underwriting Lloyds names and buying Covid-19 pharmaceuticals from the Trump organisation.
Terrifying to think what state the public finances will be in a few years from now. Not just here either. I see the US defaulting and the world economy as we know it coming to an end.
And I used to think I was sometimes a bit pessimistic
It's worth noting that even the Black Death did not destroy the world economy and return Europe to pre-literate caveman life.
One thing is certain, the big state is now back and austerity is dead
Blimey. That's quite a statement coming from a true-Conservative like you.
@HYUFD is a true Conservative - he adapts to the situation he is facing.
@HYUFD is a true Conservative - he adapts to the policy his party is currently pursuing.
"Ain't I to wear a mackintosh if the weather changes? Admiral "Mad Jack" Fisher, answering a charge of inconsistent policy.
I wonder whether I have a weird version of the lurgy. No cough or temperature. Had an extremely mild sore throat last weekend.
But struggling for breath today and never had that in my life. My spo2 monitor showing sub 95%. Could be the virus or a panic attack.
A panic attack can cause difficulty breathing, but shouldn't drop saturation. Take it seriously, if a consistent finding on repeat measurements.
Indeed, the light headedness with a panic attack is due to low CO2 from over breathing, and the O2 sats should be in the very high nineties.
I would recommend a pulse oximeter for every home COVID19 kit, alongside the thermometer. £15-20 on Amazon, with next day delivery. A peak flow meter for another tenner too.
Yes this was an excellent tip of yours I acted upon a few weeks ago. If the government ever came to recommend them for our quarantined 70+ year olds then they would sell out over night. So worth moving people.
The peak flow we should establish a baseline to compare with follow-ups I assume?
He says the RIGHT thing to do, as an individual, is panic - ie react over cautiously. The more people that do this, the lower the risk to the system as a whole.
That's an unbelievably stupid and irresponsible article, especially in the current climate. He's tried to come up with a scientific-sounding "definition" for panic, only he's failed miserably and instead defined it as "take sensible and well-thought-through precautions".
By his definition, looking both ways before you cross the road in quiet residential areas constitutes "panicking". It should be obvious that the usual definition, involving rash decisions due to losing one's nerve, usually leads to bad outcomes.
However, I think I'm right in thinking NYC has just had three deaths so far, from what would already been 1,000 cases almost three weeks ago, and what must be thousands more now ?
A lot of New York is much more densely populated than Lombardy.
He says the RIGHT thing to do, as an individual, is panic - ie react over cautiously. The more people that do this, the lower the risk to the system as a whole.
That's an unbelievably stupid and irresponsible article, especially in the current climate. He's tried to come up with a scientific-sounding "definition" for panic, only he's failed miserably and instead defined it as "take sensible and well-thought-through precautions".
By his definition, looking both ways before you cross the road in quiet residential areas constitutes "panicking". It should be obvious that the usual definition, involving rash decisions due to losing one's nerve, usually leads to bad outcomes.
According to this, putting on a lifejacket and getting is a queue for a lifeboat would have been panicking on the Titanic.
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
There is some encouraging data from Veneto from whole population testing which suggests that 75% of Covid 19 positives are asymptomatic or mild (too mild to request a test)....quite a small sample size mind
In Northern Italy masses attended by people are banned since the evening of the 23th February. Priests should still hold ceremonies without attendees. Some are streaming it online. Since Monday they were banned in the rest of the country too. Funerals can't take place anymore. At first a small funeral with only close relatives were allowed. Now not even those. They directly go to the cemetery where the priest hold a brief blessing. Churches are open though. People can enter but they are supposed to keep distance from each other.
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
There is some encouraging data from Veneto from whole population testing which suggests that 75% of Covid 19 positives are asymptomatic or mild (too mild to request a test)....quite a small sample size mind
Unfortunately I cannot pass the link....
Oh - that is encouraging @tyson - no way you can forward the link? That's also a really promising piece of news if true
I'll try and get my wife to fish it out....it's in Italian
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
There is some encouraging data from Veneto from whole population testing which suggests that 75% of Covid 19 positives are asymptomatic or mild (too mild to request a test)....quite a small sample size mind
Unfortunately I cannot pass the link....
Oh - that is encouraging @tyson - no way you can forward the link? That's also a really promising piece of news if true
It's inline with the Icelandic results. Would also make sense, since this is why coronavirus is usually not very lethal - a large proportion of cases are very very mild.
I'd love to believe in the iceberg theory, but I can't understand why China and the WHO wouldn't have found evidence to support it by now. Surely they would be looking for such signs?
In Northern Italy masses attended by people are banned since the evening of the 23th February. Priests should still hold ceremonies without attendees. Some are streaming it online. Since Monday they were banned in the rest of the country too. Funerals can't take place anymore. At first a small funeral with only close relatives were allowed. Now not even those. They directly go to the cemetery where the priest hold a brief blessing. Churches are open though. People can enter but they are supposed to keep distance from each other.
I know this sounds slightly counter intuitive, but I think collective loss can be quite therapeutic to the bereaved...even in these terrible examples when there aren't funerals
Consultant cardiologist on lack of testing and protection of medical staff within hospitals. grim.
Reads fairly true to me. Especially the shortage of PPE.
I don’t understand why the government is not doing everything to get PPE and test kits to hospitals? Couldn’t you use the army? Surely it’s come hell or high water...
I'd love to believe in the iceberg theory, but I can't understand why China and the WHO wouldn't have found evidence to support it by now. Surely they would be looking for such signs?
China could now be less worriedly fiddling their new test positive figures if so many are turning out to be asymptomatic, ofcourse, which would be one explanation of why the situation there has looked mysterious to so many recently - this would be much easier to cover up than large numbers of new symptomatic cases.
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
To be fair, if I was from Iceland I'd spend an awful lot of time abroad.
Surely being abroad is not the relevant point from this data - it is that asymptomatic and mild "cold" level cases are 20x the number of "worth testing". i.e. 95% of people catching this virus will barely notice - if this is correct
Are most ILI cases diagnosed (Not just talking Covid19 here)? I'm guessing only the seriously ill "present" to hospitals - for every presented ILI case there'll be a whole bunch of people riding it out at home
My friends, we will not go again or ape an ancient rage, Or stretch the folly of our youth to be the shame of age, But walk with clearer eyes and ears this path that wandereth, And see undrugged in evening light the decent inn of death; For there is good news yet to hear and fine things to be seen, Before we go to Paradise by way of Kensal Green.
This is a link to a discussion on the study.....in Italian (sorry)....but indicates that in whole population testing 75% of Covid 19 positives do not really know they have it....
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
To be fair, if I was from Iceland I'd spend an awful lot of time abroad.
Iceland has a huge amount of tourism, including me last year. It has a high standard of living and is a happy place to live.
I'd love to believe in the iceberg theory, but I can't understand why China and the WHO wouldn't have found evidence to support it by now. Surely they would be looking for such signs?
China could be fiddling their new test positive figures if so many are turning out to be asymptomatic, ofcourse, which would be one explanation of how the situation there has looked mysterious to many recently - much easier to cover up than large numbers of new symptomatic cases.
But why? It would be fantastic news, and vital for decisions being made around the world. Underplaying new infections and outbreaks is one thing, but why wouldn't you want to tell the world that there are lots more asymptomatic cases?
I have absolutely no idea if this is a reasonable representation - I lack the knowledge to make that call - so post it only for interest and certainly not in support of any given position.
He says the RIGHT thing to do, as an individual, is panic - ie react over cautiously. The more people that do this, the lower the risk to the system as a whole.
That's an unbelievably stupid and irresponsible article, especially in the current climate. He's tried to come up with a scientific-sounding "definition" for panic, only he's failed miserably and instead defined it as "take sensible and well-thought-through precautions".
By his definition, looking both ways before you cross the road in quiet residential areas constitutes "panicking". It should be obvious that the usual definition, involving rash decisions due to losing one's nerve, usually leads to bad outcomes.
Well, no. I am a good example of what he is describing. Nearly six weeks ago now (as you all know) I began to get concerned about coronavirus.
That concern grew and grew over the following weeks, and I began to take action - eg sell my shares, buy sanitiser, warn friends, buy some loo roll (!), slowly stockpile fancy sardines, and also - crucially - severely limit my social interactions.
I was accused by many of here of "panicking". So what I did clearly matched a general understanding of the word "panic".
But what if many more people had done what I did? A lot of people would have saved money on shares (that's good). We would be seeing less chaos in supermarkets NOW because so many would have slowly stockpiled before.
Most importantly, the virus would not be spreading so fast because it would have had fewer opportunities for transmission.
So Taleb is right.
Anyway, God, I've been on here all bloody day! HAVE TO DO OTHER STUFF BYE
Well, sure, if you define "slowly stockpiling" and "began to take action" over a period of "weeks" as panicking. You could equally be described as the guy during, say, a theatre evacuation who shouts "we're all going to die", starts pushing past people for the exit, and causes a stampede in which lots of people get crushed to death.
And it makes no difference (at least in theory) if people sell their shares over a period of weeks, days or hours - the end price should be the same.
I'd love to believe in the iceberg theory, but I can't understand why China and the WHO wouldn't have found evidence to support it by now. Surely they would be looking for such signs?
China could be fiddling their new test positive figures if so many are turning out to be asymptomatic, ofcourse, which would be one explanation of how the situation there has looked mysterious to many recently - much easier to cover up than large numbers of new symptomatic cases.
But why? It would be fantastic news, and vital for decisions being made around the world. Underplaying new infections and outbreaks is one thing, but why wouldn't you want to tell the world that there are lots more asymptomatic cases?
We're still at the early stages, and no-one seems to know how it will play out globally, and what test-positive figures mean for each government's handling of the crisis. One can imagine a situation where the party leadership decides that test-positive numbers are now a measure of the government's prestige with its own citizens and the world, having had such a close shave with Chinese public anger last month, and now seeing how many positive cases are asymptomatic anyway ? All speculation at this stage, obviously, and could be completely wrong, but probably worth a think.
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
To be fair, if I was from Iceland I'd spend an awful lot of time abroad.
Surely being abroad is not the relevant point from this data - it is that asymptomatic and mild "cold" level cases are 20x the number of "worth testing". i.e. 95% of people catching this virus will barely notice - if this is correct
Exactly
I've put the Italian link in too.....
I felt rough this morning.....could be an asymptomatic bout of Covid 19 caught off piste in Oxford (crossing fingers)....or the fact that I wolfed into my Covid supplies with gusto washed down with a little too much red.....
I'd love to believe in the iceberg theory, but I can't understand why China and the WHO wouldn't have found evidence to support it by now. Surely they would be looking for such signs?
China could now be less worriedly fiddling their new test positive figures if so many are turning out to be asymptomatic, ofcourse, which would be one explanation of why the situation there has looked mysterious to so many recently - this would be much easier to cover up than large numbers of new symptomatic cases.
Out of interest, what measures did China impose outside of Hubei?
That is a loaded poll, or certainly the extrapolation by Goodwin is.
If I were asked, has being in the EU transition period helped the UK over Covid-19, I would have to say no. It doesn't mean I want to leave the transition tomorrow.
I have absolutely no idea if this is a reasonable representation - I lack the knowledge to make that call - so post it only for interest and certainly not in support of any given position.
I don't know if the lock down is really my selfishness coming out...I'm stuck at court tomorrow for work and would much rather spend the day at home munching through my Covid supplies reading Novels on the preset that I have to stay in.....
A person who I had coffee with last Thursday has been confirmed as having the virus. The latest advice seems to be that I don’t self isolate unless I develop symptoms. I don’t have any at the moment.
I think the reality is that many of us are going to come into contact with carriers frequently. We either completely cut ourselves off or carry on until there are symptoms.
It’s a bit troubling though.
According to the BBC you are covered by the previously issued advice:
Anyone who has travelled to an affected area, or who has been in close contact with an infected person, had already been asked to self-isolate for 14 days.
We had coffee not sex. I have a tricky court case tomorrow morning. I am genuinely unsure what to do. Trying to pass it on would be very difficult at this point.
@DavidL The advice about self isolating for 14 days was withdrawn on the 13 March.
So, now we are in the stage where people are seeking to action government advice in their own lives, how clear is it?
Judging from the above, contradictions between old and new advice on when to self-isolate risk causing confusion. I think a lot of people do not know what the most recent advice is. Constant changes to the advice are going to leave people confused, especially once we get different advice by age-band or risk-group. (Presumably this confusion is a disincentive for the government to keep changing its advice. I suspect it was a factor in why, for example, they only announced that 70+ shouldn't go on cruises well after this was obvious advice, because that way they could bring it in simultaneously with a whole slate of other new recommendations that effectively replaced the previous set, rather than having things change piecemeal in a way that's impossible to keep up with. If this is so then a down side is that the rational, self-interested individual should treat government advice with caution, since the "current" advice - e.g. during that period HMG deemed cruises for the 70+ not to be something they needed to avoid - may still be sub-optimal.)
There's also confusion about future potential advice and whether it applies yet. I don't think the media have reported very well about the stuff in the bill next week - I've met people who seem to believe some of those measures are coming into effect on Monday, rather than next week the relevant powers are being discussed in Parliament. Similarly, some people seem to think "avoid large gatherings" is already in force.
I've also found some simple stuff in the regular messaging has been misconstrued. Trying to get my 70+ mother ready for her "cocoon" period, turns out she thought it didn't matter there was no hand sanitiser in the local supermarket because she had got Aloe Vera hand moisturiser, which she assumed would kill all her germs!!
Anyone know how HMG are actually testing how well their messaging is getting through?
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
How can you possibly know that you haven't 'caught' it from him yet? Symptoms might not show for several days.
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
I'd suggest inviting Hilary Clinton over for a spot of self isolation.
I have absolutely no idea if this is a reasonable representation - I lack the knowledge to make that call - so post it only for interest and certainly not in support of any given position.
I don't know if the lock down is really my selfishness coming out...I'm stuck at court tomorrow for work and would much rather spend the day at home munching through my Covid supplies reading Novels on the preset that I have to stay in.....
I think the article is in support of that., It seems to highlight the benefits of social distancing - including working from home and severely limiting interactions - as opposed to enforced lockdowns.
My concern is it is not clear if it is based on any real statistical evidence or is just someone who is good with graphics and has an agenda.
I have absolutely no idea if this is a reasonable representation - I lack the knowledge to make that call - so post it only for interest and certainly not in support of any given position.
The tide does generally seem to be turning a bit in favour of the Govt's 'timing the measures' right mood if my social media and friendship groups are anything like representative.
Foxy said "Work as usual for me tomorrow. Indeed I am quite OK about it. C'ome on you apes! Do you want to live forever?"
YES I completely agree. Nor should they tie down us active 80 year olds with essential responsibilities. My day starts at 0445, twenty-four seven, 365.
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
How can you possibly know that you haven't 'caught' it from him yet? Symptoms might not show for several days.
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
How can you possibly know that you haven't 'caught' it from him yet? Symptoms might not show for several days.
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
How can you possibly know that you haven't 'caught' it from him yet? Symptoms might not show for several days.
Because he was living elsewhere with the cats he was sitting for several days. I don't know exactly how long the symptoms take, but he hasn't been in the house since last weekend.
A person who I had coffee with last Thursday has been confirmed as having the virus. The latest advice seems to be that I don’t self isolate unless I develop symptoms. I don’t have any at the moment.
I think the reality is that many of us are going to come into contact with carriers frequently. We either completely cut ourselves off or carry on until there are symptoms.
It’s a bit troubling though.
According to the BBC you are covered by the previously issued advice:
Anyone who has travelled to an affected area, or who has been in close contact with an infected person, had already been asked to self-isolate for 14 days.
We had coffee not sex. I have a tricky court case tomorrow morning. I am genuinely unsure what to do. Trying to pass it on would be very difficult at this point.
@DavidL The advice about self isolating for 14 days was withdrawn on the 13 March.
So, now we are in the stage where people are seeking to action government advice in their own lives, how clear is it?
Judging from the above, contradictions between old and new advice on when to self-isolate risk causing confusion. I think a lot of people do not know what the most recent advice is. Constant changes to the advice are going to leave people confused, especially once we get different advice by age-band or risk-group. (Presumably this confusion is a disincentive for the government to keep changing its advice. I suspect it was a factor in why, for example, they only announced that 70+ shouldn't go on cruises well after this was obvious advice, because that way they could bring it in simultaneously with a whole slate of other new recommendations that effectively replaced the previous set, rather than having things change piecemeal in a way that's impossible to keep up with. If this is so then a down side is that the rational, self-interested individual should treat government advice with caution, since the "current" advice - e.g. during that period HMG deemed cruises for the 70+ not to be something they needed to avoid - may still be sub-optimal.)
There's also confusion about future potential advice and whether it applies yet. I don't think the media have reported very well about the stuff in the bill next week - I've met people who seem to believe some of those measures are coming into effect on Monday, rather than next week the relevant powers are being discussed in Parliament. Similarly, some people seem to think "avoid large gatherings" is already in force.
I've also found some simple stuff in the regular messaging has been misconstrued. Trying to get my 70+ mother ready for her "cocoon" period, turns out she thought it didn't matter there was no hand sanitiser in the local supermarket because she had got Aloe Vera hand moisturiser, which she assumed would kill all her germs!!
Anyone know how HMG are actually testing how well their messaging is getting through?
I would say right now it is pretty unclear and a worrying failure on the part of the Government.
They have one job as far as the medical actions are concerned and that is to make sure that the advice from the CMO and the other scientist is conveyed as clearly, as accurately and as simply as possible.
I would suggest they are failing on this at the moment.
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
To be fair, if I was from Iceland I'd spend an awful lot of time abroad.
It's beautiful! Great arts and music scene as well.
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
How can you possibly know that you haven't 'caught' it from him yet? Symptoms might not show for several days.
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
How can you possibly know that you haven't 'caught' it from him yet? Symptoms might not show for several days.
He doesn't know, that's his point...
He wrote he 'definitely hadn't".
As below, the housemate moved out over a week ago to do the catsitting. I guess 'Definitely' is an overstatement, but my point is that my risk up to now was very low but I have to act anyway since I won't be able to tell if/when I'm infected now.
I have absolutely no idea if this is a reasonable representation - I lack the knowledge to make that call - so post it only for interest and certainly not in support of any given position.
The tide does generally seem to be turning a bit in favour of the Govt's 'timing the measures' right mood if my social media and friendship groups are anything like representative.
I have pulled away from social media in despair at the moment. Way too many people trying to use the issue to score political points. It is pretty sickening.
It is a sign of the great maturity of this collection of reprobates on PB that so little of that is happening.
Thankyou folks from every side of the political spectrum. You are a pleasure to chat with.
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
How can you possibly know that you haven't 'caught' it from him yet? Symptoms might not show for several days.
He doesn't know, that's his point...
He wrote he 'definitely hadn't".
As below, the housemate moved out over a week ago to do the catsitting. I guess 'Definitely' is an overstatement, but my point is that my risk up to now was very low but I have to act anyway since I won't be able to tell if/when I'm infected now.
Apologies, I inferred that you'd come into contact with him/her since they got back
So I'm in an interesting position. A housemate who was catsitting alone for a few days has just come home and says he has a bit of a fever and a sore throat.
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
How can you possibly know that you haven't 'caught' it from him yet? Symptoms might not show for several days.
He doesn't know, that's his point...
He wrote he 'definitely hadn't".
As below, the housemate moved out over a week ago to do the catsitting. I guess 'Definitely' is an overstatement, but my point is that my risk up to now was very low but I have to act anyway since I won't be able to tell if/when I'm infected now.
Apologies, I inferred that you'd come into contact with him/her since they got back
I have absolutely no idea if this is a reasonable representation - I lack the knowledge to make that call - so post it only for interest and certainly not in support of any given position.
The tide does generally seem to be turning a bit in favour of the Govt's 'timing the measures' right mood if my social media and friendship groups are anything like representative.
I have pulled away from social media in despair at the moment. Way too many people trying to use the issue to score political points. It is pretty sickening.
It is a sign of the great maturity of this collection of reprobates on PB that so little of that is happening.
Thankyou folks from every side of the political spectrum. You are a pleasure to chat with.
I’m using Facebook more than ever, not for discussion but information from the local police and the town hall. It good to then be able to share with others
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
I don't think it says anything about local spread. What it does suggest is that many asymptomatic cases might exist that don't display any or extremely mild symptoms. Hence, if they infer one percent of the population carry the virus but only 0.05% of the total population (20 times less) in the at risk group carry the virus it is evidence of many mild cases (the iceberg effect Gideon mentions).
Yes, but unless a very high proportion of Icelanders have been overseas in the last month we have an unrepresentative sample.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
To be fair, if I was from Iceland I'd spend an awful lot of time abroad.
It's beautiful! Great arts and music scene as well.
Very high suicide rate. Not fun apparently for everyone to live there although yes for a tourist for a couple of weeks it's great.
Comments
Very good news if true.
Ice-berg baby. Ice-berg baby.
Got a link to it?
Yes, it is hopeful, and may well explain why China has got on top of it. The Standard Error on that sample must be quite wide though.
The high infection rate on the Diamond Princess may well contradict the Iceland findings though. Time will tell, but my hunch is for a severe but short lived epidemic.
I'd suggest getting back in just before it bounces back, but will you be able to get that right too?
Something deeply ironic about EU countries closing down their borders before the UK does.
(Telegraph blog)
Oh f off you old fool. When will we rid of this idiot from public life?
It is a terrifying thought that him and Seamus could have been in charge when this hit.
https://twitter.com/AArmstrong_says/status/1239238413628452870?s=19
But struggling for breath today and never had that in my life. My spo2 monitor showing sub 95%. Could be the virus or a panic attack.
I am slightly confused by the Icelandic paper, and unclear exactly who they have been testing. Half the infected cases had picked it up abroad, which shouldn't be the case if it was prevalent through local spread.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/15/pope-francis-delivers-blessing-empty-st-peters-square-12401450/
I would recommend a pulse oximeter for every home COVID19 kit, alongside the thermometer. £15-20 on Amazon, with next day delivery. A peak flow meter for another tenner too.
They were screening a random sample of the general population outside the "risk" group - i.e. *not* people who had been in contact with known cases etc.
Using google translate - "510 people on Friday, entered 1049 yesterday and plans to have a thousand samples taken today. About 700 of these samples have been screened. Kári says half of those who were found to have been asymptomatic."
I take this to mean - 510 samples Friday, 1049 Saturday and planning to take 100 0 Sunday. 700 of these sample have been screened - meaning they found 6-7 cases.
Half of those found to be infected were asymptomatic.
The Icelandic population is 364K - so this suggests that 3.64K are infected currently as opposed to 138 cases actually confirmed. Note that the confirmed cases include people who did not need hospital treatment.
This suggests that cases that attract testing are 4% of the real number infected.
If we multiply that by the WHO 3.4% death rate per identified case we get 0.136% death rate for the real number infected.
All built on some very small stats....
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
His advice saved my customers hundreds of millions. I just wish I'd sold all by banking shares, and not just 90% of them.
Moral: listen to Nassim Taleb.
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1239265115108773890?s=21
Consultant cardiologist on lack of testing and protection of medical staff within hospitals. grim.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
To be fair, if I was from Iceland I'd spend an awful lot of time abroad.
59 y.o., previous heart attack, back from Fuerteventura in February
The peak flow we should establish a baseline to compare with follow-ups I assume?
I've had a look at NEWS2 as a warning system..
By his definition, looking both ways before you cross the road in quiet residential areas constitutes "panicking". It should be obvious that the usual definition, involving rash decisions due to losing one's nerve, usually leads to bad outcomes.
A lot of New York is much more densely populated than Lombardy.
So encouraging, but I am not sure if possible to extrapolate, even within Iceland.
There is some encouraging data from Veneto from whole population testing which suggests that 75% of Covid 19 positives are asymptomatic or mild (too mild to request a test)....quite a small sample size mind
Unfortunately I cannot pass the link....
But they are being tested, at least in this area
Since Monday they were banned in the rest of the country too.
Funerals can't take place anymore. At first a small funeral with only close relatives were allowed. Now not even those. They directly go to the cemetery where the priest hold a brief blessing.
Churches are open though. People can enter but they are supposed to keep distance from each other.
I'll try and get my wife to fish it out....it's in Italian
It's inline with the Icelandic results. Would also make sense, since this is why coronavirus is usually not very lethal - a large proportion of cases are very very mild.
Pau: Bayrou 46% PS-PC 23%
Lille: Aubry (PS) 30% Greens 23.5% LREM 18%
Vernon: LREM 66%
Nîmes: LR 34% Centrist 17% Left 14% RN 14%
Le Havre: Eduard Philippe (LREM) 43,7%, Communists 35,7%
Besançon: Greens 31% LR 23ì% LREM 19.5%
Perpignan: Aliot/RN 34% LR 20% 14% Greens-PS 14%
Surely being abroad is not the relevant point from this data - it is that asymptomatic and mild "cold" level cases are 20x the number of "worth testing". i.e. 95% of people catching this virus will barely notice - if this is correct
Or stretch the folly of our youth to be the shame of age,
But walk with clearer eyes and ears this path that wandereth,
And see undrugged in evening light the decent inn of death;
For there is good news yet to hear and fine things to be seen,
Before we go to Paradise by way of Kensal Green.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48212/the-rolling-english-road
This is a link to a discussion on the study.....in Italian (sorry)....but indicates that in whole population testing 75% of Covid 19 positives do not really know they have it....
A small sample in Veneto......but some hope
Iceland has a huge amount of tourism, including me last year. It has a high standard of living and is a happy place to live.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/?fbclid=IwAR2B01zs8s-NRvwIUe0Zrg03fm7OJbkMk1EfpifvIOGbX2dN141rIcLdZ8Q
I have absolutely no idea if this is a reasonable representation - I lack the knowledge to make that call - so post it only for interest and certainly not in support of any given position.
And it makes no difference (at least in theory) if people sell their shares over a period of weeks, days or hours - the end price should be the same.
I've put the Italian link in too.....
I felt rough this morning.....could be an asymptomatic bout of Covid 19 caught off piste in Oxford (crossing fingers)....or the fact that I wolfed into my Covid supplies with gusto washed down with a little too much red.....
If I were asked, has being in the EU transition period helped the UK over Covid-19, I would have to say no. It doesn't mean I want to leave the transition tomorrow.
Judging from the above, contradictions between old and new advice on when to self-isolate risk causing confusion. I think a lot of people do not know what the most recent advice is. Constant changes to the advice are going to leave people confused, especially once we get different advice by age-band or risk-group. (Presumably this confusion is a disincentive for the government to keep changing its advice. I suspect it was a factor in why, for example, they only announced that 70+ shouldn't go on cruises well after this was obvious advice, because that way they could bring it in simultaneously with a whole slate of other new recommendations that effectively replaced the previous set, rather than having things change piecemeal in a way that's impossible to keep up with. If this is so then a down side is that the rational, self-interested individual should treat government advice with caution, since the "current" advice - e.g. during that period HMG deemed cruises for the 70+ not to be something they needed to avoid - may still be sub-optimal.)
There's also confusion about future potential advice and whether it applies yet. I don't think the media have reported very well about the stuff in the bill next week - I've met people who seem to believe some of those measures are coming into effect on Monday, rather than next week the relevant powers are being discussed in Parliament. Similarly, some people seem to think "avoid large gatherings" is already in force.
I've also found some simple stuff in the regular messaging has been misconstrued. Trying to get my 70+ mother ready for her "cocoon" period, turns out she thought it didn't matter there was no hand sanitiser in the local supermarket because she had got Aloe Vera hand moisturiser, which she assumed would kill all her germs!!
Anyone know how HMG are actually testing how well their messaging is getting through?
He might have coronavirus, so it seems to me that he and I need to stay in for a week or so. But here's my irony. I definitely haven't caught it from him yet (or at least, hadn't a few minutes ago). Staying home with him, even if we try to avoid being in the same room, will increase my risk. But since the alternative is to lower my risk but increase it to a risk of everyone I work with/meet being infected I think the rules/right thing to do is stay in.
Alas.
My concern is it is not clear if it is based on any real statistical evidence or is just someone who is good with graphics and has an agenda.
C'ome on you apes! Do you want to live forever?"
YES I completely agree. Nor should they tie down us active 80 year olds with essential responsibilities. My day starts at 0445, twenty-four seven, 365.
They have one job as far as the medical actions are concerned and that is to make sure that the advice from the CMO and the other scientist is conveyed as clearly, as accurately and as simply as possible.
I would suggest they are failing on this at the moment.
The question cannot be phrased as advantage/disadvantage because in the real world there is not actually that much the EU can do for good or bad.
If you are going to ask a question like that the choices should be advantage/disadvantage/ no difference.
It is a sign of the great maturity of this collection of reprobates on PB that so little of that is happening.
Thankyou folks from every side of the political spectrum. You are a pleasure to chat with.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1239280176594288643