If 90% of virus carriers have no symptoms at all, and (therefore) don't get picked up on official numbers, then the death rate is an order of magnitude less than expected.
Instead of 10% hospitalised, we're talking about 1%. Instead of a 1% death rate (half a million dead if the virus runs rampant), we're talking about a 0.1% (50,000).
Commensurately, this means the virus will be much harder to control, because there are at least an order of magnitude more people with the disease than we think, and possibly more.
It might be much harder to control but it's also much less dangerous and therefore less necessary to control.
Anecdotally, based on the number of classmates of my grandchildren who are off school with coughs and fever in Richmond Borough, I think the confirmed number for the Borough of 2 cases and the estimated number of 33 cases are gross underestimates. I suspect it is one or two orders of magnitude greater than that. http://whereisitin.london/
I'm giving up on Twitter for the duration. Too many low-wattage cretins inducing anger in others.
Half is DO MORE NOW COMPLETE LOCKDOWN CLOSE SCHOOLS Half is OH MY GOD THESE MEASURES ARE RIDICULOUS HOW CAN WE LIVE LIKE THIS THINK OF THE HIGH STREET WHO IS GOING TO LOOK AFTER MY KIDS I WILL STARVE
Depressing lack of keeping calm and carrying on. Thankfully I see quite a lot of that with the people I meet (at a distance!) in real life.
This implies that the infected-but-symptom-free are ~ tenfold the number of infected-and-showing-symptoms, so we likely have hundreds of thousands of carriers in the UK who could now be passing it on, but will before long become immune and no danger to the rest. If so it supports the urgent need for the vulnerable to keep their distance from others, while fairly widespread immunity is being built up underneath the radar.
*IF* this were to be confirmed (and it is far from that for now), preferably in other locales too, then 'herd immunity' might be back on the table.
Until then, it is not.
That's right. There's a massive "if" here.
Because if half the 90% are merely pre-symptomatic. Then the death and ICU rate shoots up five times from my previous low numbers.
This implies that the infected-but-symptom-free are ~ tenfold the number of infected-and-showing-symptoms, so we likely have hundreds of thousands of carriers in the UK who could now be passing it on, but will before long become immune and no danger to the rest. If so it supports the urgent need for the vulnerable to keep their distance from others, while fairly widespread immunity is being built up underneath the radar.
*IF* this were to be confirmed (and it is far from that for now), preferably in other locales too, then 'herd immunity' might be back on the table.
Until then, it is not.
That's right. There's a massive "if" here.
Because if half the 90% are merely pre-symptomatic. Then the death and ICU rate shoots up five times from my previous low numbers.
And Korea, which has done a lot of localised testing, hasn't suggested anything like these numbers, so I would treat the report with caution for now.
It shows incompetence of a high order for the government to give far-reaching health advice without any thought as to the economic consequences. The sun must not set before the government rectifies that gross error.
What makes you think the government haven't thought it through? The Chancellor is due to speak today.
If the government had thought it through it would have announced its financial package at the same time.
Although then the headlines might have been about the rescue package not the shutdown (I am noit a communications expert)
I think the government will take all economic and financial action necessary. I do not think it is run by lunatics. The UK is a European country. We are not the US. I hope I am not being hopelessly naive!
If 90% of virus carriers have no symptoms at all, and (therefore) don't get picked up on official numbers, then the death rate is an order of magnitude less than expected.
Instead of 10% hospitalised, we're talking about 1%. Instead of a 1% death rate (half a million dead if the virus runs rampant), we're talking about a 0.1% (50,000).
Commensurately, this means the virus will be much harder to control, because there are at least an order of magnitude more people with the disease than we think, and possibly more.
It might be much harder to control but it's also much less dangerous and therefore less necessary to control.
Anecdotally, based on the number of classmates of my grandchildren who are off school with coughs and fever in Richmond Borough, I think the confirmed number for the Borough of 2 cases and the estimated number of 33 cases are gross underestimates. I suspect it is one or two orders of magnitude greater than that. http://whereisitin.london/
I agree. If (and it's a massive, massive if) 90% of cases are asymptomatic, then we are probably best off making sure the vulnerable are protected, but letting everyone else get on with their lives.
But we don't have the information to make that kind of call yet. And if we're wrong...
The Korean use of smartphones and apps for contact tracing and monitoring has, from the start, been.... smart.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/03/119_286335.html Korea is expanding its special screening at airports and ports to all overseas travelers starting from Thursday, in an effort to contain COVID-19 which is spreading in Korea and around the world, the government said Tuesday.
Currently, travelers, both Koreans and non-Koreans, arriving from China, Japan and all European countries are subject to special screening at entry points.
"Given that the new coronavirus pandemic is spreading all over the world and that more people coming from abroad show symptoms or are infected, Korea will expand a special screening procedure to all entrants," Kim Gang-lip, the vice health minister, said during a press conference held in Sejong, Tuesday.
Kim said six recent coronavirus cases involved people with records of traveling abroad. "We feel an increasing need for stricter border control."
According to the government, as of March 15, a total of 44 coronavirus patients had a record of traveling outside ― 16 visiting Europe, 14 China and 14 other Asian countries.
"A country like Peru completely sealed the country up which we consider too drastic for Korea. The best option for us would be screening all who arrive in Korea," Kim said.
The special screening consists of checking people's body temperature and filling out a personal health survey before leaving the airport or port. Also, people must share their local contact information ― phone number and address ― and download a smartphone application through which users have to report their daily health condition to the quarantine authorities.
The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) said Tuesday Korea reported 84 new cases of COVID-19 infection on Monday, putting the total number of cases at 8,320 with 81 fatalities. ...
But the cost benefit analysis changes somewhat, doesn't it?
Something incredibly virulent with a 0.1% death rate calls for one set of responses, compared to less virulent one with a 1% death rate.
In the second scenario, lockdown is the preferred tactic. But in the first?
Ten days ago, my son got a dry cough and a fever, no other symptoms (we took him out of school). My wife and I got more traditional cold symptoms. Was it largely asymptomatic CV-19? Or was it a cold?
Where this ends up is pricing deaths.
Now, that's fundamentally distasteful (and some may even argue unethical) but what are an extra 10,000 deaths "worth" in terms of economic damage?
If we had a serious depression for 2-3 years that led us losing 20% of GDP, wiping out millions of families, and hundreds of thousands of livelihoods for good - think of all the restaurants, pubs, cafes, cinemas and small businesses going in your town for good - but only 10,000 deaths in 2020*, would that be better than only a 3-4% drop in GDP and a 6-9 month recession but one that allowed us to bounce back fairly quickly in 2021, with hundreds of thousands of livelihoods saved, and millions of families from bankruptcies, but with 100,000 deaths?
This is no longer an interesting hypothetical. It's what the Government has no choice but to answer.
(*I haven't factored in mass unemployment, suicides or social breakdown into the first example which would likely lead to extra deaths the other way too)
I'm giving up on Twitter for the duration. Too many low-wattage cretins inducing anger in others.
Half is DO MORE NOW COMPLETE LOCKDOWN CLOSE SCHOOLS Half is OH MY GOD THESE MEASURES ARE RIDICULOUS HOW CAN WE LIVE LIKE THIS THINK OF THE HIGH STREET WHO IS GOING TO LOOK AFTER MY KIDS I WILL STARVE
Depressing lack of keeping calm and carrying on. Thankfully I see quite a lot of that with the people I meet (at a distance!) in real life.
You control your stream. If you're following stupid people, unfollow them and follow more sensible people. Also if you're clicking on trending topics and things, don't do that.
That said, keeping calm and carrying on is a bad idea. It's a great response to terrorism, which is designed to create a reaction. But it's a terrible response to coronavirus, because coronavirus doesn't care what you think. People are going to need some changes to their lifestyle to avoid inadvertently killing each other. Keep calm sure, but don't carry on.
This implies that the infected-but-symptom-free are ~ tenfold the number of infected-and-showing-symptoms, so we likely have hundreds of thousands of carriers in the UK who could now be passing it on, but will before long become immune and no danger to the rest. If so it supports the urgent need for the vulnerable to keep their distance from others, while fairly widespread immunity is being built up underneath the radar.
Yes, that was what I was largely getting at.
But it does require that we work out who has already had the virus, and who is still vulnerable.
I don't think it's difficult to work out who is vulnerable - we already know that. The imminent new (serology?) tests that have been talked about should tell us who has had the virus.
I think the government will take all economic and financial action necessary. I do not think it is run by lunatics. The UK is a European country. We are not the US. I hope I am not being hopelessly naive!
The trouble is as I mentioned downthread there are already people being laid off and according to the bbc the package being announced today will only cover travel and leisure industries. They really need to be giving all sectors hope now before businesses make decisions to lay off staff.
This implies that the infected-but-symptom-free are ~ tenfold the number of infected-and-showing-symptoms, so we likely have hundreds of thousands of carriers in the UK who could now be passing it on, but will before long become immune and no danger to the rest. If so it supports the urgent need for the vulnerable to keep their distance from others, while fairly widespread immunity is being built up underneath the radar.
*IF* this were to be confirmed (and it is far from that for now), preferably in other locales too, then 'herd immunity' might be back on the table.
Until then, it is not.
That's right. There's a massive "if" here.
Because if half the 90% are merely pre-symptomatic. Then the death and ICU rate shoots up five times from my previous low numbers.
And Korea, which has done a lot of localised testing, hasn't suggested anything like these numbers, so I would treat the report with caution for now.
Re Korea: I think that's spot on.
Korea has a death rate of 0.7% for CV-19, and has the outbreak largely under control. This probably implies a 30-40% asymptomatic rate.
Now, unless there are large numbers of people in Korea who have the disease, but have not been picked up (which is possible, but unlikely), then it would seem to suggest the 90% asymptomatic number might actually be "70% pre-symptomatic, and 30% genuinely asymptomatic."
This implies that the infected-but-symptom-free are ~ tenfold the number of infected-and-showing-symptoms, so we likely have hundreds of thousands of carriers in the UK who could now be passing it on, but will before long become immune and no danger to the rest. If so it supports the urgent need for the vulnerable to keep their distance from others, while fairly widespread immunity is being built up underneath the radar.
Yes, that was what I was largely getting at.
But it does require that we work out who has already had the virus, and who is still vulnerable.
I don't think it's difficult to work out who is vulnerable - we already know that. The imminent new (serology?) tests that have been talked about should tell us who has had the virus.
Sorry, by "vulnerable" I meant "vulnerable to infection", which needs immune response tests.
This implies that the infected-but-symptom-free are ~ tenfold the number of infected-and-showing-symptoms, so we likely have hundreds of thousands of carriers in the UK who could now be passing it on, but will before long become immune and no danger to the rest. If so it supports the urgent need for the vulnerable to keep their distance from others, while fairly widespread immunity is being built up underneath the radar.
*IF* this were to be confirmed (and it is far from that for now), preferably in other locales too, then 'herd immunity' might be back on the table.
Until then, it is not.
That's right. There's a massive "if" here.
Because if half the 90% are merely pre-symptomatic. Then the death and ICU rate shoots up five times from my previous low numbers.
And Korea, which has done a lot of localised testing, hasn't suggested anything like these numbers, so I would treat the report with caution for now.
Re Korea: I think that's spot on.
Korea has a death rate of 0.7% for CV-19, and has the outbreak largely under control. This probably implies a 30-40% asymptomatic rate.
Now, unless there are large numbers of people in Korea who have the disease, but have not been picked up (which is possible, but unlikely), then it would seem to suggest the 90% asymptomatic number might actually be "70% pre-symptomatic, and 30% genuinely asymptomatic."
The Korean use of smartphones and apps for contact tracing and monitoring has, from the start, been.... smart.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/03/119_286335.html Korea is expanding its special screening at airports and ports to all overseas travelers starting from Thursday, in an effort to contain COVID-19 which is spreading in Korea and around the world, the government said Tuesday.
Currently, travelers, both Koreans and non-Koreans, arriving from China, Japan and all European countries are subject to special screening at entry points.
"Given that the new coronavirus pandemic is spreading all over the world and that more people coming from abroad show symptoms or are infected, Korea will expand a special screening procedure to all entrants," Kim Gang-lip, the vice health minister, said during a press conference held in Sejong, Tuesday.
Kim said six recent coronavirus cases involved people with records of traveling abroad. "We feel an increasing need for stricter border control."
According to the government, as of March 15, a total of 44 coronavirus patients had a record of traveling outside ― 16 visiting Europe, 14 China and 14 other Asian countries.
"A country like Peru completely sealed the country up which we consider too drastic for Korea. The best option for us would be screening all who arrive in Korea," Kim said.
The special screening consists of checking people's body temperature and filling out a personal health survey before leaving the airport or port. Also, people must share their local contact information ― phone number and address ― and download a smartphone application through which users have to report their daily health condition to the quarantine authorities.
The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) said Tuesday Korea reported 84 new cases of COVID-19 infection on Monday, putting the total number of cases at 8,320 with 81 fatalities. ...
The South Koreans really should be ruling the world, sensible and proportionate, efficient and consistent. They make good movies too.
I'm giving up on Twitter for the duration. Too many low-wattage cretins inducing anger in others.
Half is DO MORE NOW COMPLETE LOCKDOWN CLOSE SCHOOLS Half is OH MY GOD THESE MEASURES ARE RIDICULOUS HOW CAN WE LIVE LIKE THIS THINK OF THE HIGH STREET WHO IS GOING TO LOOK AFTER MY KIDS I WILL STARVE
Depressing lack of keeping calm and carrying on. Thankfully I see quite a lot of that with the people I meet (at a distance!) in real life.
You control your stream. If you're following stupid people, unfollow them and follow more sensible people. Also if you're clicking on trending topics and things, don't do that.
That said, keeping calm and carrying on is a bad idea. It's a great response to terrorism, which is designed to create a reaction. But it's a terrible response to coronavirus, because coronavirus doesn't care what you think. People are going to need some changes to their lifestyle to avoid inadvertently killing each other. Keep calm sure, but don't carry on.
I think I'm making the mistake of reading too many responses to Tweets. I will mull over stopping that. My follows are mostly sensible people.
And by "carry on" I meant get on with life, but cautiously and abiding by the new restrictions on behaviour. I did not mean "carry on as before" - and neither did the original war-time sentiment.
This implies that the infected-but-symptom-free are ~ tenfold the number of infected-and-showing-symptoms, so we likely have hundreds of thousands of carriers in the UK who could now be passing it on, but will before long become immune and no danger to the rest. If so it supports the urgent need for the vulnerable to keep their distance from others, while fairly widespread immunity is being built up underneath the radar.
*IF* this were to be confirmed (and it is far from that for now), preferably in other locales too, then 'herd immunity' might be back on the table.
Until then, it is not.
That's right. There's a massive "if" here.
Because if half the 90% are merely pre-symptomatic. Then the death and ICU rate shoots up five times from my previous low numbers.
And Korea, which has done a lot of localised testing, hasn't suggested anything like these numbers, so I would treat the report with caution for now.
Re Korea: I think that's spot on.
Korea has a death rate of 0.7% for CV-19, and has the outbreak largely under control. This probably implies a 30-40% asymptomatic rate.
Now, unless there are large numbers of people in Korea who have the disease, but have not been picked up (which is possible, but unlikely), then it would seem to suggest the 90% asymptomatic number might actually be "70% pre-symptomatic, and 30% genuinely asymptomatic."
The fact is, though, that we just don't know - and need to wait (in terms of relaxing policies) until we do.
This implies that the infected-but-symptom-free are ~ tenfold the number of infected-and-showing-symptoms, so we likely have hundreds of thousands of carriers in the UK who could now be passing it on, but will before long become immune and no danger to the rest. If so it supports the urgent need for the vulnerable to keep their distance from others, while fairly widespread immunity is being built up underneath the radar.
*IF* this were to be confirmed (and it is far from that for now), preferably in other locales too, then 'herd immunity' might be back on the table.
Until then, it is not.
That's right. There's a massive "if" here.
Because if half the 90% are merely pre-symptomatic. Then the death and ICU rate shoots up five times from my previous low numbers.
The fact that don't know these numbers well is what should have made it essential to lock down as quickly as possible to reduce spread. Then, when we had a better understanding of the disease, we could have eased restrictions as appropriate. Too late now though.
I think the government will take all economic and financial action necessary. I do not think it is run by lunatics. The UK is a European country. We are not the US. I hope I am not being hopelessly naive!
The trouble is as I mentioned downthread there are already people being laid off and according to the bbc the package being announced today will only cover travel and leisure industries. They really need to be giving all sectors hope now before businesses make decisions to lay off staff.
I agree. If it is limited to certain industries it will not be enough.
This implies that the infected-but-symptom-free are ~ tenfold the number of infected-and-showing-symptoms, so we likely have hundreds of thousands of carriers in the UK who could now be passing it on, but will before long become immune and no danger to the rest. If so it supports the urgent need for the vulnerable to keep their distance from others, while fairly widespread immunity is being built up underneath the radar.
*IF* this were to be confirmed (and it is far from that for now), preferably in other locales too, then 'herd immunity' might be back on the table.
Until then, it is not.
That's right. There's a massive "if" here.
Because if half the 90% are merely pre-symptomatic. Then the death and ICU rate shoots up five times from my previous low numbers.
And Korea, which has done a lot of localised testing, hasn't suggested anything like these numbers, so I would treat the report with caution for now.
Re Korea: I think that's spot on.
Korea has a death rate of 0.7% for CV-19, and has the outbreak largely under control. This probably implies a 30-40% asymptomatic rate.
Now, unless there are large numbers of people in Korea who have the disease, but have not been picked up (which is possible, but unlikely), then it would seem to suggest the 90% asymptomatic number might actually be "70% pre-symptomatic, and 30% genuinely asymptomatic."
The understanding of how immunity to the disease is building up in the general population seems very limited, though so far, and as far I understand it myself. It might be that a large number of those who would have been pre-symptomatic three months ago will turn out to be asymptomatic now.
What *seems* to be going on in China interests me in this respect.
I'm giving up on Twitter for the duration. Too many low-wattage cretins inducing anger in others.
Half is DO MORE NOW COMPLETE LOCKDOWN CLOSE SCHOOLS Half is OH MY GOD THESE MEASURES ARE RIDICULOUS HOW CAN WE LIVE LIKE THIS THINK OF THE HIGH STREET WHO IS GOING TO LOOK AFTER MY KIDS I WILL STARVE
Depressing lack of keeping calm and carrying on. Thankfully I see quite a lot of that with the people I meet (at a distance!) in real life.
You control your stream. If you're following stupid people, unfollow them and follow more sensible people. Also if you're clicking on trending topics and things, don't do that.
That said, keeping calm and carrying on is a bad idea. It's a great response to terrorism, which is designed to create a reaction. But it's a terrible response to coronavirus, because coronavirus doesn't care what you think. People are going to need some changes to their lifestyle to avoid inadvertently killing each other. Keep calm sure, but don't carry on.
I think I'm making the mistake of reading too many responses to Tweets. I will mull over stopping that. My follows are mostly sensible people.
And by "carry on" I meant get on with like, but cautiously and abiding by the new restrictions on behaviour. I did not mean "carry on as before" - and neither did the original war-time sentiment.
If Twitter isn't making you feel good - come off Twitter. If PB isn't making you feel good, come off PB. It's as simple as that really.
I'm giving up on Twitter for the duration. Too many low-wattage cretins inducing anger in others.
Half is DO MORE NOW COMPLETE LOCKDOWN CLOSE SCHOOLS Half is OH MY GOD THESE MEASURES ARE RIDICULOUS HOW CAN WE LIVE LIKE THIS THINK OF THE HIGH STREET WHO IS GOING TO LOOK AFTER MY KIDS I WILL STARVE
Depressing lack of keeping calm and carrying on. Thankfully I see quite a lot of that with the people I meet (at a distance!) in real life.
Yes. We could do worse than just switch off web2.0, act like we did in wars and control the message.
Trying to keep away from the disaster porn and yes Dr Fox has posted this chart, but I thought this was interesting explanation of why a disease that takes several days to show some symptoms is so dangerous....and to explain to others why only 10 dead per day is masking the boom about to go off.
If 90% of virus carriers have no symptoms at all, and (therefore) don't get picked up on official numbers, then the death rate is an order of magnitude less than expected.
Instead of 10% hospitalised, we're talking about 1%. Instead of a 1% death rate (half a million dead if the virus runs rampant), we're talking about a 0.1% (50,000).
Commensurately, this means the virus will be much harder to control, because there are at least an order of magnitude more people with the disease than we think, and possibly more.
It might be much harder to control but it's also much less dangerous and therefore less necessary to control.
Anecdotally, based on the number of classmates of my grandchildren who are off school with coughs and fever in Richmond Borough, I think the confirmed number for the Borough of 2 cases and the estimated number of 33 cases are gross underestimates. I suspect it is one or two orders of magnitude greater than that. http://whereisitin.london/
I agree. If (and it's a massive, massive if) 90% of cases are asymptomatic, then we are probably best off making sure the vulnerable are protected, but letting everyone else get on with their lives.
But we don't have the information to make that kind of call yet. And if we're wrong...
The Government could take that view: we are only going to seal off the over 70's. Any over 70's/high risks who want to carry on as before, fine - but you are waiving your righ to care. We cannot guarantee the NHS can look after you if you succumb to Covid-19 - and you might have a horrible end.
So please stay home.
All under 70, please leave the over 70's/high risks in isolation. Do their shopping, do everything you can to make their life in lockdown better. But DO NOT EXPOSE THEM TO RISK.
Meanwhile, life goes on as was for the rest of us.
I think the government will take all economic and financial action necessary. I do not think it is run by lunatics. The UK is a European country. We are not the US. I hope I am not being hopelessly naive!
Now, that's fundamentally distasteful (and some may even argue unethical) but what are an extra 10,000 deaths "worth" in terms of economic damage?
If we had a serious depression for 2-3 years that led us losing 20% of GDP, wiping out millions of families, and hundreds of thousands of livelihoods for good - think of all the restaurants, pubs, cafes, cinemas and small businesses going in your town for good - but only 10,000 deaths in 2020*, would that be better than only a 3-4% drop in GDP and a 6-9 month recession but one that allowed us to bounce back fairly quickly in 2021, with hundreds of thousands of livelihoods saved, and millions of families from bankruptcies, but with 100,000 deaths?
This is no longer an interesting hypothetical. It's what the Government has no choice but to answer.
(*I haven't factored in mass unemployment, suicides or social breakdown into the first example which would likely lead to extra deaths the other way too)
We price deaths now, and always have.
We price deaths when we decide where to spend road improvement budgets. We price deaths when we choose the speed limit. We price deaths when we set a limit on NHS spending.
It is also worth remembering that the actual excess deaths number will be lower than the number who die of CV-19. Because it is the most vulnerable who are most likely to die, there will be a strong correlation between CV-19 deaths and people who would have died in 2020 anyway.
Now, I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But I do know two things:
1. Those who are older, or are at risk, should avoid as much social contact as possible 2. We need to put in place a much, much better testing system than also includes finding out who has already had the disease
The Korean use of smartphones and apps for contact tracing and monitoring has, from the start, been.... smart.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/03/119_286335.html Korea is expanding its special screening at airports and ports to all overseas travelers starting from Thursday, in an effort to contain COVID-19 which is spreading in Korea and around the world, the government said Tuesday.
Currently, travelers, both Koreans and non-Koreans, arriving from China, Japan and all European countries are subject to special screening at entry points.
"Given that the new coronavirus pandemic is spreading all over the world and that more people coming from abroad show symptoms or are infected, Korea will expand a special screening procedure to all entrants," Kim Gang-lip, the vice health minister, said during a press conference held in Sejong, Tuesday.
Kim said six recent coronavirus cases involved people with records of traveling abroad. "We feel an increasing need for stricter border control."
According to the government, as of March 15, a total of 44 coronavirus patients had a record of traveling outside ― 16 visiting Europe, 14 China and 14 other Asian countries.
"A country like Peru completely sealed the country up which we consider too drastic for Korea. The best option for us would be screening all who arrive in Korea," Kim said.
The special screening consists of checking people's body temperature and filling out a personal health survey before leaving the airport or port. Also, people must share their local contact information ― phone number and address ― and download a smartphone application through which users have to report their daily health condition to the quarantine authorities.
The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) said Tuesday Korea reported 84 new cases of COVID-19 infection on Monday, putting the total number of cases at 8,320 with 81 fatalities. ...
The South Koreans really should be ruling the world, sensible and proportionate, efficient and consistent. They make good movies too.
The Korean use of smartphones and apps for contact tracing and monitoring has, from the start, been.... smart.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/03/119_286335.html Korea is expanding its special screening at airports and ports to all overseas travelers starting from Thursday, in an effort to contain COVID-19 which is spreading in Korea and around the world, the government said Tuesday.
Currently, travelers, both Koreans and non-Koreans, arriving from China, Japan and all European countries are subject to special screening at entry points.
"Given that the new coronavirus pandemic is spreading all over the world and that more people coming from abroad show symptoms or are infected, Korea will expand a special screening procedure to all entrants," Kim Gang-lip, the vice health minister, said during a press conference held in Sejong, Tuesday.
Kim said six recent coronavirus cases involved people with records of traveling abroad. "We feel an increasing need for stricter border control."
According to the government, as of March 15, a total of 44 coronavirus patients had a record of traveling outside ― 16 visiting Europe, 14 China and 14 other Asian countries.
"A country like Peru completely sealed the country up which we consider too drastic for Korea. The best option for us would be screening all who arrive in Korea," Kim said.
The special screening consists of checking people's body temperature and filling out a personal health survey before leaving the airport or port. Also, people must share their local contact information ― phone number and address ― and download a smartphone application through which users have to report their daily health condition to the quarantine authorities.
The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) said Tuesday Korea reported 84 new cases of COVID-19 infection on Monday, putting the total number of cases at 8,320 with 81 fatalities. ...
The South Koreans really should be ruling the world, sensible and proportionate, efficient and consistent. They make good movies too.
If you enjoyed Train to Busan, the Joseon (very roughly, the Korean equivalent to Tudor) zombie series 'Kingdom' is available on Netflix.
Trying to keep away from the disaster porn and yes Dr Fox has posted this chart, but I thought this was interesting explanation of why a disease that takes several days to show some symptoms is so dangerous....and to explain to others why only 10 dead per day is masking the boom about to go off.
If 90% of virus carriers have no symptoms at all, and (therefore) don't get picked up on official numbers, then the death rate is an order of magnitude less than expected.
Instead of 10% hospitalised, we're talking about 1%. Instead of a 1% death rate (half a million dead if the virus runs rampant), we're talking about a 0.1% (50,000).
Commensurately, this means the virus will be much harder to control, because there are at least an order of magnitude more people with the disease than we think, and possibly more.
It might be much harder to control but it's also much less dangerous and therefore less necessary to control.
Anecdotally, based on the number of classmates of my grandchildren who are off school with coughs and fever in Richmond Borough, I think the confirmed number for the Borough of 2 cases and the estimated number of 33 cases are gross underestimates. I suspect it is one or two orders of magnitude greater than that. http://whereisitin.london/
I agree. If (and it's a massive, massive if) 90% of cases are asymptomatic, then we are probably best off making sure the vulnerable are protected, but letting everyone else get on with their lives.
But we don't have the information to make that kind of call yet. And if we're wrong...
The Government could take that view: we are only going to seal off the over 70's. Any over 70's/high risks who want to carry on as before, fine - but you are waiving your righ to care. We cannot guarantee the NHS can look after you if you succumb to Covid-19 - and you might have a horrible end.
So please stay home.
All under 70, please leave the over 70's/high risks in isolation. Do their shopping, do everything you can to make their life in lockdown better. But DO NOT EXPOSE THEM TO RISK.
Meanwhile, life goes on as was for the rest of us.
That's extraordinarily difficult to do in practice, though. My elderly mother needs her carers in. My relative undergoing chemo needs to be driven to hospital. Most vulnerable people necessarily have contact with non-vulnerable people.
Oh, and some over-70s get rather offended when you do offer help. "I'm not that old!", "It's all a storm in teacup!", etc.
I think the government will take all economic and financial action necessary. I do not think it is run by lunatics. The UK is a European country. We are not the US. I hope I am not being hopelessly naive!
I am trying to remain positive, use this time to work on some new ideas I haven't had time to pursue (well found others things to waste my time with) and hope when we emerge from this that there will be helicopter money in which I can attempt to bring them to market.
Trying to keep away from the disaster porn and yes Dr Fox has posted this chart, but I thought this was interesting explanation of why a disease that takes several days to show some symptoms is so dangerous....and to explain to others why only 10 dead per day is masking the boom about to go off.
Now, that's fundamentally distasteful (and some may even argue unethical) but what are an extra 10,000 deaths "worth" in terms of economic damage?
If we had a serious depression for 2-3 years that led us losing 20% of GDP, wiping out millions of families, and hundreds of thousands of livelihoods for good - think of all the restaurants, pubs, cafes, cinemas and small businesses going in your town for good - but only 10,000 deaths in 2020*, would that be better than only a 3-4% drop in GDP and a 6-9 month recession but one that allowed us to bounce back fairly quickly in 2021, with hundreds of thousands of livelihoods saved, and millions of families from bankruptcies, but with 100,000 deaths?
This is no longer an interesting hypothetical. It's what the Government has no choice but to answer.
(*I haven't factored in mass unemployment, suicides or social breakdown into the first example which would likely lead to extra deaths the other way too)
We price deaths now, and always have.
We price deaths when we decide where to spend road improvement budgets. We price deaths when we choose the speed limit. We price deaths when we set a limit on NHS spending.
It is also worth remembering that the actual excess deaths number will be lower than the number who die of CV-19. Because it is the most vulnerable who are most likely to die, there will be a strong correlation between CV-19 deaths and people who would have died in 2020 anyway.
Now, I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But I do know two things:
1. Those who are older, or are at risk, should avoid as much social contact as possible 2. We need to put in place a much, much better testing system than also includes finding out who has already had the disease
I do feel for those cases who would otherwise have been perfectly fine, but will die because there was no capacity for critical care. Car accidents, work-place injuries, sepsis, the-multitude-of-other-treatable-but-serious-diseases.
If 90% of virus carriers have no symptoms at all, and (therefore) don't get picked up on official numbers, then the death rate is an order of magnitude less than expected.
Instead of 10% hospitalised, we're talking about 1%. Instead of a 1% death rate (half a million dead if the virus runs rampant), we're talking about a 0.1% (50,000).
Commensurately, this means the virus will be much harder to control, because there are at least an order of magnitude more people with the disease than we think, and possibly more.
It might be much harder to control but it's also much less dangerous and therefore less necessary to control.
Anecdotally, based on the number of classmates of my grandchildren who are off school with coughs and fever in Richmond Borough, I think the confirmed number for the Borough of 2 cases and the estimated number of 33 cases are gross underestimates. I suspect it is one or two orders of magnitude greater than that. http://whereisitin.london/
I agree. If (and it's a massive, massive if) 90% of cases are asymptomatic, then we are probably best off making sure the vulnerable are protected, but letting everyone else get on with their lives.
But we don't have the information to make that kind of call yet. And if we're wrong...
The Government could take that view: we are only going to seal off the over 70's. Any over 70's/high risks who want to carry on as before, fine - but you are waiving your righ to care. We cannot guarantee the NHS can look after you if you succumb to Covid-19 - and you might have a horrible end.
So please stay home.
All under 70, please leave the over 70's/high risks in isolation. Do their shopping, do everything you can to make their life in lockdown better. But DO NOT EXPOSE THEM TO RISK.
Meanwhile, life goes on as was for the rest of us.
That's extraordinarily difficult to do in practice, though. My elderly mother needs her carers in. My relative undergoing chemo needs to be driven to hospital. Most vulnerable people necessarily have contact with non-vulnerable people.
Oh, and some over-70s get rather offended when you do offer help. "I'm not that old!", "It's all a storm in teacup!", etc.
But once we can identify people who have already had the virus, then they can work with the most vulnerable, because we know they're not infectious.
If 90% of virus carriers have no symptoms at all, and (therefore) don't get picked up on official numbers, then the death rate is an order of magnitude less than expected.
Instead of 10% hospitalised, we're talking about 1%. Instead of a 1% death rate (half a million dead if the virus runs rampant), we're talking about a 0.1% (50,000).
Commensurately, this means the virus will be much harder to control, because there are at least an order of magnitude more people with the disease than we think, and possibly more.
It might be much harder to control but it's also much less dangerous and therefore less necessary to control.
Anecdotally, based on the number of classmates of my grandchildren who are off school with coughs and fever in Richmond Borough, I think the confirmed number for the Borough of 2 cases and the estimated number of 33 cases are gross underestimates. I suspect it is one or two orders of magnitude greater than that. http://whereisitin.london/
I agree. If (and it's a massive, massive if) 90% of cases are asymptomatic, then we are probably best off making sure the vulnerable are protected, but letting everyone else get on with their lives.
But we don't have the information to make that kind of call yet. And if we're wrong...
The Government could take that view: we are only going to seal off the over 70's. Any over 70's/high risks who want to carry on as before, fine - but you are waiving your righ to care. We cannot guarantee the NHS can look after you if you succumb to Covid-19 - and you might have a horrible end.
So please stay home.
All under 70, please leave the over 70's/high risks in isolation. Do their shopping, do everything you can to make their life in lockdown better. But DO NOT EXPOSE THEM TO RISK.
Meanwhile, life goes on as was for the rest of us.
That's extraordinarily difficult to do in practice, though. My elderly mother needs her carers in. My relative undergoing chemo needs to be driven to hospital. Most vulnerable people necessarily have contact with non-vulnerable people.
Oh, and some over-70s get rather offended when you do offer help. "I'm not that old!", "It's all a storm in teacup!", etc.
But once we can identify people who have already had the virus, then they can work with the most vulnerable, because we know they're not infectious.
Are we sure? I saw a 5-week wait after recovery being talked about
Now, that's fundamentally distasteful (and some may even argue unethical) but what are an extra 10,000 deaths "worth" in terms of economic damage?
If we had a serious depression for 2-3 years that led us losing 20% of GDP, wiping out millions of families, and hundreds of thousands of livelihoods for good - think of all the restaurants, pubs, cafes, cinemas and small businesses going in your town for good - but only 10,000 deaths in 2020*, would that be better than only a 3-4% drop in GDP and a 6-9 month recession but one that allowed us to bounce back fairly quickly in 2021, with hundreds of thousands of livelihoods saved, and millions of families from bankruptcies, but with 100,000 deaths?
This is no longer an interesting hypothetical. It's what the Government has no choice but to answer.
(*I haven't factored in mass unemployment, suicides or social breakdown into the first example which would likely lead to extra deaths the other way too)
We price deaths now, and always have.
We price deaths when we decide where to spend road improvement budgets. We price deaths when we choose the speed limit. We price deaths when we set a limit on NHS spending.
It is also worth remembering that the actual excess deaths number will be lower than the number who die of CV-19. Because it is the most vulnerable who are most likely to die, there will be a strong correlation between CV-19 deaths and people who would have died in 2020 anyway.
Now, I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But I do know two things:
1. Those who are older, or are at risk, should avoid as much social contact as possible 2. We need to put in place a much, much better testing system than also includes finding out who has already had the disease
There will be some excess deaths because of the NHS concentrating on CV-19 and so delaying treatment for other problems. I was due to have a test and then a final round of immunotherapy but I’m not sure now when that will happen. I don’t expect it will kill me, but there are others out there who will not be so lucky.
I’m not complaining by the way; I don’t see any alternative approach.
Has anybody talked Jezza round from acting like an irresponsible bell-end? Or is he really going to ignore govnerment advice and potentially add to the stain on the NHS?
If there is indeed a large iceberg of people with Corona who are not displaying any symptoms then this indeed will all be over by Christmas, probably the end of Summer.
Would be great if we were to test some people and find out
Now, that's fundamentally distasteful (and some may even argue unethical) but what are an extra 10,000 deaths "worth" in terms of economic damage?
If we had a serious depression for 2-3 years that led us losing 20% of GDP, wiping out millions of families, and hundreds of thousands of livelihoods for good - think of all the restaurants, pubs, cafes, cinemas and small businesses going in your town for good - but only 10,000 deaths in 2020*, would that be better than only a 3-4% drop in GDP and a 6-9 month recession but one that allowed us to bounce back fairly quickly in 2021, with hundreds of thousands of livelihoods saved, and millions of families from bankruptcies, but with 100,000 deaths?
This is no longer an interesting hypothetical. It's what the Government has no choice but to answer.
(*I haven't factored in mass unemployment, suicides or social breakdown into the first example which would likely lead to extra deaths the other way too)
We price deaths now, and always have.
We price deaths when we decide where to spend road improvement budgets. We price deaths when we choose the speed limit. We price deaths when we set a limit on NHS spending.
It is also worth remembering that the actual excess deaths number will be lower than the number who die of CV-19. Because it is the most vulnerable who are most likely to die, there will be a strong correlation between CV-19 deaths and people who would have died in 2020 anyway.
Now, I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But I do know two things:
1. Those who are older, or are at risk, should avoid as much social contact as possible 2. We need to put in place a much, much better testing system than also includes finding out who has already had the disease
Are you sure that the number of deaths being "doubled counted", i.e. those that would have died in any event, is less than the number of people who will die from other causes because the healthcare infrastructure isn't there to support theM?
Now that London is ahead of the curve on the Covid-19 pandemic when do we talk about Boris Johnson's shameful decision to exclude Sadiq Khan from COBR meetings?
He finally saw. the light yesterday and finally invited the Mayor.
If there is indeed a large iceberg of people with Corona who are not displaying any symptoms then this indeed will all be over by Christmas, probably the end of Summer.
Would be great if we were to test some people and find out
Well yes of course. Ramping up testing surely the best way to save lives and the economy. You could throw 10 billion quid at creating new testing capacity and it would pay back 10 fold in lives saved and the economy.
Has anybody talked Jezza round from acting like an irresponsible bell-end? Or is he really going to ignore govnerment advice and potentially add to the stain on the NHS?
It really is moronic: “Mr Corbyn do you think people should follow the health advice?” “Yes.” “Are you?” “No.” If that’s how it goes he’s an idiot.
Now, that's fundamentally distasteful (and some may even argue unethical) but what are an extra 10,000 deaths "worth" in terms of economic damage?
If we had a serious depression for 2-3 years that led us losing 20% of GDP, wiping out millions of families, and hundreds of thousands of livelihoods for good - think of all the restaurants, pubs, cafes, cinemas and small businesses going in your town for good - but only 10,000 deaths in 2020*, would that be better than only a 3-4% drop in GDP and a 6-9 month recession but one that allowed us to bounce back fairly quickly in 2021, with hundreds of thousands of livelihoods saved, and millions of families from bankruptcies, but with 100,000 deaths?
This is no longer an interesting hypothetical. It's what the Government has no choice but to answer.
(*I haven't factored in mass unemployment, suicides or social breakdown into the first example which would likely lead to extra deaths the other way too)
We price deaths now, and always have.
We price deaths when we decide where to spend road improvement budgets. We price deaths when we choose the speed limit. We price deaths when we set a limit on NHS spending.
It is also worth remembering that the actual excess deaths number will be lower than the number who die of CV-19. Because it is the most vulnerable who are most likely to die, there will be a strong correlation between CV-19 deaths and people who would have died in 2020 anyway.
Now, I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But I do know two things:
1. Those who are older, or are at risk, should avoid as much social contact as possible 2. We need to put in place a much, much better testing system than also includes finding out who has already had the disease
Are you sure that the number of deaths being "doubled counted", i.e. those that would have died in any event, is less than the number of people who will die from other causes because the healthcare infrastructure isn't there to support theM?
That's a good point. So, you might well see much worse outcomes for oncology or road accidents.
Headline...Shutting schools would reduce coronavirus transmission – expert
So it makes it sound like he is disagreeing with the government and that the easy answer is they should be shut now. Except that isn't what he is saying at all.
Firstly he says massive uncertainty in regards to kids, secondly that the knock-on effect is huge and thirdly it more than likely will happen but must be timed appropriately.
Now that London is ahead of the curve on the Covid-19 pandemic when do we talk about Boris Johnson's shameful decision to exclude Sadiq Khan from COBR meetings?
He finally saw. the light yesterday and finally invited the Mayor.
If there is indeed a large iceberg of people with Corona who are not displaying any symptoms then this indeed will all be over by Christmas, probably the end of Summer.
Would be great if we were to test some people and find out
The problem is we don't know.
Asymptomatic now may mean pre-sympotmatic.
Or it may mean that the death rate for COVID-19 is comparable to influenza. And while it's going to be really, really bad, it will all be over relatively soon.
The precautionary principle says we shut everything down now, and then we ramp up testing 100-fold.
Headline...Shutting schools would reduce coronavirus transmission – expert
So it makes it sound like he is disagreeing with the government and that the easy answer is they should be shut now. Except that isn't what he is saying at all.
Firstly he says massive uncertainty in regards to kids, secondly that the knock-on effect is huge and thirdly it more than likely will happen but must be timed appropriately.
And the kids then need to stay indoors - which didn't happen in Italy for example
Headline...Shutting schools would reduce coronavirus transmission – expert
So it makes it sound like he is disagreeing with the government and that the easy answer is they should be shut now. Except that isn't what he is saying at all.
Firstly he says massive uncertainty in regards to kids, secondly that the knock-on effect is huge and thirdly it more than likely will happen but must be timed appropriately.
And the kids then need to stay indoors - which didn't happen in Italy for example
You try keeping kids apart for 4 months...I know they love their Fortnite and Tik Tok, but 4 months of just that, yeah right.
The Korean use of smartphones and apps for contact tracing and monitoring has, from the start, been.... smart.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/03/119_286335.html Korea is expanding its special screening at airports and ports to all overseas travelers starting from Thursday, in an effort to contain COVID-19 which is spreading in Korea and around the world, the government said Tuesday.
Currently, travelers, both Koreans and non-Koreans, arriving from China, Japan and all European countries are subject to special screening at entry points.
"Given that the new coronavirus pandemic is spreading all over the world and that more people coming from abroad show symptoms or are infected, Korea will expand a special screening procedure to all entrants," Kim Gang-lip, the vice health minister, said during a press conference held in Sejong, Tuesday.
Kim said six recent coronavirus cases involved people with records of traveling abroad. "We feel an increasing need for stricter border control."
According to the government, as of March 15, a total of 44 coronavirus patients had a record of traveling outside ― 16 visiting Europe, 14 China and 14 other Asian countries.
"A country like Peru completely sealed the country up which we consider too drastic for Korea. The best option for us would be screening all who arrive in Korea," Kim said.
The special screening consists of checking people's body temperature and filling out a personal health survey before leaving the airport or port. Also, people must share their local contact information ― phone number and address ― and download a smartphone application through which users have to report their daily health condition to the quarantine authorities.
The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) said Tuesday Korea reported 84 new cases of COVID-19 infection on Monday, putting the total number of cases at 8,320 with 81 fatalities. ...
The South Koreans really should be ruling the world, sensible and proportionate, efficient and consistent. They make good movies too.
If you enjoyed Train to Busan, the Joseon (very roughly, the Korean equivalent to Tudor) zombie series 'Kingdom' is available on Netflix.
Some rumblings on the business newswires of liquidity issues in the interbank market at the NY open
Libor rates jumping....
I'm sure there are liquidity issues. But I'm also certain that, unlike in 2008, Central Banks will regard this as an entirely external event and will lend money to any bank that asks for it.
It could be that, if they're going to take such drastic shutdown measures globally at least for a short period, governments are going to have to co-ordinate again globally to take very different kinds of measures from 2008, too. Helicopter money for businesses, guaranteed incomes for individuals.
Otherwise banks may eventually collapse again, after the nearer-term impact on individuals and businesses, in any case.
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
Well, I'm now working at home for the duration it seems though trying to support colleagues with Microsoft Teams has been a frustrating experience this morning.
I'm feeling a little Darwinian - not about the virus but about the public handouts to business. I remember Allister Heath back in 2008-9 arguing no organisation should be too big to fail and it was incumbent on businesses (large and small) to have a failure plan - most people call them Wills though I like the term "Mortality Failure Plan".
Yes, we talk about the lost jobs when a business fails but there are the shareholders and the creditors who also stand to lose when a business fails but businesses have always failed - many do for various reasons.
What happens is other businesses fill the gap or other businesses emerge or the sector fragments.
I was no supporter of QE or financial methodone as it kept zombie companies alive and I'm dubious as to the value of another round though I accept these are unusual circumstances to say the least.
The flash Chinese numbers look as bad as most feared and of course the financial hit is going to be severe in the short to medium term. Is that in and of itself an argument to throw large amounts of public money around?
If we knew this was going to be a very short-term bridge and life would bounce back in a few weeks I'd be more convinced but as others have said there may well be longer term economic and cultural impacts.
Headline...Shutting schools would reduce coronavirus transmission – expert
So it makes it sound like he is disagreeing with the government and that the easy answer is they should be shut now. Except that isn't what he is saying at all.
Firstly he says massive uncertainty in regards to kids, secondly that the knock-on effect is huge and thirdly it more than likely will happen but must be timed appropriately.
And the kids then need to stay indoors - which didn't happen in Italy for example
You try keeping kids apart for 4 months...I know they love their Fortnite and Tik Tok, but 4 months of just that, yeah right.
My youngest is 17 - 2 weeks ago he thought I was making a fuss - now he stays indoors as much as he can - his call not mine
Well, I'm now working at home for the duration it seems though trying to support colleagues with Microsoft Teams has been a frustrating experience this morning.
I'm feeling a little Darwinian - not about the virus but about the public handouts to business. I remember Allister Heath back in 2008-9 arguing no organisation should be too big to fail and it was incumbent on businesses (large and small) to have a failure plan - most people call them Wills though I like the term "Mortality Failure Plan".
Yes, we talk about the lost jobs when a business fails but there are the shareholders and the creditors who also stand to lose when a business fails but businesses have always failed - many do for various reasons.
What happens is other businesses fill the gap or other businesses emerge or the sector fragments...
But current circumstances mean that good businesses without support will fail along with the bad, And this is across so many sectors that the risk is systemic and threatens the entire economy. To use the Darwinian analogy, mass extinctions.
One might add that it is (just) possible that the iceberg turns out to be so large that the problem is nowhere near as serious as we thought - and if we'd seen the economy crash in the meantime...
Either way, government action to prop things up is absolutely essential.
That article is interesting for another reason, namely if you read down the article, it does not sound like the disease is under control as much as the Chinese say it is (it talks about a number of doctors in a serious conditions, Wuhan citizens angry at the deaths etc).
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
Like all high margin businesses, they sell an idea, not a product.
Headline...Shutting schools would reduce coronavirus transmission – expert
So it makes it sound like he is disagreeing with the government and that the easy answer is they should be shut now. Except that isn't what he is saying at all.
Firstly he says massive uncertainty in regards to kids, secondly that the knock-on effect is huge and thirdly it more than likely will happen but must be timed appropriately.
And the kids then need to stay indoors - which didn't happen in Italy for example
They have to stay on their own property in Spain, after initial problems with holiday makers there were problems in a juvenile Centre and the strange case of the tyranosorus Rex that was apprehended in Murcia but you’d have to search on twitter for the video.
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
HOW MUCH for a session!!!!....I pay £50 a month for a very nice gym in which I can do spin twice a day if I want (along with a load of other classes).
Morrisons are asking everyone to pay by card, rather than cash. Seems like a plan, although I feel a bit silly paying for something like a newspaper by card.
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
HOW MUCH for a session!!!!....I pay £50 a month for a very nice gym in which I can do spin twice a day if I want (along with a load of other classes).
Yeah, but are there as many beautiful people there as at Soulcycle?
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
HOW MUCH for a session!!!!....I pay £50 a month for a very nice gym in which I can do spin twice a day if I want (along with a load of other classes).
Yeah, but are there as many beautiful people there as at Soulcycle?
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
But the average exercise bike is about £150. And you can pedal it fine without paying a monthly subscription!
Whatever next, $20 monthly cooking advice subscriptions? Monthly choose the right subscription services subscriptions?
That article is interesting for another reason, namely if you read down the article, it does not sound like the disease is under control as much as the Chinese say it is (it talks about a number of doctors in a serious conditions, Wuhan citizens angry at the deaths etc).
Given the time any given infection can last (many, many weeks in some - usually the more serious - cases), it's way too early to draw that kind of conclusion.
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
HOW MUCH for a session!!!!....I pay £50 a month for a very nice gym in which I can do spin twice a day if I want (along with a load of other classes).
Yeah, but are there as many beautiful people there as at Soulcycle?
Well I tell Mrs U there definitely aren't.
I use a gym in LA for swimming from time-to-time. It's fair to say I fail to meet the looks profile for the clientele.
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
But the average exercise bike is about £150. And you can pedal it fine without paying a monthly subscription!
Whatever next, $20 monthly cooking advice subscriptions? Monthly choose the right subscription services subscriptions?
You obviously aren't aware of the cooking recipe box services, where they charge way over the odds for the ingredients for the privilege of packaging the recipe and items together.
Anecdata. I am getting calls from clients asking what they can do about employees who can't work from home but are too scared to come in. Tough advice to give but to me it does show people are now taking this very seriously which, in and of itself, is a good thing.
Personally, generally I love the area of law I have chosen (I advise employees and employers) but it can be utterly shit sometimes giving advice you know will have such a massive impact on people's livelihood.
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
HOW MUCH for a session!!!!....I pay £50 a month for a very nice gym in which I can do spin twice a day if I want (along with a load of other classes).
Yeah, but are there as many beautiful people there as at Soulcycle?
Brings back too many regrets about the life that has gone!
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
But the average exercise bike is about £150. And you can pedal it fine without paying a monthly subscription!
Whatever next, $20 monthly cooking advice subscriptions? Monthly choose the right subscription services subscriptions?
Yes, but you don't get the incredibly fit young man/woman yelling out your name mid session: "Joe Bloggs! Fiftieth ride. Keep it up!"
Or the leaderboard, where you attempt to stay ahead of "Arthur Jones, 82, Pittsburgh"
If there is indeed a large iceberg of people with Corona who are not displaying any symptoms then this indeed will all be over by Christmas, probably the end of Summer.
Would be great if we were to test some people and find out
The problem is we don't know.
Asymptomatic now may mean pre-sympotmatic.
Or it may mean that the death rate for COVID-19 is comparable to influenza. And while it's going to be really, really bad, it will all be over relatively soon.
The precautionary principle says we shut everything down now, and then we ramp up testing 100-fold.
The sampling in Veneto was done quite some time ago, so I think they would know if those who were asymptomatic when sampled later showed symptoms and have controlled for this.
Was the sampling in Veneto done much more recently than the start of the South Korean outbreak that rcs1000 quotes? If so that might help explain changes in response to the disease and general levels immunity.
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
The Peloton hardware, like all "exercise bikes" is rubbish. A semi serious cyclist will destroy it quite quickly. Also, they have no power measurement and therefore useless for training. Rollers and a normal bike are way cheaper and better.
One sector that I bet is doing booming business, all those home workout programmes and bits of gym kit.
Peloton stock was up 12% yesterday!
That is a business I really dont understand! Why do people pay so much for an exercise bike? Then pay on top for a monthly subscription? Why do investors think this will scale into something massive?
A session at Soulcycle is $39. For 40 minutes of pumping on a bike.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
But the average exercise bike is about £150. And you can pedal it fine without paying a monthly subscription!
Whatever next, $20 monthly cooking advice subscriptions? Monthly choose the right subscription services subscriptions?
Yes, but you don't get the incredibly fit young man/woman yelling out your name mid session: "Joe Bloggs! Fiftieth ride. Keep it up!"
Or the leaderboard, where you attempt to stay ahead of "Arthur Jones, 82, Pittsburgh"
"Robert, this is your 29,900th post to PB! Keep it up!"
Well, I'm now working at home for the duration it seems though trying to support colleagues with Microsoft Teams has been a frustrating experience this morning.
Microsoft Teams is the real winner; I'd bet it corners a lot more of the market now than when companies had time to compare it against Slack, Sametime, Webex or whatever.
Comments
Get them full hazard suits ASAP!
Anecdotally, based on the number of classmates of my grandchildren who are off school with coughs and fever in Richmond Borough, I think the confirmed number for the Borough of 2 cases and the estimated number of 33 cases are gross underestimates. I suspect it is one or two orders of magnitude greater than that.
http://whereisitin.london/
Half is DO MORE NOW COMPLETE LOCKDOWN CLOSE SCHOOLS
Half is OH MY GOD THESE MEASURES ARE RIDICULOUS HOW CAN WE LIVE LIKE THIS THINK OF THE HIGH STREET WHO IS GOING TO LOOK AFTER MY KIDS I WILL STARVE
Depressing lack of keeping calm and carrying on. Thankfully I see quite a lot of that with the people I meet (at a distance!) in real life.
Because if half the 90% are merely pre-symptomatic. Then the death and ICU rate shoots up five times from my previous low numbers.
Small minded nonsense and waste of time.
But we don't have the information to make that kind of call yet. And if we're wrong...
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/03/119_286335.html
Korea is expanding its special screening at airports and ports to all overseas travelers starting from Thursday, in an effort to contain COVID-19 which is spreading in Korea and around the world, the government said Tuesday.
Currently, travelers, both Koreans and non-Koreans, arriving from China, Japan and all European countries are subject to special screening at entry points.
"Given that the new coronavirus pandemic is spreading all over the world and that more people coming from abroad show symptoms or are infected, Korea will expand a special screening procedure to all entrants," Kim Gang-lip, the vice health minister, said during a press conference held in Sejong, Tuesday.
Kim said six recent coronavirus cases involved people with records of traveling abroad. "We feel an increasing need for stricter border control."
According to the government, as of March 15, a total of 44 coronavirus patients had a record of traveling outside ― 16 visiting Europe, 14 China and 14 other Asian countries.
"A country like Peru completely sealed the country up which we consider too drastic for Korea. The best option for us would be screening all who arrive in Korea," Kim said.
The special screening consists of checking people's body temperature and filling out a personal health survey before leaving the airport or port. Also, people must share their local contact information ― phone number and address ― and download a smartphone application through which users have to report their daily health condition to the quarantine authorities.
The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) said Tuesday Korea reported 84 new cases of COVID-19 infection on Monday, putting the total number of cases at 8,320 with 81 fatalities. ...
Now, that's fundamentally distasteful (and some may even argue unethical) but what are an extra 10,000 deaths "worth" in terms of economic damage?
If we had a serious depression for 2-3 years that led us losing 20% of GDP, wiping out millions of families, and hundreds of thousands of livelihoods for good - think of all the restaurants, pubs, cafes, cinemas and small businesses going in your town for good - but only 10,000 deaths in 2020*, would that be better than only a 3-4% drop in GDP and a 6-9 month recession but one that allowed us to bounce back fairly quickly in 2021, with hundreds of thousands of livelihoods saved, and millions of families from bankruptcies, but with 100,000 deaths?
This is no longer an interesting hypothetical. It's what the Government has no choice but to answer.
(*I haven't factored in mass unemployment, suicides or social breakdown into the first example which would likely lead to extra deaths the other way too)
That said, keeping calm and carrying on is a bad idea. It's a great response to terrorism, which is designed to create a reaction. But it's a terrible response to coronavirus, because coronavirus doesn't care what you think. People are going to need some changes to their lifestyle to avoid inadvertently killing each other. Keep calm sure, but don't carry on.
Korea has a death rate of 0.7% for CV-19, and has the outbreak largely under control. This probably implies a 30-40% asymptomatic rate.
Now, unless there are large numbers of people in Korea who have the disease, but have not been picked up (which is possible, but unlikely), then it would seem to suggest the 90% asymptomatic number might actually be "70% pre-symptomatic, and 30% genuinely asymptomatic."
And by "carry on" I meant get on with life, but cautiously and abiding by the new restrictions on behaviour. I did not mean "carry on as before" - and neither did the original war-time sentiment.
What *seems* to be going on in China interests me in this respect.
Campaign to 'thank' Xi Jinping flatly rejected by Wuhan citizens
Communist Party's propaganda efforts powerless in face of coronavirus anger
https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/China-up-close/Campaign-to-thank-Xi-Jinping-flatly-rejected-by-Wuhan-citizens
Only half joking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCa0JXEwDEk
So please stay home.
All under 70, please leave the over 70's/high risks in isolation. Do their shopping, do everything you can to make their life in lockdown better. But DO NOT EXPOSE THEM TO RISK.
Meanwhile, life goes on as was for the rest of us.
We price deaths when we decide where to spend road improvement budgets. We price deaths when we choose the speed limit. We price deaths when we set a limit on NHS spending.
It is also worth remembering that the actual excess deaths number will be lower than the number who die of CV-19. Because it is the most vulnerable who are most likely to die, there will be a strong correlation between CV-19 deaths and people who would have died in 2020 anyway.
Now, I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But I do know two things:
1. Those who are older, or are at risk, should avoid as much social contact as possible
2. We need to put in place a much, much better testing system than also includes finding out who has already had the disease
That means that we panic because we think things aren't working when they are.
Oh, and some over-70s get rather offended when you do offer help. "I'm not that old!", "It's all a storm in teacup!", etc.
One of the problems with our modern society is people expect instant everything.
I’m not complaining by the way; I don’t see any alternative approach.
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1239882184720293893
Would be great if we were to test some people and find out
I think the individual countries have already taken that decision for you!
He finally saw. the light yesterday and finally invited the Mayor.
“Mr Corbyn do you think people should follow the health advice?”
“Yes.”
“Are you?”
“No.”
If that’s how it goes he’s an idiot.
So, no I don't know.
Headline...Shutting schools would reduce coronavirus transmission – expert
So it makes it sound like he is disagreeing with the government and that the easy answer is they should be shut now. Except that isn't what he is saying at all.
Firstly he says massive uncertainty in regards to kids, secondly that the knock-on effect is huge and thirdly it more than likely will happen but must be timed appropriately.
Asymptomatic now may mean pre-sympotmatic.
Or it may mean that the death rate for COVID-19 is comparable to influenza. And while it's going to be really, really bad, it will all be over relatively soon.
The precautionary principle says we shut everything down now, and then we ramp up testing 100-fold.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/peloton-ad-video-commercial-exercise-bike-christmas-sexism-twitter-a9231406.html
Libor rates jumping....
Otherwise banks may eventually collapse again, after the nearer-term impact on individuals and businesses, in any case.
Well, I'm now working at home for the duration it seems though trying to support colleagues with Microsoft Teams has been a frustrating experience this morning.
I'm feeling a little Darwinian - not about the virus but about the public handouts to business. I remember Allister Heath back in 2008-9 arguing no organisation should be too big to fail and it was incumbent on businesses (large and small) to have a failure plan - most people call them Wills though I like the term "Mortality Failure Plan".
Yes, we talk about the lost jobs when a business fails but there are the shareholders and the creditors who also stand to lose when a business fails but businesses have always failed - many do for various reasons.
What happens is other businesses fill the gap or other businesses emerge or the sector fragments.
I was no supporter of QE or financial methodone as it kept zombie companies alive and I'm dubious as to the value of another round though I accept these are unusual circumstances to say the least.
The flash Chinese numbers look as bad as most feared and of course the financial hit is going to be severe in the short to medium term. Is that in and of itself an argument to throw large amounts of public money around?
If we knew this was going to be a very short-term bridge and life would bounce back in a few weeks I'd be more convinced but as others have said there may well be longer term economic and cultural impacts.
I want Trump gone with a passion but focussing on trying to get Raab to call him out is pathetic in the wider context of the debate
There are so few talented politicians today and it is very sad
And this is across so many sectors that the risk is systemic and threatens the entire economy.
To use the Darwinian analogy, mass extinctions.
One might add that it is (just) possible that the iceberg turns out to be so large that the problem is nowhere near as serious as we thought - and if we'd seen the economy crash in the meantime...
Either way, government action to prop things up is absolutely essential.
Peloton offers you as many of those as you like for $40 a month.
And it should scale brilliantly. One million users worldwide paying $40/month is $5bn of revenue a year, and probably about $3bn of profits. (I mean, what are the costs?)
Whatever next, $20 monthly cooking advice subscriptions? Monthly choose the right subscription services subscriptions?
Personally, generally I love the area of law I have chosen (I advise employees and employers) but it can be utterly shit sometimes giving advice you know will have such a massive impact on people's livelihood.
Or the leaderboard, where you attempt to stay ahead of "Arthur Jones, 82, Pittsburgh"