Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Budgeting for a crisis

168101112

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    Foxy said:

    Just had the 17 page .pdf from HQ on the governments plans. Not labelled secret.
    Interesting reading, and not a lot to disagree with on first skim through.

    Plans for what? Hospitals?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,502
    edited March 2020
    Orange man is back on...."we are going to say we won"
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,125
    HYUFD said:

    One for HYUFD

    UK 'may have up to 55,000 coronavirus cases already'

    There could be as many as 55,000 coronavirus cases already in the UK, the government's chief scientific adviser has suggested.

    Appearing before the health select committee, Sir Patrick Vallance was asked by whether the expected death rate was one fatality for every 1,000 cases, which would mean that there is "potentially 55,000 cases".

    Asked if that felt right, Sir Patrick said: "We've tried to get a handle on that in Sage (the scientific advisory group for emergencies) and if you put all the modelling information together, that's a reasonable ballpark way of looking at it.

    "It's not more accurate than that."

    I was going on confirmed cases, Italy, Spain, France and Germany likely have even more cases than 55 000 once you count those yet to be confirmed

    You said "deaths". You were wrong.
    As for actual cases - who knows? if Germany has more than 55,000 cases it makes the mortality rate look very very small, so I don't know where you get the "likely have even more cases than 55 000" from. Well, I do know, but it would be rude to say.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706

    Government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance says there are already likely to be 55,000 cases of coronavirus in UK but number of new cases could start to fall in 'two to three weeks' because of the government's crackdown on social contact

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8121845/Governments-chief-scientific-adviser-says-55-000-cases-coronavirus-UK.html

    That seems very optimistic....and I fear the wrong headline message.

    But if we have a 3-4 day doubling already baked in for that time then in 3 weeks we could have 3.5-7m cases by then so even if the rate of increase then slows it will be from a much larger base.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    IanB2 said:

    So according to the ONS in the Winter of 2014/15an average of 450 people per day died above the normal average. In 1999/2000 an average 480 people per day died above the normal average. These were caused by a higher than normal outbreak of flu. Imagine Boris doing his press conference today and saying over the past month 15,000 people had of died of Covid-19. Well thats exactly what happened due to a nasty flu outbreak in 1999/2000 and nobody said anything and the world carried on.

    Naming something makes it real.

    On a much more trivial level, people go on about these storms a lot more now that it’s Storm Vera or whatever. Before it just used to be raining, now people have been drenched by Storm Vera.
    I think you are right, if this was called Flu 19 people would not be that bothered
  • FossFoss Posts: 992
    Nigelb said:
    Given China's human rights record, is it nor reasonable to assume that they've poured most of these into infected undesirables already?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,502
    edited March 2020
    DavidL said:

    Government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance says there are already likely to be 55,000 cases of coronavirus in UK but number of new cases could start to fall in 'two to three weeks' because of the government's crackdown on social contact

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8121845/Governments-chief-scientific-adviser-says-55-000-cases-coronavirus-UK.html

    That seems very optimistic....and I fear the wrong headline message.

    But if we have a 3-4 day doubling already baked in for that time then in 3 weeks we could have 3.5-7m cases by then so even if the rate of increase then slows it will be from a much larger base.
    The initial model was a 9 week period from the time we hit the ramp...saying we will hit the peak in 2 weeks, does that mean we haven't flatten the curve?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited March 2020
    kinabalu said:

    The government should conduct an honest public information campaign to the effect that most goods, including food, come in by sea or air freight rather than air passenger cargo, and so are so far unaffected by closedowns. This would reduce the current peaks in demand to some extent.

    Reason for my "panic" buying - e.g. HUGE sack of rice today - is not the fear that stuff will run out. I don't think it will. I think the shelves will be full again quite soon. No, it's that I live in London - the epicentre - and as the epidemic rips over the next few weeks it will get less and less safe to go to places (like supermarkets) which are full of people. Therefore buy lots of stuff now in order not to have to go out shopping later.
    That's true. There's many reasons for so-called "panic" buying, and as I said a few days ago the very idea itself is often illusory and more convenient for authorities than individuals, but I do think that fear of international shutdown and imports is one of several things contributing to the high demand at the moment.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586

    IanB2 said:

    So according to the ONS in the Winter of 2014/15an average of 450 people per day died above the normal average. In 1999/2000 an average 480 people per day died above the normal average. These were caused by a higher than normal outbreak of flu. Imagine Boris doing his press conference today and saying over the past month 15,000 people had of died of Covid-19. Well thats exactly what happened due to a nasty flu outbreak in 1999/2000 and nobody said anything and the world carried on.

    Naming something makes it real.

    On a much more trivial level, people go on about these storms a lot more now that it’s Storm Vera or whatever. Before it just used to be raining, now people have been drenched by Storm Vera.
    I think you are right, if this was called Flu 19 people would not be that bothered
    I am not sure the pictures from Italy support that view tbh.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,502
    edited March 2020
    eadric said:



    That also implies we are 6-7 days from Total Lockdown.

    Think it depends how long the likes of Jeremy and Stanley keep demanding they carry on life as normal !!!

    Given the gentle revealing that London is particularly badly hit, I presume that is where we are likely to see a proper lockdown going on.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Just had a zoom meeting with my Chinese collaborator, now back in the UK having gone back to China at the end of January for a short visit to celebrate the New Year.

    He flew back on Saturday to the UK, there were only 3 passengers, they were easily outnumbered by the cabin crew.

    He has been in Nanjing, 500 km from Wuhan in Huebei province

    Even in Jiangsu province (which has pop of 78 million), there have been severe restrictions since January. All restaurants, bars, government offices, universities have been shut since January. Only some essential shops are open. People can leave their apartments, but they must wear masks. In the last few days, restaurants have begun to slowly reopen in Nanjing, though there are restrictions on interpersonal spacing.

    And this is in a province not particularly scarred by the disease.

    So, we are looking at a least 2 months of shutdown.

    Our old world will not be coming back, until a vaccine is discovered.

    Perhaps not even then.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    ..
    rcs1000 said:

    Germany's public health agency has warned that the coronavirus crisis could last up to two years.

    The Robert Koch Institute, the German federal government agency responsible for disease control and prevention, made the claim on Tuesday as it strengthened the threat risk for Germany from 'moderate' to 'high'.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8121253/Coronavirus-crisis-TWO-YEARS-Germany-warns.html

    It will be interesting to see how long France are going to keep their lockdown. 2 weeks isn't going to scratch the surface.

    That's not true. Even a two week lockdown makes a massive difference. Because for two weeks you can't infect anyone other that your immediate family. So you see a big pause in the number of newly infected, while the number who cease being infected (via death or recovery) continues to grow.

    These measures aren't about curing coronavirus, it's about driving the number of new infections down significantly, so when you lift the lockdown, you're starting from a much lower base.

    Think of it like this: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 4, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16...


    Yep. First stop new infections, which depending on the effectiveness of your measures, should be a couple of weeks to several weeks then start easing off restrictions on a controlled risk basis. Always be testing. You want that initial lockdown to be as tight as possible, so as to be short as possible.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    So according to the ONS in the Winter of 2014/15an average of 450 people per day died above the normal average. In 1999/2000 an average 480 people per day died above the normal average. These were caused by a higher than normal outbreak of flu. Imagine Boris doing his press conference today and saying over the past month 15,000 people had of died of Covid-19. Well thats exactly what happened due to a nasty flu outbreak in 1999/2000 and nobody said anything and the world carried on.

    Take your point.

    But the big problem with this one is not the deaths. It's that it is VERY catching and a large % of people doing so need hospital treatment, often ICU.

    This knocks over health services.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,364

    kinabalu said:

    The government should conduct an honest public information campaign to the effect that most goods, including food, come in by sea or air freight rather than air passenger cargo, and so are so far unaffected by closedowns. This would reduce the current peaks in demand to some extent.

    Reason for my "panic" buying - e.g. HUGE sack of rice today - is not the fear that stuff will run out. I don't think it will. I think the shelves will be full again quite soon. No, it's that I live in London - the epicentre - and as the epidemic rips over the next few weeks it will get less and less safe to go to places (like supermarkets) which are full of people. Therefore buy lots of stuff now in order not to have to go out shopping later.
    That's true. There's many reasons for so-called "panic" buying, and as I said a few days ago the very idea itself is often illusory and more convenient for authorities than individuals, but I do think that fear of international shutdown and imports is one of several things contributing to the high demand at the moment.
    Not so much "panic" buying - more people are "hunker down" buying. Go out once a week to top up, otherwise, keep the hell off the mean streets of Dodge...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,200

    So according to the ONS in the Winter of 2014/15an average of 450 people per day died above the normal average. In 1999/2000 an average 480 people per day died above the normal average. These were caused by a higher than normal outbreak of flu. Imagine Boris doing his press conference today and saying over the past month 15,000 people had of died of Covid-19. Well thats exactly what happened due to a nasty flu outbreak in 1999/2000 and nobody said anything and the world carried on.

    100 years ago 5% of the world's population died from a flu pandemic. Today a lot of people haven't even heard of it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Foxy said:

    Just had the 17 page .pdf from HQ on the governments plans. Not labelled secret.
    Interesting reading, and not a lot to disagree with on first skim through.

    Plans for what? Hospitals?
    Yes, Acute trusts, GPs, community and mental health services.

  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    kinabalu said:

    So according to the ONS in the Winter of 2014/15an average of 450 people per day died above the normal average. In 1999/2000 an average 480 people per day died above the normal average. These were caused by a higher than normal outbreak of flu. Imagine Boris doing his press conference today and saying over the past month 15,000 people had of died of Covid-19. Well thats exactly what happened due to a nasty flu outbreak in 1999/2000 and nobody said anything and the world carried on.

    Take your point.

    But the big problem with this one is not the deaths. It's that it is VERY catching and a large % of people doing so need hospital treatment, often ICU.

    This knocks over health services.
    You would imagine that 480 extra deaths per day plus those admitted to hospital who recovered would have stretched the NHS quite a bit back then.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,200

    Government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance says there are already likely to be 55,000 cases of coronavirus in UK but number of new cases could start to fall in 'two to three weeks' because of the government's crackdown on social contact

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8121845/Governments-chief-scientific-adviser-says-55-000-cases-coronavirus-UK.html

    That seems very optimistic....and I fear the wrong headline message.

    55,000 cases and 53 deaths is what you'd expect with seasonal flu.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    Nigelb said:
    Is that for real? They've got Viagra on the list for March 1st!
    IANAD but I think Viagra improves circulation generally so could be efficacious for patients with lower blood oxygen levels (assuming I understand that correctly).
  • So according to the ONS in the Winter of 2014/15an average of 450 people per day died above the normal average. In 1999/2000 an average 480 people per day died above the normal average. These were caused by a higher than normal outbreak of flu. Imagine Boris doing his press conference today and saying over the past month 15,000 people had of died of Covid-19. Well thats exactly what happened due to a nasty flu outbreak in 1999/2000 and nobody said anything and the world carried on.

    If we get away with a just couple of months of 15,000 deaths from covid-19, we'll be thanking our lucky stars.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited March 2020

    kinabalu said:

    The government should conduct an honest public information campaign to the effect that most goods, including food, come in by sea or air freight rather than air passenger cargo, and so are so far unaffected by closedowns. This would reduce the current peaks in demand to some extent.

    Reason for my "panic" buying - e.g. HUGE sack of rice today - is not the fear that stuff will run out. I don't think it will. I think the shelves will be full again quite soon. No, it's that I live in London - the epicentre - and as the epidemic rips over the next few weeks it will get less and less safe to go to places (like supermarkets) which are full of people. Therefore buy lots of stuff now in order not to have to go out shopping later.
    That's true. There's many reasons for so-called "panic" buying, and as I said a few days ago the very idea itself is often illusory and more convenient for authorities than individuals, but I do think that fear of international shutdown and imports is one of several things contributing to the high demand at the moment.
    Not so much "panic" buying - more people are "hunker down" buying. Go out once a week to top up, otherwise, keep the hell off the mean streets of Dodge...
    Yes. The problem with the idea of "panic buying", as I said last week, is that what appears irrational one moment can easily be rational the next. The condemnatory tone can also actually make people more self-righteous and aggressive to each other in supermarkets and make the social order situation worse. Stressing the need for everyone to manage their demand in order for everyone to benefit, rather than slating people for what may be individually good reasons for buying more than usual, and pointing out any positive factorson why a steady and continuous supply is still guaranteed, will cut more ice with people.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    Andy_JS said:

    Government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance says there are already likely to be 55,000 cases of coronavirus in UK but number of new cases could start to fall in 'two to three weeks' because of the government's crackdown on social contact

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8121845/Governments-chief-scientific-adviser-says-55-000-cases-coronavirus-UK.html

    That seems very optimistic....and I fear the wrong headline message.

    55,000 cases and 53 deaths is what you'd expect with seasonal flu.
    Seasonal flue is far more widespread than 55,000 cases

    Look at the stats for swine flu, (which killed kids as well)
    There was regularly 60,000 + cases per week

    Again, the world carried on

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Is there a book on when marshal law is implemented?

    I'm not joking either.

    MARTIAL!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    rpjs said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is that for real? They've got Viagra on the list for March 1st!
    IANAD but I think Viagra improves circulation generally so could be efficacious for patients with lower blood oxygen levels (assuming I understand that correctly).
    It is a vadodilator, but in severely ill people could cause a dangerous drop in blood pressure. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) is a COVID19 complication. This needs careful evaluation.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    Charles said:

    Is there a book on when marshal law is implemented?

    I'm not joking either.

    MARTIAL!
    MARITAL!
  • There was a question from Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary, about whether Britain could and should follow the example of some Asian countries in using mobile phone tracking to identify movements of people who may have the virus - even though there may be civil liberties implications

    That approach would have made total sense back in January, replied Vallance, and may well yet come back into play at a later stage. But he knows that people are working very, very hard in the UK and elsewhere in developing that approach.

    I wonder how the tw@tterati are going to take to the idea of the government tracking your every move?

    The interesting thing here, "well yet come back into play at a later stage"...more evidence they don't think is a one time thing.

    Are you forced to carry your mobile in this scenario?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    edited March 2020
    rpjs said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is that for real? They've got Viagra on the list for March 1st!
    IANAD but I think Viagra improves circulation generally so could be efficacious for patients with lower blood oxygen levels (assuming I understand that correctly).
    You forgot to add 'DYOR'

    It was the Thalidomide that I wasn't fancying.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,200

    There was a question from Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary, about whether Britain could and should follow the example of some Asian countries in using mobile phone tracking to identify movements of people who may have the virus - even though there may be civil liberties implications

    That approach would have made total sense back in January, replied Vallance, and may well yet come back into play at a later stage. But he knows that people are working very, very hard in the UK and elsewhere in developing that approach.

    I wonder how the tw@tterati are going to take to the idea of the government tracking your every move?

    The interesting thing here, "well yet come back into play at a later stage"...more evidence they don't think is a one time thing.

    Are you forced to carry your mobile in this scenario?
    What about people who don't have smartphones? Are they going to be forced to have one?
  • Andy_JS said:

    There was a question from Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary, about whether Britain could and should follow the example of some Asian countries in using mobile phone tracking to identify movements of people who may have the virus - even though there may be civil liberties implications

    That approach would have made total sense back in January, replied Vallance, and may well yet come back into play at a later stage. But he knows that people are working very, very hard in the UK and elsewhere in developing that approach.

    I wonder how the tw@tterati are going to take to the idea of the government tracking your every move?

    The interesting thing here, "well yet come back into play at a later stage"...more evidence they don't think is a one time thing.

    Are you forced to carry your mobile in this scenario?
    What about people who don't have smartphones? Are they going to be forced to have one?
    That's where I'm coming from!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    Andy_JS said:

    There was a question from Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary, about whether Britain could and should follow the example of some Asian countries in using mobile phone tracking to identify movements of people who may have the virus - even though there may be civil liberties implications

    That approach would have made total sense back in January, replied Vallance, and may well yet come back into play at a later stage. But he knows that people are working very, very hard in the UK and elsewhere in developing that approach.

    I wonder how the tw@tterati are going to take to the idea of the government tracking your every move?

    The interesting thing here, "well yet come back into play at a later stage"...more evidence they don't think is a one time thing.

    Are you forced to carry your mobile in this scenario?
    What about people who don't have smartphones? Are they going to be forced to have one?
    They'll need one to claim Universal Credit when their job goes.

    (Not stricly true but the UC claim system assumes you have a mobile phone and an email).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    kinabalu said:

    The government should conduct an honest public information campaign to the effect that most goods, including food, come in by sea or air freight rather than air passenger cargo, and so are so far unaffected by closedowns. This would reduce the current peaks in demand to some extent.

    Reason for my "panic" buying - e.g. HUGE sack of rice today - is not the fear that stuff will run out. I don't think it will. I think the shelves will be full again quite soon. No, it's that I live in London - the epicentre - and as the epidemic rips over the next few weeks it will get less and less safe to go to places (like supermarkets) which are full of people. Therefore buy lots of stuff now in order not to have to go out shopping later.
    If lots are thinking the same way, we can look forward to sanity returning to shopping whilst you are indoors eating rice and more rice.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    Any signs of this Sunak presser?
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 649
    edited March 2020
    eadric said:

    JM1 said:

    JM1 said:

    407 new cases here today, but 6337 tests (most on a single day so far i think) . Hopefully a consistent ramping up of testing will be a feature moving forward so we can really nail down the number of positive cases quickly (especially in hospitals).

    PS This means we are about 7 days behind France - which seems realistic.
    That also implies we are 6-7 days from Total Lockdown.
    It’s inevitable now, isn’t it? I thought Macron struck the right tone, this is a war and people must follow what they are told to do or not do. Compared to the weak, vague shambles we are getting here, they have a very clear message to rally behind.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    edited March 2020
    JM1 said:

    kinabalu said:

    So according to the ONS in the Winter of 2014/15an average of 450 people per day died above the normal average. In 1999/2000 an average 480 people per day died above the normal average. These were caused by a higher than normal outbreak of flu. Imagine Boris doing his press conference today and saying over the past month 15,000 people had of died of Covid-19. Well thats exactly what happened due to a nasty flu outbreak in 1999/2000 and nobody said anything and the world carried on.

    Take your point.

    But the big problem with this one is not the deaths. It's that it is VERY catching and a large % of people doing so need hospital treatment, often ICU.

    This knocks over health services.
    Yes. That's precisely the issue. The mortality rate may indeed end up being fairly low as a fraction of all infected. But this will only be the case if we can treat all who are infected. That's why, for this round, we have to protect the most vulnerable so that they don't get it.

    For future rounds, we have more weapons in our arsenal to overcome it more effectively and with less extreme societal measures (see the drug trials from China, or other anti IL6 drug trials which look promising).
    But in 1999/2000 over a 3 month period an extra 48,000 people died from flu.I imagine 99% of these were in hospital. I would also imagine that between 100,000 to 200,000 were admitted in that period and required ICU and recovered.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Good to see the government has got its priorities straight:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1239945856930983936

    Honestly, these people are obsessed.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited March 2020

    Good to see the government has got its priorities straight:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1239945856930983936

    Honestly, these people are obsessed.

    I thought that was going to read "increasingly ridiculous", and to be fair that's what it should have said.
  • spire2spire2 Posts: 183
    The lockdown will not last as long as many anticipate. Once new cases start dropping theres going to be huge pressure on the government from business to relax restrictions.Also so many people are psychologically unable to survive lack of social contact and will start demanding reopening of bars, restaurants etc.

    every chance vaccine testing protocols will be abandoned as well. The greater need will outweigh the risks and government will believe they can deal with any issues arising
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586

    Good to see the government has got its priorities straight:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1239945856930983936

    Honestly, these people are obsessed.

    I find that perversely encouraging, given this has government u-turned on everything else affected by coronavirus.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    IanB2 said:

    If lots are thinking the same way, we can look forward to sanity returning to shopping whilst you are indoors eating rice and more rice.

    Well I do have lots of dry roasted nuts as well.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,491
    Just in case anybody is still following US election politics:

    It appears that Joe Bidden, won the Washington primary after all:

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/joe-biden-wins-washington-presidential-primary-beating-bernie-sanders-in-state-he-won-four-years-ago/

    I don't think this changes anything that much, as the deligats are allocated proportionally its probably or 6 or so extra deligats for Bidden. maybe one more reason for Sanders to stand down.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    edited March 2020
    ETHICAL DILEMMA QUERY:

    Strolled out today to see what real life looked like today. Popped in to Co-Op and Sainsbury's, full-ish shelves, no loo roll. Went to a local independent. Plenty of loo roll, as I walked in one old woman was picking up a bag of must have been six dozen packs (two to a pack) of it. Upon polite questioning it turns out she had ordered specially in advance from the shopkeeper. He was otherwise rationing people to one pack per person.

    Was she a hero or a villain?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    Ffs: just what we need, a dose of 80s style macho-management:

    Gatwick Airport said it has terminated the employment of 200 staff as part of “decisive action to protect the business”, PA reports.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    Israeli Nobel Laureate: Coronavirus spread is slowing

    "By plotting the data forward, Levitt has predicted that the virus will likely disappear from China by the end of March.

    THE REASON for the slowdown is due to the fact that exponential models assume that people with the virus will continue to infect others at a steady rate. In the early phase of COVID-19, that rate was 2.2 people a day on average."

    https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-nobel-laureate-Coronavirus-spread-is-slowing-621145

    Some hope at last!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586
    TOPPING said:

    ETHICAL DILEMMA QUERY:

    Strolled out today to see what real life looked like today. Popped in to Co-Op and Sainsbury's, full-ish shelves, no loo roll. Went to a local independent. Plenty of loo roll, as I walked in one old woman was picking up a bag of must have been six dozen packs (two to a pack) of it. Upon polite questioning it turns out she had ordered specially in advance from the shopkeeper. He was otherwise rationing people to one pack per person.

    Was she a hero or a villain?

    She was stupid.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,502
    TOPPING said:

    ETHICAL DILEMMA QUERY:

    Strolled out today to see what real life looked like today. Popped in to Co-Op and Sainsbury's, full-ish shelves, no loo roll. Went to a local independent. Plenty of loo roll, as I walked in one old woman was picking up a bag of must have been six dozen packs (two to a pack) of it. Upon polite questioning it turns out she had ordered specially in advance from the shopkeeper. He was otherwise rationing people to one pack per person.

    Was she a hero or a villain?

    More to the point, what was she doing venturing out.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,502

    Israeli Nobel Laureate: Coronavirus spread is slowing

    "By plotting the data forward, Levitt has predicted that the virus will likely disappear from China by the end of March.

    THE REASON for the slowdown is due to the fact that exponential models assume that people with the virus will continue to infect others at a steady rate. In the early phase of COVID-19, that rate was 2.2 people a day on average."

    https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-nobel-laureate-Coronavirus-spread-is-slowing-621145

    Some hope at last!

    "He said most people are naturally immune"
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited March 2020

    Israeli Nobel Laureate: Coronavirus spread is slowing

    "By plotting the data forward, Levitt has predicted that the virus will likely disappear from China by the end of March.

    THE REASON for the slowdown is due to the fact that exponential models assume that people with the virus will continue to infect others at a steady rate. In the early phase of COVID-19, that rate was 2.2 people a day on average."

    https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-nobel-laureate-Coronavirus-spread-is-slowing-621145

    Some hope at last!

    "He said most people are naturally immune"
    Sounds good indeed ! Let's hope so.

    That would still mean western governments may have to learn a new political and economic language of supporting their population for a couple of months to prevent economic breakdown with the measures now in force, as rcs1000 predicted. Let's hope they can throw off their prejudices to prove themselves up to the task.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,502

    Israeli Nobel Laureate: Coronavirus spread is slowing

    "By plotting the data forward, Levitt has predicted that the virus will likely disappear from China by the end of March.

    THE REASON for the slowdown is due to the fact that exponential models assume that people with the virus will continue to infect others at a steady rate. In the early phase of COVID-19, that rate was 2.2 people a day on average."

    https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-nobel-laureate-Coronavirus-spread-is-slowing-621145

    Some hope at last!

    "He said most people are naturally immune"
    Sounds good indeed ! Let's hope so.
    The Diamond Princess cruise ship represented the worst-case scenario in terms of disease spread, as the close confines of the ship offered optimal conditions for the virus to be passed among those aboard. The population density aboard the ship was the equivalent of trying to cram the whole Israeli population into an area 30 kilometers square. In addition, the ship had a central air conditioning and heating system, and communal dining rooms.

    “Those are extremely comfortable conditions for the virus and still, only 20% were infected. It is a lot, but pretty similar to the infection rate of the common flu,” Levitt said. Based on those figures, his conclusion was that most people are simply naturally immune.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753

    TOPPING said:

    ETHICAL DILEMMA QUERY:

    Strolled out today to see what real life looked like today. Popped in to Co-Op and Sainsbury's, full-ish shelves, no loo roll. Went to a local independent. Plenty of loo roll, as I walked in one old woman was picking up a bag of must have been six dozen packs (two to a pack) of it. Upon polite questioning it turns out she had ordered specially in advance from the shopkeeper. He was otherwise rationing people to one pack per person.

    Was she a hero or a villain?

    She was stupid.
    Ah yes that I thought went without saying.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    You would imagine that 480 extra deaths per day plus those admitted to hospital who recovered would have stretched the NHS quite a bit back then.

    Yes - the old "NHS winter crisis".

    But this, as I understand it, is an order of magnitude worse in terms of demands on the system.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Israeli Nobel Laureate: Coronavirus spread is slowing

    "By plotting the data forward, Levitt has predicted that the virus will likely disappear from China by the end of March.

    THE REASON for the slowdown is due to the fact that exponential models assume that people with the virus will continue to infect others at a steady rate. In the early phase of COVID-19, that rate was 2.2 people a day on average."

    https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-nobel-laureate-Coronavirus-spread-is-slowing-621145

    Some hope at last!

    Makes sense. Nothing we've seen whether in Wuhan or Hubei or on the Diamond Princess or elsewhere seems to endorse the modelling of 60-90% of the population getting this.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    spire2 said:

    The lockdown will not last as long as many anticipate. Once new cases start dropping theres going to be huge pressure on the government from business to relax restrictions.Also so many people are psychologically unable to survive lack of social contact and will start demanding reopening of bars, restaurants etc.

    I predict the very people agitating for `Lockdown Now' will -- after 6 weeks in a house with their cooped-up children -- be the ones agitating for `End to House Arrest'.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,502
    edited March 2020
    kinabalu said:

    You would imagine that 480 extra deaths per day plus those admitted to hospital who recovered would have stretched the NHS quite a bit back then.

    Yes - the old "NHS winter crisis".

    But this, as I understand it, is an order of magnitude worse in terms of demands on the system.
    The big takeaway from the Imperial paper is not only the amount of hospitalization, it is the percentage that then go on to require ICU and for a long long time...that is the huge factor that causes the system compared to flu.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    eadric said:

    I've been crunching the government's new numbers.

    ha haha hahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264

    Andy_JS said:

    Government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance says there are already likely to be 55,000 cases of coronavirus in UK but number of new cases could start to fall in 'two to three weeks' because of the government's crackdown on social contact

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8121845/Governments-chief-scientific-adviser-says-55-000-cases-coronavirus-UK.html

    That seems very optimistic....and I fear the wrong headline message.

    55,000 cases and 53 deaths is what you'd expect with seasonal flu.
    Seasonal flue is far more widespread than 55,000 cases

    Look at the stats for swine flu, (which killed kids as well)
    There was regularly 60,000 + cases per week

    Again, the world carried on

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom
    Swine flu killed less than 400 people in the UK. Just to give you a quick idea of scale, at the moment twice as many Italians are dying *every day* than total Italian deaths caused by swine flu.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231

    Israeli Nobel Laureate: Coronavirus spread is slowing

    "By plotting the data forward, Levitt has predicted that the virus will likely disappear from China by the end of March.

    THE REASON for the slowdown is due to the fact that exponential models assume that people with the virus will continue to infect others at a steady rate. In the early phase of COVID-19, that rate was 2.2 people a day on average."

    https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-nobel-laureate-Coronavirus-spread-is-slowing-621145

    Some hope at last!

    There was never not hope.
  • TOPPING said:

    ETHICAL DILEMMA QUERY:

    Strolled out today to see what real life looked like today. Popped in to Co-Op and Sainsbury's, full-ish shelves, no loo roll. Went to a local independent. Plenty of loo roll, as I walked in one old woman was picking up a bag of must have been six dozen packs (two to a pack) of it. Upon polite questioning it turns out she had ordered specially in advance from the shopkeeper. He was otherwise rationing people to one pack per person.

    Was she a hero or a villain?

    Stone her!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited March 2020

    spire2 said:

    The lockdown will not last as long as many anticipate. Once new cases start dropping theres going to be huge pressure on the government from business to relax restrictions.Also so many people are psychologically unable to survive lack of social contact and will start demanding reopening of bars, restaurants etc.

    I predict the very people agitating for `Lockdown Now' will -- after 6 weeks in a house with their cooped-up children -- be the ones agitating for `End to House Arrest'.
    One of the funniest adverts of all time is the American Staples TV commercial setting Most Wonderful Time of the Year to the kids going Back to School.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz56prGBiS8
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080
    Do people think there's much chance of the Irish Sea crossings being halted, or made freight-only? (Asking for a friend)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753

    TOPPING said:

    ETHICAL DILEMMA QUERY:

    Strolled out today to see what real life looked like today. Popped in to Co-Op and Sainsbury's, full-ish shelves, no loo roll. Went to a local independent. Plenty of loo roll, as I walked in one old woman was picking up a bag of must have been six dozen packs (two to a pack) of it. Upon polite questioning it turns out she had ordered specially in advance from the shopkeeper. He was otherwise rationing people to one pack per person.

    Was she a hero or a villain?

    Stone her!
    Strange to hear about your supermarket experiences, as I said, on Saturday the Tesco's on Thorpe Rd was full to brimming (bar loo roll), not a space on the shelves to be seen.

    I suppose a few days is a long time in a crisis.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    ukpaul said:


    eadric said:

    JM1 said:

    JM1 said:

    407 new cases here today, but 6337 tests (most on a single day so far i think) . Hopefully a consistent ramping up of testing will be a feature moving forward so we can really nail down the number of positive cases quickly (especially in hospitals).

    PS This means we are about 7 days behind France - which seems realistic.
    That also implies we are 6-7 days from Total Lockdown.
    It’s inevitable now, isn’t it? I thought Macron struck the right tone, this is a war and people must follow what they are told to do or not do. Compared to the weak, vague shambles we are getting here, they have a very clear message to rally behind.
    It's very very possible but by no means inevitable. The problem with these "we're about x days behind y" predictions is that they imply a uniformity accross continents where there isn't even a uniformity accross countries. Look at Italy outside Lombardy.

    That is NOT to say that it won't happen (Lord forbid I be tainted by Eadric's dreaded 'normalcy bias') but, as I said yesterday, for the sake of everyone's mental health, let's take each day as it comes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    IanB2 said:

    rpjs said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is that for real? They've got Viagra on the list for March 1st!
    IANAD but I think Viagra improves circulation generally so could be efficacious for patients with lower blood oxygen levels (assuming I understand that correctly).
    You forgot to add 'DYOR'

    It was the Thalidomide that I wasn't fancying.
    Thalidomide is quite an effective drug. Obviously not for pregnant women, but for everyone else it is fine.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    eadric said:

    Can some mathematician/epidemiologist talk me through a conundrum.

    I've been crunching the government's new numbers.

    They now hope 20,000 will die, rather than 250,000. A vast difference. And hooray!

    But does it make sense?

    Assume a death rate of 2%. A total mortality load of 20,000 therefore implies 1m will end up infected., or about 1.5% of the whole UK population.

    This is in total contrast to ALL the epidemiological predictions, which ranged from 20-80% of the country getting the bug. Even the most hopeful said that 20% was likely.

    1.5%?

    It doesn't add up, to me. Either lockdown is incredibly effective, or this figure of 20,000 is for this season, and they expect many more deaths next winter, spring, and so on, as the infection slowly spreads, despite periodic lockdowns.

    Thoughts?



    Adds up to me. Don't see any evidence anywhere that 20-80% are getting it. Not in Hubei, not on the Diamond Princess, nowhere.
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 649
    edited March 2020

    Israeli Nobel Laureate: Coronavirus spread is slowing

    "By plotting the data forward, Levitt has predicted that the virus will likely disappear from China by the end of March.

    THE REASON for the slowdown is due to the fact that exponential models assume that people with the virus will continue to infect others at a steady rate. In the early phase of COVID-19, that rate was 2.2 people a day on average."

    https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-nobel-laureate-Coronavirus-spread-is-slowing-621145

    Some hope at last!

    Sadly, he’s not an epidemiologist and all he’s doing is crunching numbers. Given the numbers from China aren’t exactly transparent it would take a massive amount of faith to believe it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,933
    eadric said:

    Can some mathematician/epidemiologist talk me through a conundrum.

    I've been crunching the government's new numbers.

    They now hope 20,000 will die, rather than 250,000. A vast difference. And hooray!

    But does it make sense?

    Assume a death rate of 2%. A total mortality load of 20,000 therefore implies 1m will end up infected., or about 1.5% of the whole UK population.

    This is in total contrast to ALL the epidemiological predictions, which ranged from 20-80% of the country getting the bug. Even the most hopeful said that 20% was likely.

    1.5%?

    It doesn't add up, to me. Either lockdown is incredibly effective, or this figure of 20,000 is for this season, and they expect many more deaths next winter, spring, and so on, as the infection slowly spreads, despite periodic lockdowns.

    Thoughts?

    Well, two questions.

    Firstly, is this an iceberg disease? Are 90% of cases asymptomatic? If that is the case, that means 10 million get the disease, and we spot one million of them.

    Secondly, how much will we crush new infections through the lockdown? If we assume a 90% drop off (which nowhere near as good as China managed), then we can have successive small "bumps". In which case economic costs will be high, but deaths low.

    Last week, I forecast 80-120,000 deaths. I now think it'll come in towards the lower end of that band. Simply, all the evidence is that lockdowns work. And when we relax the lockdowns we will (hopefully) combine it with South Korean style testing which will limit the ability of CV-19 to spread rapidly. We may need to do another lockdown at some point, but if we can move the new case doubling time from 4-5 days to 10-12 days, then the impact - while severe - is bearable.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209

    Prediction for this afternoon's presser - the government will champion their waiver on business rates and access to SSP as being what will save businesses and individuals from penury. When pressed Boris will waffle and try and bluster his way through the increasingly detailed and angry questions from the media pool.

    Yup. As I predicted, the government propose to do Fuck All.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1239910681886982144
    Does Sunak realise what he is doing here?
    That is a stupid question
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited March 2020
    The thing is, with all the measures now in force from governments around the world, and whether the virus is over quickly or not, having taken these measures governments now have a *direct responsibility* to their citizens to help them through the day-to-day results, with democratic legitimacy at stake in western countries. That doesn't mean sticking to the 2008 rulebook, or hovering around financial institutions, but providing money straight to the people that need it for the period that they will.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    Good to see the government has got its priorities straight:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1239945856930983936

    Honestly, these people are obsessed.

    I’d say deranged . They’re going to inflict more damage on businesses . How on earth will the infrastructure be in place in time even with a deal and companies so disrupted by the virus will find it impossible to get ready . And if there’s no deal this rancid government is going to put the final nail in the coffin by going to WTO .

    I’d think even some Leavers might say ok let’s just pause get on top of this virus should be the main priority .

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    rpjs said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is that for real? They've got Viagra on the list for March 1st!
    IANAD but I think Viagra improves circulation generally so could be efficacious for patients with lower blood oxygen levels (assuming I understand that correctly).
    You forgot to add 'DYOR'

    It was the Thalidomide that I wasn't fancying.
    Thalidomide is quite an effective drug. Obviously not for pregnant women, but for everyone else it is fine.
    When it first came back we almost treated it as a Controlled Drug..... locked storage, signatures, everything.

    What a difference from I first dispensed it.

    And bo, OI never heard of any damaged children in our area. Luckily!
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 434

    kinabalu said:

    The government should conduct an honest public information campaign to the effect that most goods, including food, come in by sea or air freight rather than air passenger cargo, and so are so far unaffected by closedowns. This would reduce the current peaks in demand to some extent.

    Reason for my "panic" buying - e.g. HUGE sack of rice today - is not the fear that stuff will run out. I don't think it will. I think the shelves will be full again quite soon. No, it's that I live in London - the epicentre - and as the epidemic rips over the next few weeks it will get less and less safe to go to places (like supermarkets) which are full of people. Therefore buy lots of stuff now in order not to have to go out shopping later.
    That's true. There's many reasons for so-called "panic" buying, and as I said a few days ago the very idea itself is often illusory and more convenient for authorities than individuals, but I do think that fear of international shutdown and imports is one of several things contributing to the high demand at the moment.
    Not so much "panic" buying - more people are "hunker down" buying. Go out once a week to top up, otherwise, keep the hell off the mean streets of Dodge...
    Yes. The problem with the idea of "panic buying", as I said last week, is that what appears irrational one moment can easily be rational the next. The condemnatory tone can also actually make people more self-righteous and aggressive to each other in supermarkets and make the social order situation worse. Stressing the need for everyone to manage their demand in order for everyone to benefit, rather than slating people for what may be individually good reasons for buying more than usual, and pointing out any positive factorson why a steady and continuous supply is still guaranteed, will cut more ice with people.
    Buying in slightly larger than usual quantities to reduce the frequency of trips to the supermarket is not just okay - it is commendable.

    On the other hand, there is a clear need to state loudly that it is selfish for young and healthy people to buy several months' worth of supplies for themselves, or for their young and healthy families.

    Of course, when talking to or about individuals, we should recognise that the individual may have circumstances that we don't know about. That's always the case.
  • Nissan suspends Sunderland production

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-51921683

    Another economic blow.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    As according to Murphy's Law, last week our fridge freezer died. Took milk out of the fridge on Friday and it felt room temperature despite the fridge saying it was 2 degrees. Turned the fridge off and on again and it now displayed 20 degrees as its temperature, absolutely all our food was ruined.

    Got the fridge sorted out yesterday so went shopping today to replenish stocks expecting to look like a panic buyer (since needing to refill everything we'd have in the fridge) but our local supermarkets already been cleaned out. Large supermarket but the chicken aisle was completely empty (besides the £15 organic chickens even now nobody wants to touch) and almost all the refrigerated aisles were empty too.

    Managed to get some milk and some fresh veg and meats that I wouldn't necessarily normally buy so now to plan some meals with what we were able to get rather than what we'd normally choose.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Do people think there's much chance of the Irish Sea crossings being halted, or made freight-only? (Asking for a friend)

    Rumours of the Isle of Wight ferries going freight only have been denied, but not a crazy idea.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    My son's friend is now self isolating with his family for 14 days. His dad has symptoms. What makes this slightly more interesting is that his dad is very high up in NHS Tayside. And he doesn't seem to be getting tested.

    Why the hell not? Can we really afford to have one of our senior doctors hors de combat for 14 days when he may or may not have the virus?

    Almost a quarter of his year is now off. Quite a lot of them will have been skiing in February.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    Ffs: just what we need, a dose of 80s style macho-management:

    Gatwick Airport said it has terminated the employment of 200 staff as part of “decisive action to protect the business”, PA reports.

    Wait to you see Heathrow's plans....
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    Chameleon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance says there are already likely to be 55,000 cases of coronavirus in UK but number of new cases could start to fall in 'two to three weeks' because of the government's crackdown on social contact

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8121845/Governments-chief-scientific-adviser-says-55-000-cases-coronavirus-UK.html

    That seems very optimistic....and I fear the wrong headline message.

    55,000 cases and 53 deaths is what you'd expect with seasonal flu.
    Seasonal flue is far more widespread than 55,000 cases

    Look at the stats for swine flu, (which killed kids as well)
    There was regularly 60,000 + cases per week

    Again, the world carried on

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom
    Swine flu killed less than 400 people in the UK. Just to give you a quick idea of scale, at the moment twice as many Italians are dying *every day* than total Italian deaths caused by swine flu.
    Look at the number that the experts thought swine flu would kill.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jul/16/swine-flu-cases-rise-britain

    Look at my other posts about normal flu, in the winter of 1999/2000 it killed 48000
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    nico67 said:

    Good to see the government has got its priorities straight:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1239945856930983936

    Honestly, these people are obsessed.

    I’d say deranged . They’re going to inflict more damage on businesses . How on earth will the infrastructure be in place in time even with a deal and companies so disrupted by the virus will find it impossible to get ready . And if there’s no deal this rancid government is going to put the final nail in the coffin by going to WTO .

    I’d think even some Leavers might say ok let’s just pause get on top of this virus should be the main priority .

    But, but, but. There are a few people who are going to make a LOT of money out of Brexit. And some of them have friends in high places.

    Or am I just getting paranoid?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,427
    Anyone with a rail or oyster season ticket should contact the train company or TfL (depending who they bought it from) for a refund. TfL at least are offering a more generous refund figure than is normally given and waiving the £10 admin fee.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,363
    edited March 2020
    kicorse said:

    kinabalu said:

    The government should conduct an honest public information campaign to the effect that most goods, including food, come in by sea or air freight rather than air passenger cargo, and so are so far unaffected by closedowns. This would reduce the current peaks in demand to some extent.

    Reason for my "panic" buying - e.g. HUGE sack of rice today - is not the fear that stuff will run out. I don't think it will. I think the shelves will be full again quite soon. No, it's that I live in London - the epicentre - and as the epidemic rips over the next few weeks it will get less and less safe to go to places (like supermarkets) which are full of people. Therefore buy lots of stuff now in order not to have to go out shopping later.
    That's true. There's many reasons for so-called "panic" buying, and as I said a few days ago the very idea itself is often illusory and more convenient for authorities than individuals, but I do think that fear of international shutdown and imports is one of several things contributing to the high demand at the moment.
    Not so much "panic" buying - more people are "hunker down" buying. Go out once a week to top up, otherwise, keep the hell off the mean streets of Dodge...
    Yes. The problem with the idea of "panic buying", as I said last week, is that what appears irrational one moment can easily be rational the next. The condemnatory tone can also actually make people more self-righteous and aggressive to each other in supermarkets and make the social order situation worse. Stressing the need for everyone to manage their demand in order for everyone to benefit, rather than slating people for what may be individually good reasons for buying more than usual, and pointing out any positive factorson why a steady and continuous supply is still guaranteed, will cut more ice with people.
    Buying in slightly larger than usual quantities to reduce the frequency of trips to the supermarket is not just okay - it is commendable.

    On the other hand, there is a clear need to state loudly that it is selfish for young and healthy people to buy several months' worth of supplies for themselves, or for their young and healthy families.

    Of course, when talking to or about individuals, we should recognise that the individual may have circumstances that we don't know about. That's always the case.
    We've probably got a couple of months of supplies, but that has been gradually accumulated over the past couple of months and added to the no-deal Brexit stock. No big shops in the last couple of weeks. Edit: Actually, probably not much more than a month. Partner's daughter is coming back from uni - another mouth to feed!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,502
    Asked if the new coronavirus measures could be in place for 18 months, the government’s chief scientific officer, Sir Patrick Vallance told the Health Select Committee he doesn't know.

    However he said they are likely to last for months, “certainly not a couple of weeks”.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    If the government does not come up with a proper package to support the whole economy this afternoon - somewhere north of 300 billion - this is the week the government loses the next election, deservedly so.

    Piddly £3k grants and 14 days SSP at £70 simply won’t cut it. Today is the day we learn whether Boris really is a Churchill or just a second rate Chamberlain. And whether Sunak understands the economy beyond what he learnt at a hedge fund.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    Foxy said:

    Do people think there's much chance of the Irish Sea crossings being halted, or made freight-only? (Asking for a friend)

    Rumours of the Isle of Wight ferries going freight only have been denied, but not a crazy idea.
    the silly FF doesn't fancy a bridge there too, does he?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,851

    nico67 said:

    Good to see the government has got its priorities straight:

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1239945856930983936

    Honestly, these people are obsessed.

    I’d say deranged . They’re going to inflict more damage on businesses . How on earth will the infrastructure be in place in time even with a deal and companies so disrupted by the virus will find it impossible to get ready . And if there’s no deal this rancid government is going to put the final nail in the coffin by going to WTO .

    I’d think even some Leavers might say ok let’s just pause get on top of this virus should be the main priority .

    But, but, but. There are a few people who are going to make a LOT of money out of Brexit. And some of them have friends in high places.

    Or am I just getting paranoid?
    Paranoid. ;)
  • spire2spire2 Posts: 183

    As according to Murphy's Law, last week our fridge freezer died. Took milk out of the fridge on Friday and it felt room temperature despite the fridge saying it was 2 degrees. Turned the fridge off and on again and it now displayed 20 degrees as its temperature, absolutely all our food was ruined.

    Got the fridge sorted out yesterday so went shopping today to replenish stocks expecting to look like a panic buyer (since needing to refill everything we'd have in the fridge) but our local supermarkets already been cleaned out. Large supermarket but the chicken aisle was completely empty (besides the £15 organic chickens even now nobody wants to touch) and almost all the refrigerated aisles were empty too.

    Managed to get some milk and some fresh veg and meats that I wouldn't necessarily normally buy so now to plan some meals with what we were able to get rather than what we'd normally choose.

    Over the past week , it seems that my local shops have stock which big supermarkets don't eg toilet rolls, pasta,
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    eadric said:

    Israeli Nobel Laureate: Coronavirus spread is slowing

    "By plotting the data forward, Levitt has predicted that the virus will likely disappear from China by the end of March.

    THE REASON for the slowdown is due to the fact that exponential models assume that people with the virus will continue to infect others at a steady rate. In the early phase of COVID-19, that rate was 2.2 people a day on average."

    https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-nobel-laureate-Coronavirus-spread-is-slowing-621145

    Some hope at last!

    Makes sense. Nothing we've seen whether in Wuhan or Hubei or on the Diamond Princess or elsewhere seems to endorse the modelling of 60-90% of the population getting this.
    This is very hopeful. If we do get a normal flu style crisis, as you predicted, rather than something considerably worse, I will buy myself humble pie and you a fine dinner, in the restaurant of your choice. As promised.
    I hope for all our sakes that one day we can have that dinner.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163

    Do people think there's much chance of the Irish Sea crossings being halted, or made freight-only? (Asking for a friend)

    The Isle of Man has issued a notice that non-Manx arrivals have to self-quarantine.

    https://www.three.fm/news/coronavirus/quarantine-for-anyone-travelling-to-island/
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578
    eadric said:

    Can some mathematician/epidemiologist talk me through a conundrum.

    I've been crunching the government's new numbers.

    They now hope 20,000 will die, rather than 250,000. A vast difference. And hooray!

    But does it make sense?

    Assume a death rate of 2%. A total mortality load of 20,000 therefore implies 1m will end up infected., or about 1.5% of the whole UK population.

    This is in total contrast to ALL the epidemiological predictions, which ranged from 20-80% of the country getting the bug. Even the most hopeful said that 20% was likely.

    1.5%?

    It doesn't add up, to me. Either lockdown is incredibly effective, or this figure of 20,000 is for this season, and they expect many more deaths next winter, spring, and so on, as the infection slowly spreads, despite periodic lockdowns.

    Thoughts?



    Did 20% of China get the virus?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    TOPPING said:

    ETHICAL DILEMMA QUERY:

    Strolled out today to see what real life looked like today. Popped in to Co-Op and Sainsbury's, full-ish shelves, no loo roll. Went to a local independent. Plenty of loo roll, as I walked in one old woman was picking up a bag of must have been six dozen packs (two to a pack) of it. Upon polite questioning it turns out she had ordered specially in advance from the shopkeeper. He was otherwise rationing people to one pack per person.

    Was she a hero or a villain?

    Rotten to the core
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    Really big difference between the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 today. It’s almost as if the market thinks the UK is going to be worse hit than most.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited March 2020
    kicorse said:

    kinabalu said:

    The government should conduct an honest public information campaign to the effect that most goods, including food, come in by sea or air freight rather than air passenger cargo, and so are so far unaffected by closedowns. This would reduce the current peaks in demand to some extent.

    Reason for my "panic" buying - e.g. HUGE sack of rice today - is not the fear that stuff will run out. I don't think it will. I think the shelves will be full again quite soon. No, it's that I live in London - the epicentre - and as the epidemic rips over the next few weeks it will get less and less safe to go to places (like supermarkets) which are full of people. Therefore buy lots of stuff now in order not to have to go out shopping later.
    That's true. There's many reasons for so-called "panic" buying, and as I said a few days ago the very idea itself is often illusory and more convenient for authorities than individuals, but I do think that fear of international shutdown and imports is one of several things contributing to the high demand at the moment.
    Not so much "panic" buying - more people are "hunker down" buying. Go out once a week to top up, otherwise, keep the hell off the mean streets of Dodge...
    Yes. The problem with the idea of "panic buying", as I said last week, is that what appears irrational one moment can easily be rational the next. The condemnatory tone can also actually make people more self-righteous and aggressive to each other in supermarkets and make the social order situation worse. Stressing the need for everyone to manage their demand in order for everyone to benefit, rather than slating people for what may be individually good reasons for buying more than usual, and pointing out any positive factorson why a steady and continuous supply is still guaranteed, will cut more ice with people.
    Buying in slightly larger than usual quantities to reduce the frequency of trips to the supermarket is not just okay - it is commendable.

    On the other hand, there is a clear need to state loudly that it is selfish for young or healthier, less vulnerable people to buy several months' worth of supplies for themselves, or for their young and healthy families.

    Of course, when talking to or about individuals, we should recognise that the individual may have circumstances that we don't know about. That's always the case.
    But the problem is everyone is intertwined in this context. Because a large proportion of the population is being ordered to stay at home, for instance, a considerable proportion of the demand, bought by young or healthier, less vulnerable people, will be for them. Many will also consider their children a vulnerable group. No one knows the details of everyone else's circumstances, ofcourse, so bitterness and acrimony ensues.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ETHICAL DILEMMA QUERY:

    Strolled out today to see what real life looked like today. Popped in to Co-Op and Sainsbury's, full-ish shelves, no loo roll. Went to a local independent. Plenty of loo roll, as I walked in one old woman was picking up a bag of must have been six dozen packs (two to a pack) of it. Upon polite questioning it turns out she had ordered specially in advance from the shopkeeper. He was otherwise rationing people to one pack per person.

    Was she a hero or a villain?

    Stone her!
    Strange to hear about your supermarket experiences, as I said, on Saturday the Tesco's on Thorpe Rd was full to brimming (bar loo roll), not a space on the shelves to be seen.

    I suppose a few days is a long time in a crisis.
    My wife went to Tesco Loughborough at lunchtime, it was cleared of anything meaningful. Even yeast for bread had gone.
    It was a similar story last Friday, but we went for weekly shop on Saturday and it was well stocked, all be it with restrictions on the amounts they'd let you buy.
    My mate at Melton Station says the Sainsbury's over the road from them is stripped bare. Just the sheer volume of people buying is overwhelming the stores. I was a bit shocked when he said they're closing the different sections such as fresh meat and the deli.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    America saying they are going to mail cheques out to american people....whats our government doing?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231
    JM1 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eadric said:

    Can some mathematician/epidemiologist talk me through a conundrum.

    I've been crunching the government's new numbers.

    They now hope 20,000 will die, rather than 250,000. A vast difference. And hooray!

    But does it make sense?

    Assume a death rate of 2%. A total mortality load of 20,000 therefore implies 1m will end up infected., or about 1.5% of the whole UK population.

    This is in total contrast to ALL the epidemiological predictions, which ranged from 20-80% of the country getting the bug. Even the most hopeful said that 20% was likely.

    1.5%?

    It doesn't add up, to me. Either lockdown is incredibly effective, or this figure of 20,000 is for this season, and they expect many more deaths next winter, spring, and so on, as the infection slowly spreads, despite periodic lockdowns.

    Thoughts?

    Well, two questions.

    Firstly, is this an iceberg disease? Are 90% of cases asymptomatic? If that is the case, that means 10 million get the disease, and we spot one million of them.

    Secondly, how much will we crush new infections through the lockdown? If we assume a 90% drop off (which nowhere near as good as China managed), then we can have successive small "bumps". In which case economic costs will be high, but deaths low.

    Last week, I forecast 80-120,000 deaths. I now think it'll come in towards the lower end of that band. Simply, all the evidence is that lockdowns work. And when we relax the lockdowns we will (hopefully) combine it with South Korean style testing which will limit the ability of CV-19 to spread rapidly. We may need to do another lockdown at some point, but if we can move the new case doubling time from 4-5 days to 10-12 days, then the impact - while severe - is bearable.
    Why do you think it will be as high as 80K deaths? Say we have 20K deaths this wave (high end) I'm curious as to where the 80K comes from...
    If we have 20K deaths in which Corona is implicated, as per the post above we will have stabbed our economy in the spinal column for what is effectively a seasonal flu outbreak. :-/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,502
    I think 20,000 figure has to be for this "season".
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,147

    spire2 said:

    The lockdown will not last as long as many anticipate. Once new cases start dropping theres going to be huge pressure on the government from business to relax restrictions.Also so many people are psychologically unable to survive lack of social contact and will start demanding reopening of bars, restaurants etc.

    I predict the very people agitating for `Lockdown Now' will -- after 6 weeks in a house with their cooped-up children -- be the ones agitating for `End to House Arrest'.
    I live in a beautiful and very quiet part of Spain. After just 3 days I'm aching for the lockdown to end and am generally law-abiding and compliant. Believe me I am used to things being very quiet and staying in - but this is awful.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    Comfort for the youngsters:
    https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1239951525729927171?s=19
    9% of cases in health workers a bit worrying though.
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    Cyclefree said:

    If the government does not come up with a proper package to support the whole economy this afternoon - somewhere north of 300 billion - this is the week the government loses the next election, deservedly so.

    Piddly £3k grants and 14 days SSP at £70 simply won’t cut it. Today is the day we learn whether Boris really is a Churchill or just a second rate Chamberlain. And whether Sunak understands the economy beyond what he learnt at a hedge fund.

    Such certainty, such self confidence, where has she been all our lives, what would we do without her ........
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,586

    eadric said:

    Can some mathematician/epidemiologist talk me through a conundrum.

    I've been crunching the government's new numbers.

    They now hope 20,000 will die, rather than 250,000. A vast difference. And hooray!

    But does it make sense?

    Assume a death rate of 2%. A total mortality load of 20,000 therefore implies 1m will end up infected., or about 1.5% of the whole UK population.

    This is in total contrast to ALL the epidemiological predictions, which ranged from 20-80% of the country getting the bug. Even the most hopeful said that 20% was likely.

    1.5%?

    It doesn't add up, to me. Either lockdown is incredibly effective, or this figure of 20,000 is for this season, and they expect many more deaths next winter, spring, and so on, as the infection slowly spreads, despite periodic lockdowns.

    Thoughts?



    Did 20% of China get the virus?
    We don't really know do we but the best answer is probably 'not yet'.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited March 2020

    If we have 20K deaths in which Corona is implicated, as per the post above we will have stabbed our economy in the spinal column for what is effectively a seasonal flu outbreak. :-/

    That's silly.

    If we have 20k deaths having stabbed our economy then we could have had a quarter of a million to a million or more had we not done those actions.
This discussion has been closed.