The government has not nationalised the railways. BEFORE: Passenger rail operations owned by the state, let on an exclusive fixed term contract to a private operator to increasingly run services and rolling stock dictated by the owner. Revenue risk largely taken by the state under "cap and collar" clauses where losses above a particular level sees the contract terminated. AFTER: Passenger rail operations owned by the state, contracted to a private operator on a management contract to operate services dictated by the owner. Revenue risk taken by the state.
For all the flap the likes of Virgin, First etc never owned the rail operations they ran. As they don't own them their ownership cannot be reclaimed by the state. Its great news that the failed experiment of competitive tendering has been scrapped - hopefully the vast increase in operating costs can now be completely removed and the saving used to cover some of the inevitable losses.
From Facebook (so can't vouch for its veracity) but intuitively makes sense:
“Why do we need to shut places where people group?
Remember this: VIRAL LOAD
There will be a lot about this. Why is it important? With this virus, the amount of virus in your blood at first infection directly relates to the severity of the illness you will suffer. This isn’t unusual - HIV management is all about reducing viral load to keep people alive longer. BUT it’s very important in COVID-19.
So if you are in, say, a pub or religious building or entertainment venue with 200 people and a large number don’t have symptoms but are shedding, you are breathing in lots of droplets per minute and absorbing a high load of the virus. In a crowded space. They become ill over the next 48 hours. You then three days later wonder why you can’t breathe and end up in hospital. You’d decided because you were young and healthy it wasn’t going to be a problem. Wrong.
Fortunately but unfortunately because the elderly are isolating quite well, the initial UK data suggests that all age groups above 20 are almost equally represented in ITUs in England. Most of the cases are in London but the wave is moving outwards. This means that being under 60 and fit and well doesn’t seem to be as protective as we thought. Why? Viral load.
This may be skewed simply by the fact that too many Londoners didn’t do as asked and congregated in large groups in confined spaces and got a large initial viral load. They then went home and infected their wider families. Which is why, as London is overwhelmed, we need to shut everything down to save the rest of the UK. We are a week at most behind London.
Our sympathies go out to the families affected in London and the critical care teams battling right now to save as many as they can.
If I sit with one person and catch this virus, I get a small viral load. My immune system will start to fight it and by the time the virus starts replicating, I’m ready to kill it.
No medicines will help this process meaningfully hence there is no “cure” for this virus. All we can do is support you with a ventilator and hope your immune system can catch up fast enough.
If I sit in the same room with six people, all shedding I get six times the initial dose. The rise in viral load is faster than my immune system can cope with and it is overrun. I then become critically ill and need me (or an ITU/HDU specialist) to fix it instead of just being at home and being ok in the end.
REMEMBER: THINK ABOUT VIRAL LOAD
I am not a doctor but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. The idea that you get the virus worse because you are exposed to a lot of it just feels wrong. There is obviously a critical level of exposure which allows enough threads of the virus to enter your system and self replicate there to the point you have infection. Once you are exposed to that level of exposure your own system takes over and eventually you will have enough virus in you to start shedding it in your sneezes, mucous and sweat allowing the virus to pass on.
Clearly if you are in a large group you are more likely to be exposed to that critical mass of virus. But does more make a difference? I really have my doubts.
I don't think intuition has much part to play here. No idea what the answer is.
Well there's nothing like a bunch of completely unqualified people having a medical speculation. Let's join in.
Which is my point about the statistics
WHO and John Hopkins CSSE currently have the mortality figure at 4.3%.
Yes, but it is perfectly reasonable to identify potential flaws in data, and the expertise you need for that isn't (necessarily) medical. You can't just say "these are the official statistics, so let's use them". See humorous graph from China down thread.
"The mean viral load of severe cases was around 60 times higher than that of mild cases, suggesting that higher viral loads might be associated with severe clinical outcomes."
Again I want to be diffident about this but is that article not saying that those who have a lot of virus in their system are more likely to become severely ill? It will no doubt be an important tool in identifying who is likely to need iCU care and there are no doubt really important questions about why the virus replicates so much more in some than others but does it have anything to do with how you are infected in the first place?
From Facebook (so can't vouch for its veracity) but intuitively makes sense:
“Why do we need to shut places where people group?
Remember this: VIRAL LOAD
There will be a lot about this. Why is it important? With this virus, the amount of virus in your blood at first infection directly relates to the severity of the illness you will suffer. This isn’t unusual - HIV management is all about reducing viral load to keep people alive longer. BUT it’s very important in COVID-19.
So if you are in, say, a pub or religious building or entertainment venue with 200 people and a large number don’t have symptoms but are shedding, you are breathing in lots of droplets per minute and absorbing a high load of the virus. In a crowded space. They become ill over the next 48 hours. You then three days later wonder why you can’t breathe and end up in hospital. You’d decided because you were young and healthy it wasn’t going to be a problem. Wrong.
Fortunately but unfortunately because the elderly are isolating quite well, the initial UK data suggests that all age groups above 20 are almost equally represented in ITUs in England. Most of the cases are in London but the wave is moving outwards. This means that being under 60 and fit and well doesn’t seem to be as protective as we thought. Why? Viral load.
This may be skewed simply by the fact that too many Londoners didn’t do as asked and congregated in large groups in confined spaces and got a large initial viral load. They then went home and infected their wider families. Which is why, as London is overwhelmed, we need to shut everything down to save the rest of the UK. We are a week at most behind London.
Our sympathies go out to the families affected in London and the critical care teams battling right now to save as many as they can.
If I sit with one person and catch this virus, I get a small viral load. My immune system will start to fight it and by the time the virus starts replicating, I’m ready to kill it.
No medicines will help this process meaningfully hence there is no “cure” for this virus. All we can do is support you with a ventilator and hope your immune system can catch up fast enough.
If I sit in the same room with six people, all shedding I get six times the initial dose. The rise in viral load is faster than my immune system can cope with and it is overrun. I then become critically ill and need me (or an ITU/HDU specialist) to fix it instead of just being at home and being ok in the end.
REMEMBER: THINK ABOUT VIRAL LOAD
I am not a doctor but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. The idea that you get the virus worse because you are exposed to a lot of it just feels wrong. There is obviously a critical level of exposure which allows enough threads of the virus to enter your system and self replicate there to the point you have infection. Once you are exposed to that level of exposure your own system takes over and eventually you will have enough virus in you to start shedding it in your sneezes, mucous and sweat allowing the virus to pass on.
Clearly if you are in a large group you are more likely to be exposed to that critical mass of virus. But does more make a difference? I really have my doubts.
It does make a difference.
Why?
Viral replication lead time. It takes longer for a virus to replicate than bacteria in general. If you start with less then the growth to a critical level will take a few extra days allowing the body time to fend it off. If you start with more then it can grow more quickly and overwhelm the immune system before it has found the correct antibody.
Wonder where they got all these ventilators from, as the whole world is trying to buy them and the big international players that make them, their increase in output is tiny compared to the demand.
Local manufacturers.
They interviewed the biggest UK manufacturer the other day and they weren't talking about being able to make 1000s etc in a week, just a few 100.
A lot of people will surely have gone to their second homes in order to self-isolate. Most of us will be too skint even to have second homes, and there are reasons owning second homes is selfish, but surely in this case, intentions were good.
Trouble with that approach is everyone thinks they are exceptions. Down that road lies madness.
I think one problem is that official (or quasi-official) guidance is shifting constantly as the egg-heads get more evidence from day to day. Don't go out but don't stockpile so you need to go shopping more often. Visit and help elderly neighbours but without actually visiting them or going out. Visit national parks to escape crowded cities, but don't. We saw last week even the Prime Minister got it wrong and right in the same sentence. I am not sure we should be quick to condemn.
I'm sorry, but the people in Richmond Park are exactly the sort of people who ought to be able to think for themselves.
Is it not obvious that there is a distinction between going outside for some fresh air and exercise on your own, trying not to get too close to people, and going for afternoon out in Richmond Park?
It crucially depends how many other people have the same idea at the same time. Remember it is just days since national parks were urging people to visit them for this reason, until too many visitors turned up.
Were our national parks urging people to visit? I can find links to US parks doing that, but I can't see where UK national parks were doing the same.
National trust were. The viral load point is absolutely critical. We all thought this was binary and it isn't. This means herd immunity theory in its crudest form is nonsense.
Ah right, I did hear that they had to shut after too many people turned up.
As for viral load, lets see how long the Dutch carry on as normal.
Wonder where they got all these ventilators from, as the whole world is trying to buy them and the big international players that make them, their increase in output is tiny compared to the demand.
Local manufacturers.
They interviewed the biggest UK manufacturer the other day and they weren't talking about being able to make 1000s etc in a week, just a few 100.
A few hundred here, a few hundred there, suddenly you're talking real numbers.
First step toward rail nationalisation just announced
If we are on the road to a complete lockdown why are we so keen to keep the trains running?
Its the companies (franchises) that are looking at financial collapse through lack of customers that the government is stepping in to protect.
We clearly need to keep these companies going like so many companies. We will need a rail service when this is over. But transporting people all around the UK at the moment doesn’t sound a plan.
The shortages at Waitrose seem to be getting worse. Up to now, it's just been toilet paper. Now they can't provide toilet paper, paracetamol, flour, eggs, and zinc tablets.
First step toward rail nationalisation just announced
If we are on the road to a complete lockdown why are we so keen to keep the trains running?
Its the companies (franchises) that are looking at financial collapse through lack of customers that the government is stepping in to protect.
We clearly need to keep these companies going like so many companies. We will need a rail service when this is over. But transporting people all around the UK at the moment doesn’t sound a plan.
How do you want key workers to get in to work if their commute is cancelled?
From Facebook (so can't vouch for its veracity) but intuitively makes sense:
“Why do we need to shut places where people group?
Remember this: VIRAL LOAD
There will be a lot about this. Why is it important? With this virus, the amount of virus in your blood at first infection directly relates to the severity of the illness you will suffer. This isn’t unusual - HIV management is all about reducing viral load to keep people alive longer. BUT it’s very important in COVID-19.
So if you are in, say, a pub or religious building or entertainment venue with 200 people and a large number don’t have symptoms but are shedding, you are breathing in lots of droplets per minute and absorbing a high load of the virus. In a crowded space. They become ill over the next 48 hours. You then three days later wonder why you can’t breathe and end up in hospital. You’d decided because you were young and healthy it wasn’t going to be a problem. Wrong.
Fortunately but unfortunately because the elderly are isolating quite well, the initial UK data suggests that all age groups above 20 are almost equally represented in ITUs in England. Most of the cases are in London but the wave is moving outwards. This means that being under 60 and fit and well doesn’t seem to be as protective as we thought. Why? Viral load.
This may be skewed simply by the fact that too many Londoners didn’t do as asked and congregated in large groups in confined spaces and got a large initial viral load. They then went home and infected their wider families. Which is why, as London is overwhelmed, we need to shut everything down to save the rest of the UK. We are a week at most behind London.
Our sympathies go out to the families affected in London and the critical care teams battling right now to save as many as they can.
If I sit with one person and catch this virus, I get a small viral load. My immune system will start to fight it and by the time the virus starts replicating, I’m ready to kill it.
No medicines will help this process meaningfully hence there is no “cure” for this virus. All we can do is support you with a ventilator and hope your immune system can catch up fast enough.
If I sit in the same room with six people, all shedding I get six times the initial dose. The rise in viral load is faster than my immune system can cope with and it is overrun. I then become critically ill and need me (or an ITU/HDU specialist) to fix it instead of just being at home and being ok in the end.
REMEMBER: THINK ABOUT VIRAL LOAD
I am not a doctor but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. The idea that you get the virus worse because you are exposed to a lot of it just feels wrong. There is obviously a critical level of exposure which allows enough threads of the virus to enter your system and self replicate there to the point you have infection. Once you are exposed to that level of exposure your own system takes over and eventually you will have enough virus in you to start shedding it in your sneezes, mucous and sweat allowing the virus to pass on.
Clearly if you are in a large group you are more likely to be exposed to that critical mass of virus. But does more make a difference? I really have my doubts.
It does make a difference.
Why?
Because the more you are infected by the more virus will be in your system and multiplying before your own immune system gets a chance to respond, making it harder for your immune system to respond.
This is why if a husband gets it mildly his wife who catches it from him is more likely to get it severely (or vice-versa), because they've caught more of a load. Its also why isolating works even if you still catch it.
There must be a critical level below which your immune defences and resist the virus. That level will obviously vary with the health of the individual so those with compromised immune systems are more at risk. Beyond that I would like to see data and expert analysis.
From Facebook (so can't vouch for its veracity) but intuitively makes sense:
“Why do we need to shut places where people group?
Remember this: VIRAL LOAD
There will be a lot about this. Why is it important? With this virus, the amount of virus in your blood at first infection directly relates to the severity of the illness you will suffer. This isn’t unusual - HIV management is all about reducing viral load to keep people alive longer. BUT it’s very important in COVID-19.
So if you are in, say, a pub or religious building or entertainment venue with 200 people and a large number don’t have symptoms but are shedding, you are breathing in lots of droplets per minute and absorbing a high load of the virus. In a crowded space. They become ill over the next 48 hours. You then three days later wonder why you can’t breathe and end up in hospital. You’d decided because you were young and healthy it wasn’t going to be a problem. Wrong.
Fortunately but unfortunately because the elderly are isolating quite well, the initial UK data suggests that all age groups above 20 are almost equally represented in ITUs in England. Most of the cases are in London but the wave is moving outwards. This means that being under 60 and fit and well doesn’t seem to be as protective as we thought. Why? Viral load.
This may be skewed simply by the fact that too many Londoners didn’t do as asked and congregated in large groups in confined spaces and got a large initial viral load. They then went home and infected their wider families. Which is why, as London is overwhelmed, we need to shut everything down to save the rest of the UK. We are a week at most behind London.
Our sympathies go out to the families affected in London and the critical care teams battling right now to save as many as they can.
If I sit with one person and catch this virus, I get a small viral load. My immune system will start to fight it and by the time the virus starts replicating, I’m ready to kill it.
No medicines will help this process meaningfully hence there is no “cure” for this virus. All we can do is support you with a ventilator and hope your immune system can catch up fast enough.
If I sit in the same room with six people, all shedding I get six times the initial dose. The rise in viral load is faster than my immune system can cope with and it is overrun. I then become critically ill and need me (or an ITU/HDU specialist) to fix it instead of just being at home and being ok in the end.
REMEMBER: THINK ABOUT VIRAL LOAD
Precisely. Not enough is made of this point. For personal health it’s not about whether you get it but how you get it. This is why doctors and nurses in hospitals are at so much risk.
If you are generally self isolating, but catch it in some chance encounter, it is unlikely to be particularly dangerous to you, and, as you are generally self isolating, there is unlikely to be significant risk of onward transmission.
This seems to me to be confusing 2 separate things. The first is whether you catch it or not. If you do I remain to be convinced that how you catch it is relevant. The second is whether you are at risk of passing it on. Obviously self isolation is absolutely key to that.
No doubt Foxy will be along in due course.
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison. —Paracelsus
Meanwhile an initial promising treatment lowers viral load:
Before I even start to read the thread may I say how proud Mike and Robert should be in the huge success of PB. It is without doubt a forum of intense political debate across the political divide and should be essential reading to all policy makers and politicians
At times it gets overheated but the stress and strain in politics creates controversy and strong opinions
All the very best Mike and Robert and continue with your good works
Who is this person because this really isn't a good time to try to be funny by making up stupid graphs, since there are people dim enough to believe that they're the actual official numbers.
From Facebook (so can't vouch for its veracity) but intuitively makes sense:
“Why do we need to shut places where people group?
Remember this: VIRAL LOAD
There will be a lot about this. Why is it important? With this virus, the amount of virus in your blood at first infection directly relates to the severity of the illness you will suffer. This isn’t unusual - HIV management is all about reducing viral load to keep people alive longer. BUT it’s very important in COVID-19.
So if you are in, say, a pub or religious building or entertainment venue with 200 people and a large number don’t have symptoms but are shedding, you are breathing in lots of droplets per minute and absorbing a high load of the virus. In a crowded space. They become ill over the next 48 hours. You then three days later wonder why you can’t breathe and end up in hospital. You’d decided because you were young and healthy it wasn’t going to be a problem. Wrong.
Fortunately but unfortunately because the elderly are isolating quite well, the initial UK data suggests that all age groups above 20 are almost equally represented in ITUs in England. Most of the cases are in London but the wave is moving outwards. This means that being under 60 and fit and well doesn’t seem to be as protective as we thought. Why? Viral load.
This may be skewed simply by the fact that too many Londoners didn’t do as asked and congregated in large groups in confined spaces and got a large initial viral load. They then went home and infected their wider families. Which is why, as London is overwhelmed, we need to shut everything down to save the rest of the UK. We are a week at most behind London.
Our sympathies go out to the families affected in London and the critical care teams battling right now to save as many as they can.
If I sit with one person and catch this virus, I get a small viral load. My immune system will start to fight it and by the time the virus starts replicating, I’m ready to kill it.
No medicines will help this process meaningfully hence there is no “cure” for this virus. All we can do is support you with a ventilator and hope your immune system can catch up fast enough.
If I sit in the same room with six people, all shedding I get six times the initial dose. The rise in viral load is faster than my immune system can cope with and it is overrun. I then become critically ill and need me (or an ITU/HDU specialist) to fix it instead of just being at home and being ok in the end.
REMEMBER: THINK ABOUT VIRAL LOAD
I am not a doctor but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. The idea that you get the virus worse because you are exposed to a lot of it just feels wrong. There is obviously a critical level of exposure which allows enough threads of the virus to enter your system and self replicate there to the point you have infection. Once you are exposed to that level of exposure your own system takes over and eventually you will have enough virus in you to start shedding it in your sneezes, mucous and sweat allowing the virus to pass on.
Clearly if you are in a large group you are more likely to be exposed to that critical mass of virus. But does more make a difference? I really have my doubts.
It does make a difference.
Why?
Because the more you are infected by the more virus will be in your system and multiplying before your own immune system gets a chance to respond, making it harder for your immune system to respond.
This is why if a husband gets it mildly his wife who catches it from him is more likely to get it severely (or vice-versa), because they've caught more of a load. Its also why isolating works even if you still catch it.
There must be a critical level below which your immune defences and resist the virus. That level will obviously vary with the health of the individual so those with compromised immune systems are more at risk. Beyond that I would like to see data and expert analysis.
Indeed but the point is that for everyone who does so the more you can reduce your viral load (even if you do get exposed) the easier your immune system will find it - while even healthy young people can find their system overwhelmed if they get exposed too much, hence why doctors and nurses are at such risk.
Wonder where they got all these ventilators from, as the whole world is trying to buy them and the big international players that make them, their increase in output is tiny compared to the demand.
Local manufacturers.
They interviewed the biggest UK manufacturer the other day and they weren't talking about being able to make 1000s etc in a week, just a few 100.
GTech CEO openly said on Sky they would be manufacturing 1,000 a day
Who is this person because this really isn't a good time to try to be funny by making up stupid graphs, since there are people dim enough to believe that they're the actual official numbers.
The government has not nationalised the railways. BEFORE: Passenger rail operations owned by the state, let on an exclusive fixed term contract to a private operator to increasingly run services and rolling stock dictated by the owner. Revenue risk largely taken by the state under "cap and collar" clauses where losses above a particular level sees the contract terminated. AFTER: Passenger rail operations owned by the state, contracted to a private operator on a management contract to operate services dictated by the owner. Revenue risk taken by the state.
For all the flap the likes of Virgin, First etc never owned the rail operations they ran. As they don't own them their ownership cannot be reclaimed by the state. Its great news that the failed experiment of competitive tendering has been scrapped - hopefully the vast increase in operating costs can now be completely removed and the saving used to cover some of the inevitable losses.
Hear hear!
One of the few small positives in an otherwise unremittingly bleak outlook.
First step toward rail nationalisation just announced
If we are on the road to a complete lockdown why are we so keen to keep the trains running?
Its the companies (franchises) that are looking at financial collapse through lack of customers that the government is stepping in to protect.
We clearly need to keep these companies going like so many companies. We will need a rail service when this is over. But transporting people all around the UK at the moment doesn’t sound a plan.
How do you want key workers to get in to work if their commute is cancelled?
Obviously we need to keep local networks going. But intercity (or whatever they are called these days)?
Even if it isnt and he did people are allowed to seek darkly comic takes to serious matters, particularly so long as they still act seriously on matters of public health.
People react to things in different ways and the variety of natural human reactions, including inappropriate levity, doesnt just stop even if the gravity of the situation will suppress it. Black comedy remains a thing.
It's ok even with a very serious matter to attempt to lighten up now and then, however briefly or trivially. It might even be we should seize what opportunities to do so that we can.
I am not a doctor but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. The idea that you get the virus worse because you are exposed to a lot of it just feels wrong. There is obviously a critical level of exposure which allows enough threads of the virus to enter your system and self replicate there to the point you have infection. Once you are exposed to that level of exposure your own system takes over and eventually you will have enough virus in you to start shedding it in your sneezes, mucous and sweat allowing the virus to pass on.
Clearly if you are in a large group you are more likely to be exposed to that critical mass of virus. But does more make a difference? I really have my doubts.
It does make a difference.
Why?
Viral replication lead time. It takes longer for a virus to replicate than bacteria in general. If you start with less then the growth to a critical level will take a few extra days allowing the body time to fend it off. If you start with more then it can grow more quickly and overwhelm the immune system before it has found the correct antibody.
The concept of ID50 - the viral dose required to infect 50% of subjects - is a common one.
Here's a paper on the MERS coronavirus in mice:
Characterization and Demonstration of the Value of a Lethal Mouse Model of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection and Disease https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/90/1/57.full.pdf Characterized animal models are needed for studying the pathogenesis of and evaluating medical countermeasures for persisting Mid- dle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infections. Here, we further characterized a lethal transgenic mouse model of MERS-CoV infection and disease that globally expresses human CD26 (hCD26)/DPP4. The 50% infectious dose (ID50) and lethal dose (LD50) of virus were estimated to be <1 and 10 TCID50 of MERS-CoV, respectively. Neutralizing antibody developed in the surviving mice from the ID50/LD50 determinations, and all were fully immune to challenge with 100 LD50 of MERS-CoV....</i>
Clearly it is not possible to do such tests with human subjects. (Though I would guess that similar work was done in human volunteers, with various non lethal respiratory viruses, by the Common Cold Unit.)
Who is this person because this really isn't a good time to try to be funny by making up stupid graphs, since there are people dim enough to believe that they're the actual official numbers.
I know that some people have tried to dilute that figure by saying there are far more people with it than currently tested, but then if (entirely plausible) rumours from China are true the same can be said for the number of fatalities.
We can only work with the official statistics we have: 341,524 confirmed cases and 14,747 deaths = 4.3%
Even more reason to heed your very wise words about avoiding social contact.
No, you don't use flawed statistics and assume they are correct, simply because there are no better ones.
.
No but I'm perfectly happy to accept the expert stats for now issued by The World Health Organisation and John Hopkins Centre GSSE.
Rather, that is, from a couple of armchair pundits with degrees in PPE postulating on PB
(that's light-hearted by the way before Felix jumps on me again)
They’re not “expert” stats though. They’re just a collation of officially released figures and crude deductive formulas with no attempt at analysis or extent to which figures are comparable. On the basis of Worldometer you’d wonder what the fuss is about in the U.K. given that we’ve apparently only got 20 serious active cases. Hospitals must be sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
Who is this person because this really isn't a good time to try to be funny by making up stupid graphs, since there are people dim enough to believe that they're the actual official numbers.
From Facebook (so can't vouch for its veracity) but intuitively makes sense:
Perhaps best not to share then? This is how rumours and half-truths spread, particularly if they intuitively make sense.
I think the audience here are sufficiently worldly wise to make up their own minds. Since it reinforces, rather than contradicts, government advice, and also provides a rationale for why it is valid, I don't see what harm it can do.
"It's the dose that makes the poison" Perhaps with viruses its different. Perhaps not.
Sorry but I disagree completely. We should be taking great care to share information that is verified, not anonymous facebook posts, particularly when talking about how disease spreads.
It's a very small leap from your post to making alterations to official advice. You can see already that people on this thread now have a bunch of theories, some of which may be true and others which may not.
Who is this person because this really isn't a good time to try to be funny by making up stupid graphs, since there are people dim enough to believe that they're the actual official numbers.
Here's the 'actual' graph actually. So, it's as stated close.
BUT...
The fake graph implies the Chinese figures are censored / made up. The real graph shows that China's drastic steps have contained the spread of C-19 (for now).
Some people will see the fake graph and believe that it shows the Chinese approach has not worked. That's not in any way helpful.
I am not a doctor but that sounds extremely unlikely to me. The idea that you get the virus worse because you are exposed to a lot of it just feels wrong. There is obviously a critical level of exposure which allows enough threads of the virus to enter your system and self replicate there to the point you have infection. Once you are exposed to that level of exposure your own system takes over and eventually you will have enough virus in you to start shedding it in your sneezes, mucous and sweat allowing the virus to pass on.
Clearly if you are in a large group you are more likely to be exposed to that critical mass of virus. But does more make a difference? I really have my doubts.
I'm with you on this. Don't know how you feel about that, but I am.
At the time of infection you can "get it bad" as opposed to "getting it good", regardless of factors such as immune system, age and general health?
No, I don't like that. It sounds like bollocks.
But of course I will accept it as true if there is an expert consensus that it is.
I know that some people have tried to dilute that figure by saying there are far more people with it than currently tested, but then if (entirely plausible) rumours from China are true the same can be said for the number of fatalities.
We can only work with the official statistics we have: 341,524 confirmed cases and 14,747 deaths = 4.3%
Even more reason to heed your very wise words about avoiding social contact.
No, you don't use flawed statistics and assume they are correct, simply because there are no better ones.
.
No but I'm perfectly happy to accept the expert stats for now issued by The World Health Organisation and John Hopkins Centre GSSE.
Rather, that is, from a couple of armchair pundits with degrees in PPE postulating on PB
(that's light-hearted by the way before Felix jumps on me again)
Who is this person because this really isn't a good time to try to be funny by making up stupid graphs, since there are people dim enough to believe that they're the actual official numbers.
Who is this person because this really isn't a good time to try to be funny by making up stupid graphs, since there are people dim enough to believe that they're the actual official numbers.
Here's the 'actual' graph actually. So, it's as stated close.
BUT...
The fake graph implies the Chinese figures are censored / made up. The real graph shows that China's drastic steps have contained the spread of C-19 (for now).
Some people will see the fake graph and believe that it shows the Chinese approach has not worked. That's not in any way helpful.
Fair point, decision makers will not be affected and public buy in necessary first escalating measures doesnt seem like it would be impacted more by people doubting events in China than people who simply ignore any advice. Twitter is not britain.
That is very good news. I have no objections at all under the circumstances to the bill's proposals. The Government must have the power to do what is necessary to deal with the crisis. But there was no reason at all not to have it reviewed after 6 months rather than 2 years. I fully expect it will be necessary to have the measures in place for longer but that must be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
Christ alive, no wonder he looks knackered. Lets also hope Mr G-Tech is correct with his 1000 a week claim for his design.
Cue the presser question - why have we not got more?
The press behaviour is deplorable. Mr Yorkshire Tea announces 80% pay, not enough. More than double the ventilators in a week, with the likes of G-Tech ready to make 1000s more and do an amazing deal with the whole of the private health sector for beds, staff and kit, why don't we have more.
Cuomo gave the US press both barrels yesterday when they tried this bullshit.
Who is this person because this really isn't a good time to try to be funny by making up stupid graphs, since there are people dim enough to believe that they're the actual official numbers.
He's not talking about the graph I posted - which as you say isn't a log scale and shows a very plausible-looking curve for a successful strategy, he's talking about the second one Slackbladder posted, which shows the a line going up then going totally flat, which just makes it impossible to see how the decline happened (per the Chinese figures).
All self-defined "key workers". If you have to work to get paid then its easy to define yourself as a key worker. Have read an awful lot over the weekend from actual business owners looking at the available detail of the various Sunak announcements. Despite the HYUFD ramping the schemes are very difficult and inflexible, hence so many businesses chosing to just lay people off as easier / less risky. The Business Interruption Loan scheme literally not worth the post-it note its written on.
As more and more businesses implode I expect the same response from the Tories as we got with the Bedroom Tax and Universal Credit - quoting the propaganda line whilst in the Real World it is an unworkable disaster. Tories used to understand business and be the party of business and of entrepreneurism and the working man - where did it all go wrong?
I know that some people have tried to dilute that figure by saying there are far more people with it than currently tested, but then if (entirely plausible) rumours from China are true the same can be said for the number of fatalities.
We can only work with the official statistics we have: 341,524 confirmed cases and 14,747 deaths = 4.3%
Even more reason to heed your very wise words about avoiding social contact.
No, you don't use flawed statistics and assume they are correct, simply because there are no better ones.
.
No but I'm perfectly happy to accept the expert stats for now issued by The World Health Organisation and John Hopkins Centre GSSE.
Rather, that is, from a couple of armchair pundits with degrees in PPE postulating on PB
(that's light-hearted by the way before Felix jumps on me again)
It seems to me that you are mostly happy to accept the most negative of whatever data, predictions and assessments are available. Which is neither sensible nor helpful.
Christ alive, no wonder he looks knackered. Lets also hope Mr G-Tech is correct with his 1000 a week claim for his design.
Cue the presser question - why have we not got more?
The press behaviour is deplorable. Mr Yorkshire Tea announces 80% pay, not enough. More than double the ventilators in a week, with the likes of G-Tech ready to make 1000s more and do an amazing deal with the whole of the private health sector for beds, staff and kit, why don't we have more.
Cuomo gave the US press both barrels yesterday when they tried this bullshit.
Maybe it is because we live in an era of less reverent press behaviour towards government and we’ve not really seen a crisis of this kind in this age, but I do find the role of the press in all this highly irresponsible and possibly dangerous. I am all for speaking truth to power, but the need to find an angle, any angle, to stoke more fear, create more confusion or just needle away in the background is really not helping IMHO.
I know that some people have tried to dilute that figure by saying there are far more people with it than currently tested, but then if (entirely plausible) rumours from China are true the same can be said for the number of fatalities.
We can only work with the official statistics we have: 341,524 confirmed cases and 14,747 deaths = 4.3%
Even more reason to heed your very wise words about avoiding social contact.
No, you don't use flawed statistics and assume they are correct, simply because there are no better ones.
.
No but I'm perfectly happy to accept the expert stats for now issued by The World Health Organisation and John Hopkins Centre GSSE.
Rather, that is, from a couple of armchair pundits with degrees in PPE postulating on PB
(that's light-hearted by the way before Felix jumps on me again)
They’re not “expert” stats though. They’re just a collation of officially released figures and crude deductive formulas with no attempt at analysis or extent to which figures are comparable. On the basis of Worldometer you’d wonder what the fuss is about in the U.K. given that we’ve apparently only got 20 serious active cases. Hospitals must be sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
Last I heard England's chief medical officer thought the fatality rate would be 1% or less - if Mysticrose is sincere about trusting "expert stats"
"we estimate that the overall symptomatic case fatality risk (the probability of dying after developing symptoms) of COVID-19 in Wuhan was 1.4% (0.9–2.1%)"
The only fairly comprehensive numbers we have are from the Diamond Princess with 712 confirmed cases and 8 deaths so far. Maybe there will be more deaths, maybe some people were infected who never tested positive. I imagine those 712 might be a bit older than the general population, but would have had access to good health care. 1% is a much better guess at this point than 4.3%
I think you could fill closed football stadia up and down the country with the list of people who've ever wanted to thump Piers Morgan.
Has anybody got him in deadpool?
Was the deadpool Coronavirus exclusive, or would "being punched to death by an angry mob" also allowable? In which case Piers definitely needs to be added.
I know that some people have tried to dilute that figure by saying there are far more people with it than currently tested, but then if (entirely plausible) rumours from China are true the same can be said for the number of fatalities.
We can only work with the official statistics we have: 341,524 confirmed cases and 14,747 deaths = 4.3%
Even more reason to heed your very wise words about avoiding social contact.
No, you don't use flawed statistics and assume they are correct, simply because there are no better ones.
.
No but I'm perfectly happy to accept the expert stats for now issued by The World Health Organisation and John Hopkins Centre GSSE.
Rather, that is, from a couple of armchair pundits with degrees in PPE postulating on PB
(that's light-hearted by the way before Felix jumps on me again)
It seems to me that you are mostly happy to accept the most negative of whatever data, predictions and assessments are available. Which is neither sensible nor helpful.
While attacking the government at every opportunity...
A lot of people will surely have gone to their second homes in order to self-isolate. Most of us will be too skint even to have second homes, and there are reasons owning second homes is selfish, but surely in this case, intentions were good.
But the consequences are not.
I would assume that Cornwall, for example, has a health service designed for the local population plus occasional hordes of feral teenagers, not for an influx of people living in second homes on a longterm basis
I know that some people have tried to dilute that figure by saying there are far more people with it than currently tested, but then if (entirely plausible) rumours from China are true the same can be said for the number of fatalities.
We can only work with the official statistics we have: 341,524 confirmed cases and 14,747 deaths = 4.3%
Even more reason to heed your very wise words about avoiding social contact.
No, you don't use flawed statistics and assume they are correct, simply because there are no better ones.
.
No but I'm perfectly happy to accept the expert stats for now issued by The World Health Organisation and John Hopkins Centre GSSE.
Rather, that is, from a couple of armchair pundits with degrees in PPE postulating on PB
(that's light-hearted by the way before Felix jumps on me again)
They’re not “expert” stats though. They’re just a collation of officially released figures and crude deductive formulas with no attempt at analysis or extent to which figures are comparable. On the basis of Worldometer you’d wonder what the fuss is about in the U.K. given that we’ve apparently only got 20 serious active cases. Hospitals must be sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
Last I heard England's chief medical officer thought the fatality rate would be 1% or less - if Mysticrose is sincere about trusting "expert stats"
"we estimate that the overall symptomatic case fatality risk (the probability of dying after developing symptoms) of COVID-19 in Wuhan was 1.4% (0.9–2.1%)"
The only fairly comprehensive numbers we have are from the Diamond Princess with 712 confirmed cases and 8 deaths so far. Maybe there will be more deaths, maybe some people were infected who never tested positive. I imagine those 712 might be a bit older than the general population, but would have had access to good health care. 1% is a much better guess at this point than 4.3%
And a key word in the quote from the Nature paper is 'symptomatic', which will reduce the overall infection mortality rate further.
An amazing 16 years put in by Mike and Robert (and TSE for most of it too) who - remember - don't get paid for any of it but continue to dedicate their free time to making it one of the best sites on the internet.
Very positive. I read a similar piece concerning the same expert a few days ago, in a Israeli newspaper, I think.
Let's all hope he is right.
One chemist versus dozens of epidemiologists?
I'd love to believe him but the article is deeply flawed. For example, he made a prediction based on two days data from China? I doubt it but if he did his predictions are not worth the paper they are written on.
"Getting vaccinated against the flu is important because a coronavirus outbreak that strikes in the middle of a flu epidemic is much more likely to overwhelm hospitals and increases the odds that the coronavirus goes undetected. This was probably a factor in Italy, a country with a strong anti-vaccine movement, he said." A lot of right wing anti-vaxxers in the US, arguablt including the President. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-anti-vaxxer-bill-gates-said-president-asked-him-if-vaccines-934172
A lot of people will surely have gone to their second homes in order to self-isolate. Most of us will be too skint even to have second homes, and there are reasons owning second homes is selfish, but surely in this case, intentions were good.
But the consequences are not.
I would assume that Cornwall, for example, has a health service designed for the local population plus occasional hordes of feral teenagers, not for an influx of people living in second homes on a longterm basis
And supermarkets, etc., which aren't stocked up to expect a horde of extra visitors out of season.
Anyone seen the pics of the tubes this morning? feck me
No? Empty or busy?
Very busy. Was the decision to reduce the timetable one for TfL (and therefore the Mayor), or Central Government.
Either way, it looks like stupidity.
Thanks. Saw the pics.
Those looked like a mix of gig economy, manual and key workers to me. I bet they have little choice but to go in.
Some won't speak or know a huge amount of English and they'll be worried the money will dry up (and they won't know how to claim it back) if they just stay at home.
Those calling for the biggest stick possible need to bear in mind that grabbing the carrot needs to be made far far easier or people will always risk searching for their own.
Someone else on LBC right now. Underlying health conditions, in a vulnerable group, being told by their employer that if they don't come to work they aren't getting paid. Aren't eligible for even SSP either...
A lot of people will surely have gone to their second homes in order to self-isolate. Most of us will be too skint even to have second homes, and there are reasons owning second homes is selfish, but surely in this case, intentions were good.
But the consequences are not.
I would assume that Cornwall, for example, has a health service designed for the local population plus occasional hordes of feral teenagers, not for an influx of people living in second homes on a longterm basis
But it will also be designed to cope with lots of holidaymakers.
So it depends on whether the extra second homers are greater or fewer than the reduced holidaymakers.
Comments
BEFORE: Passenger rail operations owned by the state, let on an exclusive fixed term contract to a private operator to increasingly run services and rolling stock dictated by the owner. Revenue risk largely taken by the state under "cap and collar" clauses where losses above a particular level sees the contract terminated.
AFTER: Passenger rail operations owned by the state, contracted to a private operator on a management contract to operate services dictated by the owner. Revenue risk taken by the state.
For all the flap the likes of Virgin, First etc never owned the rail operations they ran. As they don't own them their ownership cannot be reclaimed by the state. Its great news that the failed experiment of competitive tendering has been scrapped - hopefully the vast increase in operating costs can now be completely removed and the saving used to cover some of the inevitable losses.
Many many thanks to Mike and all those who help run this behind the scenes.
It has become a regular part of my day.
https://order-order.com/2020/03/22/israels-social-isolation-herd-immunity-strategy/
Things have changed ever so slightly since then...
From 2018.
Enjoy your handbag.
Before I even start to read the thread may I say how proud Mike and Robert should be in the huge success of PB. It is without doubt a forum of intense political debate across the political divide and should be essential reading to all policy makers and politicians
At times it gets overheated but the stress and strain in politics creates controversy and strong opinions
All the very best Mike and Robert and continue with your good works
Actual graph here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_in_mainland_China#/media/File:2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg
Here's the 'actual' graph actually. So, it's as stated close.
One of the few small positives in an otherwise unremittingly bleak outlook.
People react to things in different ways and the variety of natural human reactions, including inappropriate levity, doesnt just stop even if the gravity of the situation will suppress it. Black comedy remains a thing.
It's ok even with a very serious matter to attempt to lighten up now and then, however briefly or trivially. It might even be we should seize what opportunities to do so that we can.
Here's a paper on the MERS coronavirus in mice:
Characterization and Demonstration of the Value of a Lethal Mouse Model of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection and Disease
https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/90/1/57.full.pdf
Characterized animal models are needed for studying the pathogenesis of and evaluating medical countermeasures for persisting Mid- dle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infections. Here, we further characterized a lethal transgenic mouse model of MERS-CoV infection and disease that globally expresses human CD26 (hCD26)/DPP4. The 50% infectious dose (ID50) and lethal dose (LD50) of virus were estimated to be <1 and 10 TCID50 of MERS-CoV, respectively. Neutralizing antibody developed in the surviving mice from the ID50/LD50 determinations, and all were fully immune to challenge with 100 LD50 of MERS-CoV....</i>
Clearly it is not possible to do such tests with human subjects.
(Though I would guess that similar work was done in human volunteers, with various non lethal respiratory viruses, by the Common Cold Unit.)
A logarithmic scale is great for watching the thing as it increases but it completely obscures the way the decline happens.
It's a very small leap from your post to making alterations to official advice. You can see already that people on this thread now have a bunch of theories, some of which may be true and others which may not.
The fake graph implies the Chinese figures are censored / made up. The real graph shows that China's drastic steps have contained the spread of C-19 (for now).
Some people will see the fake graph and believe that it shows the Chinese approach has not worked. That's not in any way helpful.
At the time of infection you can "get it bad" as opposed to "getting it good", regardless of factors such as immune system, age and general health?
No, I don't like that. It sounds like bollocks.
But of course I will accept it as true if there is an expert consensus that it is.
Sometimes laughter in the face of adversity is helpful
So if press down the top left flap, press the X button, and the B button, that puts it in DRS mode....
With those we would be better off employing kids, as they are used to all that with Xbox and Playstation games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_in_mainland_China#/media/File:2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg
Dishonest?
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate
Cuomo gave the US press both barrels yesterday when they tried this bullshit.
Leytonstone is too far out to walk into the City or West End and filled with people with heavy debts and renting a room.
As more and more businesses implode I expect the same response from the Tories as we got with the Bedroom Tax and Universal Credit - quoting the propaganda line whilst in the Real World it is an unworkable disaster. Tories used to understand business and be the party of business and of entrepreneurism and the working man - where did it all go wrong?
I back Cobra on this and expect Cobra to make further decisions this week
Let's all hope he is right.
There's a whole episode of Sportsnight about it.
"He’s not looking at cumulative cases, but the number of new cases every day — and the percentage growth in that number from one day to the next."
These are the numbers we need to watch.
Then there is this 19th March article in Nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7
"we estimate that the overall symptomatic case fatality risk (the probability of dying after developing symptoms) of COVID-19 in Wuhan was 1.4% (0.9–2.1%)"
The only fairly comprehensive numbers we have are from the Diamond Princess with 712 confirmed cases and 8 deaths so far. Maybe there will be more deaths, maybe some people were infected who never tested positive. I imagine those 712 might be a bit older than the general population, but would have had access to good health care. 1% is a much better guess at this point than 4.3%
Either way, it looks like stupidity.
I would assume that Cornwall, for example, has a health service designed for the local population plus occasional hordes of feral teenagers, not for an influx of people living in second homes on a longterm basis
An amazing 16 years put in by Mike and Robert (and TSE for most of it too) who - remember - don't get paid for any of it but continue to dedicate their free time to making it one of the best sites on the internet.
Here's to many more years to come. Bravo!
I do wonder to what extent that's down to stupidity, and how much of it is knowing and deliberate.
Doesn't take after his Dad then.
I'd love to believe him but the article is deeply flawed. For example, he made a prediction based on two days data from China? I doubt it but if he did his predictions are not worth the paper they are written on.
A lot of right wing anti-vaxxers in the US, arguablt including the President.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-anti-vaxxer-bill-gates-said-president-asked-him-if-vaccines-934172
Those looked like a mix of gig economy, manual and key workers to me. I bet they have little choice but to go in.
Some won't speak or know a huge amount of English and they'll be worried the money will dry up (and they won't know how to claim it back) if they just stay at home.
Those calling for the biggest stick possible need to bear in mind that grabbing the carrot needs to be made far far easier or people will always risk searching for their own.
https://twitter.com/growingupitalia/status/1241354307259305985?s=21
If you have a pet, stock up on food pronto, otherwise you'll be forced back to supermarket crap.
So it depends on whether the extra second homers are greater or fewer than the reduced holidaymakers.