Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Actually that study is 100% science. They have come up with an hypothesis, and they are going to do experiments to test it. That is the scientific method in a nutshell.
Whether Trump, Macron, Johnson or indeed the Mullahs of Iran, people rally round in this sort of catastrophe, particularly with the government housing money at the problem. The post mortem enquiry on what was done comes later.
Yeah - I noticed myself having warmer feelings towards Johnson, who I generally loath, over the last few days. When this is resolved I doubt they will last.
I always trust the pilot. I rate their competence by the quality of the landing.
I said it in the wee hours - if a government is prepared to lock us indoors for this, they should permanently ban the sale of cigarettes while they’re at it
Along with alcohol as well, presumably.
So we come back to the argument of whether we want the Government to decide what's good for us - at an individual level, possibly not. At a wider societal level it becomes more difficult.
If we did nothing and allowed the virus to run through the population, there would be deaths but at a wider level we all die sooner or later. The foreshortening of some lives set against the economic dislocation of many others (we have people on here claiming their future has been "destroyed" by this) is a balance where we would all sit in different places.
Yet does not the Government have the absolute and final say on our public health in its entirety? Whatever individual bad health decisions we choose to make (in spite of the information available), the Government might argue provide providing clean water and maintaining the sewage system is in all our interests.
Banning the sale of cigarettes is a bad analogy. Banning smoking in public buildings and the workplace, where an individual's poor health decisions can kill *other people*, is a better analogy.
With alcohol, you could point to alcohol fuelled violence and drink-driving as examples of how it affects other people, but the numbers of people killed by these each year are much smaller than the numbers we're discussing here. People destroying their own health with alcohol is, again, a poor analogy.
A region of France has just banned alcohol sales during its lockdown, because of an upsurge in reported domestic violence.
Matt Hancock: 3.5m coronavirus test kits on way to NHS Patients to be priority for tests that would reveal if healthcare staff are safe to go back to work
Hope people realise the lockdownsare gonna need several weeks if not months before the tide turns.
Hope the government realise that this lockdown will tolerated for a month at best. If we get a hot spell in mid April like last year it will be all over.
I think that depends a lot on what's happening in other countries. If lots of places are out of lockdown and with no second spike visible then people will agitate, but if the US has reopened as per Trump's recent comments and is having 10k deaths per day I expect that would quell a lot of dissent over here.
It’s not just attitudes though - if temperatures hit 25C+then it will be uncomfortably warm at home, perhaps even dangerously so. Anyone who lives in a flat will not be staying at home.
25 degrees is 'dangerously warm' inside? Dumbest comment of the day. Open some f*****g windows!
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Actually that study is 100% science. They have come up with an hypothesis, and they are going to do experiments to test it. That is the scientific method in a nutshell.
I think your sarcasm meter is broken...
Yes, I've given it a kick and it's working again now.
That's ironic!
I once heard a pilot refer to it as "percussion engineering"
Is it just me, 5 times today I convinced myself I had the virus.
Just had a stiff G&T, and I defo do not have it, yet.
Ditto. I'm never the bravest and this is certainly messing with me. When I go out to buy food I imagine the deadly virus lingering on every surface and floating in the air. I have to touch things when I'm out and I can't hold my breath for the time it takes me to do a shop. So I feel in great peril. Waitrose is my Stalingrad.
Stephen Fry did a short piece about the anxiety on the BBC the other day. I know a lot of my friends are really stressed with massive levels of anxiety.
The mental scarring from this will be considerable.
I know this is not (yet) anything like WW2. But that undoubtedly and inevitably scarred an entire generation. As an aside, there have been interesting studies showing that evacuee children suffered far more serious mental health problems than those who stayed at home under the bombs. Why? Because we need social bonding, social contact, hugs and love. We're mammals and it's a basic instinct - a key component of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
I've already noticed people crossing to the other side of the road in a way that would make great fodder for the Good Samaritan parable. But the amazing corollary is that accompanying the physical side-stepping is an aversion of eye contact, a loss of greeting, a lack of smile. It's as if the social distancing means we must treat everyone else as pariahs. I even thought myself today, 'Oh no there's a human being.'
Well observed. I’ve seen the same.
However, a hearty welsh lady had the antidote to this today. I was walking the Penarth cliffs today, doing my legal exercise, and I stepped aside to let her pass.
As she strode past me she beamed a smile and said
“Physical distance. But not social distance!”
I warmly wished them well, stay safe, and so on.
We need to do all this to counteract the social chilliness you describe.
If she'd only known, she'd have yelled 'Fuck off back to London you twat!'
Getting worse in France: (From the Guardian Live Blog)
"In his daily update, Jérôme Salomon, the director general of the French health service, has said the epidemic was now across France and “rapidly getting worse”.
France has 22,300 confirmed cases of coronavirus. There are 10,176 people in hospital 2,516 in intensive care, of whom 34% are aged younger than 60 years. There have been 1,100 deaths of patients with the coronavirus in hospital. 85% of these deaths are people over 70 years of age. The increase in deaths is 240 people in 24 hours."
There is something especially horrible in the fact that Italy and Spain, a lot of people's two favourite countries in the world, are currently being hardest hit by the virus. 😞
France too - the world’s most popular country for visitors.
Where we have a holiday booked for May 31st!
Hope you can go sir.
We’re booked into Majorca the previous weekend. Looking unlikely but never say never.
Girlfriends 40th, a real shame but I doubt we can go. Portugal in July with 3 other couples & the kids looks odds against too
A very interesting article in the FT (no paywall); Oxford epidemiologists think that there might be far more undetected cases than the Imperial College modelling shows, with as much as half the UK population already infected. Could be good news if true:
How could London be suddenly getting loads of hospitalisations if 50% of people had already been infected nationwide (and presumably more than that in London) ?
The theory would be that 50% are infected, but a much smaller proportion are symptomatic, and a smaller number again bad enough to need medical care.
That alone is enough to swamp medical capacity.
The virus will keep going, it still has the other 50% of the popn to work through...
But nowhere near 50% are testing positive. It seems like wishful thinking to me unfortunately.
Indeed, and the evidence from the Seattle care home and Diamond Princess ship, suggests that there are not so many asymptomatic cases. A very much higher percentage caught it, and the ship was all tested.
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Are you the person who earlier tried to dismiss the Imperial College study on the basis of a spurious association with foot and mouth disease?
If the two institutions were instrumental in the two epidemic responses, and both responses proved disproportionate to the point of being damaging, it is prima facie evidence of an inherent institutional bias toward reckless knee jerk catastrophism.
I have wondered this. If your job is epidemiologist, and the study of pandemic outbreaks, is it possible you are subconsciously over-inclined to model every virus as a potentially disastrous Pandemic?
The same way an oncologist in the American health system might subconsciously exaggerate the perils of a tumour (While also knowing that this is his payday)
I don’t know. I do know the French have a phrase for this
The trouble is can we afford the risk of ignoring the professional deformations of an epidemiologist, when, if the boffin is right, we are confronting a possible disaster?
The silly fuck couldn't even protect himself from Coronavirus.
What a peculiar interpretation...and a little bit sweary too, if you don't mind me saying so.
I agree it was. I apologise. Non sweary posts will now resume.
Somebody said there was no politician in the last fifty years less qualified than Trump to be POTUS.
I was mulling over the truth or otherwise of this, and came up with Goldwater, Joseph McCarthy and Wallace.
But their peak was over fifty years ago. Indeed, McCarthy has been dead for over 60 years.
However, J Strom Thurmond was still active into the 1990s and still a corrupt, creepy, racist nutcase so I suppose we could offer him up as a possible.
It was my comment and to be honest horrible though they were I think all of them would have risen to do a better job than Trump in the current crisis. McCarthy is the only one that may have given him a run for his money.
Trump's combination of ignorance and egotism is lethal right now. He has convinced his deluded core that all the media apart from Fox News are peddling "Fake News" so the idiots are going to follow him into the abyss like a bunch of lemmings
By and large in other western democracies political leaders have put aside serious political partisanship. Trump is still sowing discord and attempting to game it for political advantage.
I do wonder if at some point if Republicans in Congress will revolt when they can see where this is headed.
The Republicans in Congress are already revolting.
I said it in the wee hours - if a government is prepared to lock us indoors for this, they should permanently ban the sale of cigarettes while they’re at it
Along with alcohol as well, presumably.
So we come back to the argument of whether we want the Government to decide what's good for us - at an individual level, possibly not. At a wider societal level it becomes more difficult.
If we did nothing and allowed the virus to run through the population, there would be deaths but at a wider level we all die sooner or later. The foreshortening of some lives set against the economic dislocation of many others (we have people on here claiming their future has been "destroyed" by this) is a balance where we would all sit in different places.
Yet does not the Government have the absolute and final say on our public health in its entirety? Whatever individual bad health decisions we choose to make (in spite of the information available), the Government might argue provide providing clean water and maintaining the sewage system is in all our interests.
Banning the sale of cigarettes is a bad analogy. Banning smoking in public buildings and the workplace, where an individual's poor health decisions can kill *other people*, is a better analogy.
With alcohol, you could point to alcohol fuelled violence and drink-driving as examples of how it affects other people, but the numbers of people killed by these each year are much smaller than the numbers we're discussing here. People destroying their own health with alcohol is, again, a poor analogy.
A region of France has just banned alcohol sales during its lockdown, because of an upsurge in reported domestic violence.
Meditation in the morning, exercise at lunchtime, getting blind drunk in the evening. Day 2 and it’s working so far
Daughter’s restaurant has seen an increase in takeaway orders (delivery only) which is good. She makes prepared meals which people can put in their fridge/freezer and reheat as necessary. Not very profitable but better than nothing and helps those unable to get out plus she hopes will stand her in good stead when it reopens.
The local council sent out a very informative flyer last week about which businesses were doing delivery services etc. Really on the ball and there have been volunteers offering to help those who cannot get out.
On a more personal level I have received nothing either from government or NHS. Not a criticism just a fact.
Podcasts are a GodSend at a time like this. There are so many good ones. And I managed to do some exercises in the garden. Though daughter was hysterical with laughter at my star jumps .......
Conservatively, that's a 10,000 to 1 shot. Much, much less likely if you require four different divisions as well (as they "achieved" and ignoring the name change of the second devision).
Easy to acheive. Put a very long odds bet on at the start of the xxx7 season that Leeds will win any division at the end of the xxx9 season. Manufacture relegation two years in a row, so that winning the lower division is easy!
A very interesting article in the FT (no paywall); Oxford epidemiologists think that there might be far more undetected cases than the Imperial College modelling shows, with as much as half the UK population already infected. Could be good news if true:
How could London be suddenly getting loads of hospitalisations if 50% of people had already been infected nationwide (and presumably more than that in London) ?
The theory would be that 50% are infected, but a much smaller proportion are symptomatic, and a smaller number again bad enough to need medical care.
That alone is enough to swamp medical capacity.
The virus will keep going, it still has the other 50% of the popn to work through...
But nowhere near 50% are testing positive. It seems like wishful thinking to me unfortunately.
Indeed, and the evidence from the Seattle care home and Diamond Princess ship, suggests that there are not so many asymptomatic cases. A very much higher percentage caught it, and the ship was all tested.
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Are you the person who earlier tried to dismiss the Imperial College study on the basis of a spurious association with foot and mouth disease?
If the two institutions were instrumental in the two epidemic responses, and both responses proved disproportionate to the point of being damaging, it is prima facie evidence of an inherent institutional bias toward reckless knee jerk catastrophism.
I have wondered this. If your job is epidemiologist, and the study of pandemic outbreaks, is it possible you are subconsciously over-inclined to model every virus as a potentially disastrous Pandemic?
The same way an oncologist in the American health system might subconsciously exaggerate the perils of a tumour (While also knowing that this is his payday)
I don’t know. I do know the French have a phrase for this
The trouble is can we afford the risk of ignoring the professional deformations of an epidemiologist, when, if the boffin is right, we are confronting a possible disaster?
The silly fuck couldn't even protect himself from Coronavirus.
What a peculiar interpretation...and a little bit sweary too, if you don't mind me saying so.
I agree it was. I apologise. Non sweary posts will now resume.
Thanks for the 'off topic'.
Apologies if that was me, it certainly wasn't intentional. I've tried to 'switch it off' but tapping it results in two off-topics for you.
Getting worse in France: (From the Guardian Live Blog)
"In his daily update, Jérôme Salomon, the director general of the French health service, has said the epidemic was now across France and “rapidly getting worse”.
France has 22,300 confirmed cases of coronavirus. There are 10,176 people in hospital 2,516 in intensive care, of whom 34% are aged younger than 60 years. There have been 1,100 deaths of patients with the coronavirus in hospital. 85% of these deaths are people over 70 years of age. The increase in deaths is 240 people in 24 hours."
The message would appear to be that lockdown is not currently working.
The question then would be ‘why not?’
Or is it just, it’s making things bloody awful instead of fucking catastrophic?
The UCL academic and medical professional on CH4 news this evening, he was ready for kneecapping the arseholes ignoring the government advice and rules.
He made a good point, which again the government really should be splattering everywhere. If you get this and meet up with groups of people, the maths dictates that in a 9-10 cycles of transmission you are talking about potentially 60,000 new cases, and if only of a tiny percentage end up in hospital you are still single-handed crashing the system.
They really need a PSA, where it shows somebody doing this and all the consequences of people in ICU and dying, not just oldies, young ones too....use images from Italy...scare the shit out of people.
That won't stop the real knuckle-draggers, but I still think too many people think this is a) just about them i.e. I'm not an oldie and fit / healthy and b) not that serious.
A very interesting article in the FT (no paywall); Oxford epidemiologists think that there might be far more undetected cases than the Imperial College modelling shows, with as much as half the UK population already infected. Could be good news if true:
How could London be suddenly getting loads of hospitalisations if 50% of people had already been infected nationwide (and presumably more than that in London) ?
The theory would be that 50% are infected, but a much smaller proportion are symptomatic, and a smaller number again bad enough to need medical care.
That alone is enough to swamp medical capacity.
The virus will keep going, it still has the other 50% of the popn to work through...
But nowhere near 50% are testing positive. It seems like wishful thinking to me unfortunately.
Indeed, and the evidence from the Seattle care home and Diamond Princess ship, suggests that there are not so many asymptomatic cases. A very much higher percentage caught it, and the ship was all tested.
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Are you the person who earlier tried to dismiss the Imperial College study on the basis of a spurious association with foot and mouth disease?
If the two institutions were instrumental in the two epidemic responses, and both responses proved disproportionate to the point of being damaging, it is prima facie evidence of an inherent institutional bias toward reckless knee jerk catastrophism.
I have wondered this. If your job is epidemiologist, and the study of pandemic outbreaks, is it possible you are subconsciously over-inclined to model every virus as a potentially disastrous Pandemic?
The same way an oncologist in the American health system might subconsciously exaggerate the perils of a tumour (While also knowing that this is his payday)
I don’t know. I do know the French have a phrase for this
The trouble is can we afford the risk of ignoring the professional deformations of an epidemiologist, when, if the boffin is right, we are confronting a possible disaster?
The silly fuck couldn't even protect himself from Coronavirus.
What a peculiar interpretation...and a little bit sweary too, if you don't mind me saying so.
I agree it was. I apologise. Non sweary posts will now resume.
Thanks for the 'off topic'.
Apologies if that was me, it certainly wasn't intentional. I've tried to 'switch it off' but tapping it results in two off-topics for you.
I thought on PB 'off topic' was a higher level of praise than 'like'?
Getting worse in France: (From the Guardian Live Blog)
"In his daily update, Jérôme Salomon, the director general of the French health service, has said the epidemic was now across France and “rapidly getting worse”.
France has 22,300 confirmed cases of coronavirus. There are 10,176 people in hospital 2,516 in intensive care, of whom 34% are aged younger than 60 years. There have been 1,100 deaths of patients with the coronavirus in hospital. 85% of these deaths are people over 70 years of age. The increase in deaths is 240 people in 24 hours."
The message would appear to be that lockdown is not currently working.
The question then would be ‘why not?’
Or is it just, it’s making things bloody awful instead of fucking catastrophic?
Which explains why countries the world over are trashing their economies - other than America of course where the Dow matters more to Trump than lives.
A very interesting article in the FT (no paywall); Oxford epidemiologists think that there might be far more undetected cases than the Imperial College modelling shows, with as much as half the UK population already infected. Could be good news if true:
How could London be suddenly getting loads of hospitalisations if 50% of people had already been infected nationwide (and presumably more than that in London) ?
The theory would be that 50% are infected, but a much smaller proportion are symptomatic, and a smaller number again bad enough to need medical care.
That alone is enough to swamp medical capacity.
The virus will keep going, it still has the other 50% of the popn to work through...
But nowhere near 50% are testing positive. It seems like wishful thinking to me unfortunately.
Indeed, and the evidence from the Seattle care home and Diamond Princess ship, suggests that there are not so many asymptomatic cases. A very much higher percentage caught it, and the ship was all tested.
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Are you the person who earlier tried to dismiss the Imperial College study on the basis of a spurious association with foot and mouth disease?
If the two institutions were instrumental in the two epidemic responses, and both responses proved disproportionate to the point of being damaging, it is prima facie evidence of an inherent institutional bias toward reckless knee jerk catastrophism.
I have wondered this. If your job is epidemiologist, and the study of pandemic outbreaks, is it possible you are subconsciously over-inclined to model every virus as a potentially disastrous Pandemic?
The same way an oncologist in the American health system might subconsciously exaggerate the perils of a tumour (While also knowing that this is his payday)
I don’t know. I do know the French have a phrase for this
The trouble is can we afford the risk of ignoring the professional deformations of an epidemiologist, when, if the boffin is right, we are confronting a possible disaster?
The silly fuck couldn't even protect himself from Coronavirus.
What a peculiar interpretation...and a little bit sweary too, if you don't mind me saying so.
I agree it was. I apologise. Non sweary posts will now resume.
Thanks for the 'off topic'.
Apologies if that was me, it certainly wasn't intentional. I've tried to 'switch it off' but tapping it results in two off-topics for you.
I thought on PB 'off topic' was a higher level of praise than 'like'?
Off topic is the normal state of affairs is it not?
A very interesting article in the FT (no paywall); Oxford epidemiologists think that there might be far more undetected cases than the Imperial College modelling shows, with as much as half the UK population already infected. Could be good news if true:
How could London be suddenly getting loads of hospitalisations if 50% of people had already been infected nationwide (and presumably more than that in London) ?
The theory would be that 50% are infected, but a much smaller proportion are symptomatic, and a smaller number again bad enough to need medical care.
That alone is enough to swamp medical capacity.
The virus will keep going, it still has the other 50% of the popn to work through...
But nowhere near 50% are testing positive. It seems like wishful thinking to me unfortunately.
Indeed, and the evidence from the Seattle care home and Diamond Princess ship, suggests that there are not so many asymptomatic cases. A very much higher percentage caught it, and the ship was all tested.
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Are you the person who earlier tried to dismiss the Imperial College study on the basis of a spurious association with foot and mouth disease?
If the two institutions were instrumental in the two epidemic responses, and both responses proved disproportionate to the point of being damaging, it is prima facie evidence of an inherent institutional bias toward reckless knee jerk catastrophism.
I am not against the Oxford report, indeed I hope it is correct, but it would be rash indeed to count on it being correct.
A non lockdown situation of letting a pandemic riot is not without economic consequences either!
That's right. It's an asymmetric risk. That's why I support the Government actions and I've certainly been obeying their instructions. If the Imperial model is correct, Government action will save 100,000s of lives.
If the Oxford model is correct (and I've been promoting the idea of wide infection and corresponding low fatality for at least two weeks) the Government actions are way OTT and economically damaging. But it's better to be safe than sorry.
Because I think the Oxford hypothesis is more likely to be correct, it has been the basis of my investment strategy which is not asymmetric. I invested half my cash in equities last Thursday on the basis that it was peak panic day.
Getting worse in France: (From the Guardian Live Blog)
"In his daily update, Jérôme Salomon, the director general of the French health service, has said the epidemic was now across France and “rapidly getting worse”.
France has 22,300 confirmed cases of coronavirus. There are 10,176 people in hospital 2,516 in intensive care, of whom 34% are aged younger than 60 years. There have been 1,100 deaths of patients with the coronavirus in hospital. 85% of these deaths are people over 70 years of age. The increase in deaths is 240 people in 24 hours."
The message would appear to be that lockdown is not currently working.
The question then would be ‘why not?’
Or is it just, it’s making things bloody awful instead of fucking catastrophic?
They'll have to wait another week or so to see an effect (they only locked down 7 days ago)... until then it will be tough (we will see the same here sadly)
A very interesting article in the FT (no paywall); Oxford epidemiologists think that there might be far more undetected cases than the Imperial College modelling shows, with as much as half the UK population already infected. Could be good news if true:
How could London be suddenly getting loads of hospitalisations if 50% of people had already been infected nationwide (and presumably more than that in London) ?
The theory would be that 50% are infected, but a much smaller proportion are symptomatic, and a smaller number again bad enough to need medical care.
That alone is enough to swamp medical capacity.
The virus will keep going, it still has the other 50% of the popn to work through...
But nowhere near 50% are testing positive. It seems like wishful thinking to me unfortunately.
Indeed, and the evidence from the Seattle care home and Diamond Princess ship, suggests that there are not so many asymptomatic cases. A very much higher percentage caught it, and the ship was all tested.
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Are you the person who earlier tried to dismiss the Imperial College study on the basis of a spurious association with foot and mouth disease?
If the two institutions were instrumental in the two epidemic responses, and both responses proved disproportionate to the point of being damaging, it is prima facie evidence of an inherent institutional bias toward reckless knee jerk catastrophism.
I have wondered this. If your job is epidemiologist, and the study of pandemic outbreaks, is it possible you are subconsciously over-inclined to model every virus as a potentially disastrous Pandemic?
The same way an oncologist in the American health system might subconsciously exaggerate the perils of a tumour (While also knowing that this is his payday)
I don’t know. I do know the French have a phrase for this
The trouble is can we afford the risk of ignoring the professional deformations of an epidemiologist, when, if the boffin is right, we are confronting a possible disaster?
The silly fuck couldn't even protect himself from Coronavirus.
What a peculiar interpretation...and a little bit sweary too, if you don't mind me saying so.
I agree it was. I apologise. Non sweary posts will now resume.
Thanks for the 'off topic'.
Apologies if that was me, it certainly wasn't intentional. I've tried to 'switch it off' but tapping it results in two off-topics for you.
Its easily done, I did it a day or 2 back by accident to someone
Just remembered that I didn't report back on my second trip to the gate. No human activity in the lane, but I was rewarded by hearing the call of a chiffchaff.
A very interesting article in the FT (no paywall); Oxford epidemiologists think that there might be far more undetected cases than the Imperial College modelling shows, with as much as half the UK population already infected. Could be good news if true:
How could London be suddenly getting loads of hospitalisations if 50% of people had already been infected nationwide (and presumably more than that in London) ?
The theory would be that 50% are infected, but a much smaller proportion are symptomatic, and a smaller number again bad enough to need medical care.
That alone is enough to swamp medical capacity.
The virus will keep going, it still has the other 50% of the popn to work through...
But nowhere near 50% are testing positive. It seems like wishful thinking to me unfortunately.
Indeed, and the evidence from the Seattle care home and Diamond Princess ship, suggests that there are not so many asymptomatic cases. A very much higher percentage caught it, and the ship was all tested.
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Are you the person who earlier tried to dismiss the Imperial College study on the basis of a spurious association with foot and mouth disease?
If the two institutions were instrumental in the two epidemic responses, and both responses proved disproportionate to the point of being damaging, it is prima facie evidence of an inherent institutional bias toward reckless knee jerk catastrophism.
I am not against the Oxford report, indeed I hope it is correct, but it would be rash indeed to count on it being correct.
A non lockdown situation of letting a pandemic riot is not without economic consequences either!
That's right. It's an asymmetric risk. That's why I support the Government actions and I've certainly been obeying their instructions. If the Imperial model is correct, Government action will save 100,000s of lives.
If the Oxford model is correct (and I've been promoting the idea of wide infection and corresponding low fatality for at least two weeks) the Government actions are way OTT and economically damaging. But it's better to be safe than sorry.
Because I think the Oxford hypothesis is more likely to be correct, it has been the basis of my investment strategy which is not asymmetric. I invested half my cash in equities last Thursday on the basis that it was peak panic day.
Not sure I agree with you. Even with a widespread epidemic, the burden of cases on the NHS, if left unchecked, would be intolerable. By locking down, even if there are many asymptomatic cases (and I think this is fairly likely - but without serology unprovable), we can spread the burden on the NHS and save many lives and not overwhelm the health service. Hence, even if >50% of the population get it in this wave with many getting it very mildly, we still need this lockdown phase.
The UCL academic and medical professional on CH4 news this evening, he was ready for kneecapping the arseholes ignoring the government advice and rules.
He made a good point, which again the government really should be splattering everywhere. If you get this and meet up with groups of people, the maths dictates that in a 9-10 cycles of transmission you are talking about potentially 60,000 new cases, and if only of a tiny percentage end up in hospital you are still single-handed crashing the system.
They really need a PSA, where it shows somebody doing this and all the consequences of people in ICU and dying, not just oldies, young ones too....use images from Italy...scare the shit out of people.
That won't stop the real knuckle-draggers, but I still think too many people think this is a) just about them i.e. I'm not an oldie and fit / healthy and b) not that serious.
Yes, they've done horrific drink-drive ads over the years. Do something along these lines:
Whether Trump, Macron, Johnson or indeed the Mullahs of Iran, people rally round in this sort of catastrophe, particularly with the government housing money at the problem. The post mortem enquiry on what was done comes later.
Yeah - I noticed myself having warmer feelings towards Johnson, who I generally loath, over the last few days. When this is resolved I doubt they will last.
I always trust the pilot. I rate their competence by the quality of the landing.
If you can walk away uninjured, it was good. If the plane can be used again, it was excellent?
While it seems most Governments are opting for some form of movement restriction to alleviate and depress new cases of the virus, there still seem those who argue for a different route.
If you want to call it the "herd immunity" approach, that's fine but as I understand it the theory is to isolate the elderly and the vulnerable but for the virus to be allowed to run through the rest of the population on the basis the vast majority will emerge unscathed and immune.
That argument also suggests the wider economy would suffer less in terms of disruption - there would still be an impact but not severe.
The argument against the lock-down approach is it causes unnecessary and unwarranted economic damage - basically we're going to have, in economic terms, three weeks of Bank Holidays, if not Christmas Days in terms of output and productivity. We will all be home living off our resources - food and financial.
The argument therefore turns on where you value economic growth against human life or lives and that will be in the eye of the beholder. If we are all simply economic drones whose single purpose is to increase GDP I get that but I'm not sure that where I am philosophically.
While recognising we are all mortal and the Grim Reaper waits for us all at the end of our journey, I'm not convinced a few premature deaths is a good price to pay for a slightly lower GDP figure in the first quarter of 2021/22 but that would be an argument for the banning of smoking, drinking, gambling and a whole range of other activities.
Thus, it comes back to more fundamentals - do we opt to choose to live as we wish accepting the risks or do we choose to accept a temporary dislocation to our lives and our prosperity to maintain our health in the hope of returning to what we know in short order?
I am not sure the anti-lockdown argument is simply about the economy. There is a school of thought that the issue with a lockdown is that it doesn't actually solve the problem, just defers it. This means that you have to keep the lockdown in place permanently until a vaccine is found which could be years.
Whilst this makes sense to me on a basic level I don't know enough about the subject to be able to say if it is correct or not. Certainly the news from Singapore where cases are starting to increase again is worrying.
Let's imagine, for the sake of the argument, that the "isolate the vulnerable and everyone else carries on" approach were the right one. For it to work, the isolation of the vulnerable would have to actually happen. It is plain that in Britain and in many other countries, it would not have done, because too many people were ignoring the advice/rules. If you want to try this approach, you need a lockdown first, until nearly everyone is taking it seriously.
Plus there is the necessity of flattening the curve, which is necessary even if the vulnerable are taken out of the equation. That requires measures that seriously damage the economy, e.g. intermittent lockdowns.
So, while I'm still angry about the government's lack of preparation, I cannot see an argument against their broad strategy which stands up to scrutiny.
I don't disagree with you about the idiocy of those who ignore the advice and the fact it might undermine any policy, lockdown or not. But again there is the question of whether intermittent lockdowns would work any better than one long continuous one. That seems to me almost the worst position. People still becoming infected and dying as restrictions ease, no large scale build up of immunity and continuous damage to the economy.
It would seem that Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition - for now - has not exercised his 'right to reply' to Johnson's Ministerial broadcast from last night.
And unbridled capitalism has already cost a hell of a lot more lives. Plus untold damage to the planet and other species. But the rich get richer. So that's OK.
It would seem that Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition - for now - has not exercised his 'right to reply' to Johnson's Ministerial broadcast from last night.
It would seem that Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition - for now - has not exercised his 'right to reply' to Johnson's Ministerial broadcast from last night.
I thought those were only in cases where what was being discussed by the minister was deemed controversial?
A very interesting article in the FT (no paywall); Oxford epidemiologists think that there might be far more undetected cases than the Imperial College modelling shows, with as much as half the UK population already infected. Could be good news if true:
How could London be suddenly getting loads of hospitalisations if 50% of people had already been infected nationwide (and presumably more than that in London) ?
The theory would be that 50% are infected, but a much smaller proportion are symptomatic, and a smaller number again bad enough to need medical care.
That alone is enough to swamp medical capacity.
The virus will keep going, it still has the other 50% of the popn to work through...
But nowhere near 50% are testing positive. It seems like wishful thinking to me unfortunately.
Indeed, and the evidence from the Seattle care home and Diamond Princess ship, suggests that there are not so many asymptomatic cases. A very much higher percentage caught it, and the ship was all tested.
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Are you the person who earlier tried to dismiss the Imperial College study on the basis of a spurious association with foot and mouth disease?
If the two institutions were instrumental in the two epidemic responses, and both responses proved disproportionate to the point of being damaging, it is prima facie evidence of an inherent institutional bias toward reckless knee jerk catastrophism.
I am not against the Oxford report, indeed I hope it is correct, but it would be rash indeed to count on it being correct.
A non lockdown situation of letting a pandemic riot is not without economic consequences either!
That's right. It's an asymmetric risk. That's why I support the Government actions and I've certainly been obeying their instructions. If the Imperial model is correct, Government action will save 100,000s of lives.
If the Oxford model is correct (and I've been promoting the idea of wide infection and corresponding low fatality for at least two weeks) the Government actions are way OTT and economically damaging. But it's better to be safe than sorry.
Because I think the Oxford hypothesis is more likely to be correct, it has been the basis of my investment strategy which is not asymmetric. I invested half my cash in equities last Thursday on the basis that it was peak panic day.
Not sure I agree with you. Even with a widespread epidemic, the burden of cases on the NHS, if left unchecked, would be intolerable. By locking down, even if there are many asymptomatic cases (and I think this is fairly likely - but without serology unprovable), we can spread the burden on the NHS and save many lives and not overwhelm the health service. Hence, even if >50% of the population get it in this wave with many getting it very mildly, we still need this lockdown phase.
If we are near peak infection then lockdown doesn't prevent much further infection. Epidemics have their own limit as they run out of uninfected hosts. It may be that the NHS is almost at peak demand (another two weeks off) but, as I said, I don't think we can take the risk of relying on that.
A very interesting article in the FT (no paywall); Oxford epidemiologists think that there might be far more undetected cases than the Imperial College modelling shows, with as much as half the UK population already infected. Could be good news if true:
How could London be suddenly getting loads of hospitalisations if 50% of people had already been infected nationwide (and presumably more than that in London) ?
The theory would be that 50% are infected, but a much smaller proportion are symptomatic, and a smaller number again bad enough to need medical care.
That alone is enough to swamp medical capacity.
The virus will keep going, it still has the other 50% of the popn to work through...
But nowhere near 50% are testing positive. It seems like wishful thinking to me unfortunately.
Indeed, and the evidence from the Seattle care home and Diamond Princess ship, suggests that there are not so many asymptomatic cases. A very much higher percentage caught it, and the ship was all tested.
Oh good, I'm glad two PBers have finally weighed in and confirmed the Oxford study is 'wishful thinking' - hopefully that once great academic institution can get past this crushing verdict and maybe at some point in the future once again make a worthwhile contribution to science.
Are you the person who earlier tried to dismiss the Imperial College study on the basis of a spurious association with foot and mouth disease?
If the two institutions were instrumental in the two epidemic responses, and both responses proved disproportionate to the point of being damaging, it is prima facie evidence of an inherent institutional bias toward reckless knee jerk catastrophism.
I am not against the Oxford report, indeed I hope it is correct, but it would be rash indeed to count on it being correct.
A non lockdown situation of letting a pandemic riot is not without economic consequences either!
That's right. It's an asymmetric risk. That's why I support the Government actions and I've certainly been obeying their instructions. If the Imperial model is correct, Government action will save 100,000s of lives.
If the Oxford model is correct (and I've been promoting the idea of wide infection and corresponding low fatality for at least two weeks) the Government actions are way OTT and economically damaging. But it's better to be safe than sorry.
Because I think the Oxford hypothesis is more likely to be correct, it has been the basis of my investment strategy which is not asymmetric. I invested half my cash in equities last Thursday on the basis that it was peak panic day.
Not sure I agree with you. Even with a widespread epidemic, the burden of cases on the NHS, if left unchecked, would be intolerable. By locking down, even if there are many asymptomatic cases (and I think this is fairly likely - but without serology unprovable), we can spread the burden on the NHS and save many lives and not overwhelm the health service. Hence, even if >50% of the population get it in this wave with many getting it very mildly, we still need this lockdown phase.
If we are near peak infection then lockdown doesn't prevent much further infection. Epidemics have their own limit as they run out of uninfected hosts. It may be that the NHS is almost at peak demand (another two weeks off) but, as I said, I don't think we can take the risk of relying on that.
I doubt if the UK is near the infection peak. Spain is pretty dire today after 9 days of lockdown. The government is expecting the next 2 weeks to be pretty awful. It's gonig to be a long haul.
Disappointment is everywhere as the evidence that the Europe-wide lockdown may be defeating the coronavirus remains frustratingly elusive. Nowhere will they be more disappointed than Italy, where an improving ‘trend’ has been reversed. Deaths and infections are up again, but it’s even worse in Spain, and France has seen - in percentage terms - perhaps the biggest rise in deaths relating to the virus anywhere on the continent. It’s important not to read too much into any particular day’s figures, but people have been looking for the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s still not clear there is any. Possibly for the first time in this crisis, the worst news of the day is coming out of Spain. There are 514 more dead in the last 24 hours. 6,584 more people have contracted the virus, for the first time higher than Italy’s infection rate. Of almost 40,000 confirmed cases, 5,400 are medical workers - an astonishing 14 per cent of the total.
Disappointment is everywhere as the evidence that the Europe-wide lockdown may be defeating the coronavirus remains frustratingly elusive. Nowhere will they be more disappointed than Italy, where an improving ‘trend’ has been reversed. Deaths and infections are up again, but it’s even worse in Spain, and France has seen - in percentage terms - perhaps the biggest rise in deaths relating to the virus anywhere on the continent. It’s important not to read too much into any particular day’s figures, but people have been looking for the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s still not clear there is any. Possibly for the first time in this crisis, the worst news of the day is coming out of Spain. There are 514 more dead in the last 24 hours. 6,584 more people have contracted the virus, for the first time higher than Italy’s infection rate. Of almost 40,000 confirmed cases, 5,400 are medical workers - an astonishing 14 per cent of the total.
Just remembered that I didn't report back on my second trip to the gate. No human activity in the lane, but I was rewarded by hearing the call of a chiffchaff.
Yep, chiffchaffs have been singing here for a few days. Woodpeckers drumming today. Tawny owls going mad once it gets dark. Moth trap is on after a beautiful day - see if any new species have emerged.
Just remembered that I didn't report back on my second trip to the gate. No human activity in the lane, but I was rewarded by hearing the call of a chiffchaff.
Yep, chiffchaffs have been singing here for a few days. Woodpeckers drumming today. Tawny owls going mad once it gets dark. Moth trap is on after a beautiful day - see if any new species have emerged.
Moth spotting takes it to a totally different level.
It would seem that Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition - for now - has not exercised his 'right to reply' to Johnson's Ministerial broadcast from last night.
Do you want to make matters worse
It is a right which the Opposition Leader does have. No reason why taking it up would make matters worse at all - on the contrary, he could clearly state his support for the measures announced.
It would seem that Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition - for now - has not exercised his 'right to reply' to Johnson's Ministerial broadcast from last night.
Do you want to make matters worse
It is a right which the Opposition Leader does have. No reason why taking it up would make matters worse at all - on the contrary, he could clearly state his support for the measures announced.
I could tell you what Corbyn would say. So could most of the uk. Pointless him.responding really.
Comments
Matt Hancock: 3.5m coronavirus test kits on way to NHS
Patients to be priority for tests that would reveal if healthcare staff are safe to go back to work
"In his daily update, Jérôme Salomon, the director general of the French health service, has said the epidemic was now across France and “rapidly getting worse”.
France has 22,300 confirmed cases of coronavirus. There are 10,176 people in hospital 2,516 in intensive care, of whom 34% are aged younger than 60 years. There have been 1,100 deaths of patients with the coronavirus in hospital. 85% of these deaths are people over 70 years of age. The increase in deaths is 240 people in 24 hours."
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157863762566855&id=177595661854
And therefore, they will do nothing about Trump.
The local council sent out a very informative flyer last week about which businesses were doing delivery services etc. Really on the ball and there have been volunteers offering to help those who cannot get out.
On a more personal level I have received nothing either from government or NHS. Not a criticism just a fact.
Podcasts are a GodSend at a time like this. There are so many good ones. And I managed to do some exercises in the garden. Though daughter was hysterical with laughter at my star jumps .......
The question then would be ‘why not?’
Or is it just, it’s making things bloody awful instead of fucking catastrophic?
He made a good point, which again the government really should be splattering everywhere. If you get this and meet up with groups of people, the maths dictates that in a 9-10 cycles of transmission you are talking about potentially 60,000 new cases, and if only of a tiny percentage end up in hospital you are still single-handed crashing the system.
They really need a PSA, where it shows somebody doing this and all the consequences of people in ICU and dying, not just oldies, young ones too....use images from Italy...scare the shit out of people.
That won't stop the real knuckle-draggers, but I still think too many people think this is a) just about them i.e. I'm not an oldie and fit / healthy and b) not that serious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_European_Grand_Prix
If the Oxford model is correct (and I've been promoting the idea of wide infection and corresponding low fatality for at least two weeks) the Government actions are way OTT and economically damaging. But it's better to be safe than sorry.
Because I think the Oxford hypothesis is more likely to be correct, it has been the basis of my investment strategy which is not asymmetric. I invested half my cash in equities last Thursday on the basis that it was peak panic day.
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/economic-crash-could-cost-more-lives-than-coronavirus-study-warns-nxrn3bzbs
The world record holder for the longest televised putt was err Terry Wogan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADUAXf7hOo
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2020/mar/24/terrence-mcnally-playwright-dies-coronavirus-complications
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/03/24/storm-mounts-delays-sunaks-rescue-scheme-self-employed/
https://www.golfpunkhq.com/news/article/longest-ever-putt-on-tv
https://youtu.be/p4GgbWKcMVQ
There are rumours of an even longer putt that was filmed, but I can’t pin it down.
I doubt if the UK is near the infection peak. Spain is pretty dire today after 9 days of lockdown. The government is expecting the next 2 weeks to be pretty awful. It's gonig to be a long haul.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/boeing-ceo-does-not-want-us-to-take-stake-in-company-after-coronavirus-stimulus/ar-BB11DX5a
It appears that beggars can be choosers.
Disappointment is everywhere as the evidence that the Europe-wide lockdown may be defeating the coronavirus remains frustratingly elusive.
Nowhere will they be more disappointed than Italy, where an improving ‘trend’ has been reversed.
Deaths and infections are up again, but it’s even worse in Spain, and France has seen - in percentage terms - perhaps the biggest rise in deaths relating to the virus anywhere on the continent.
It’s important not to read too much into any particular day’s figures, but people have been looking for the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s still not clear there is any.
Possibly for the first time in this crisis, the worst news of the day is coming out of Spain. There are 514 more dead in the last 24 hours. 6,584 more people have contracted the virus, for the first time higher than Italy’s infection rate.
Of almost 40,000 confirmed cases, 5,400 are medical workers - an astonishing 14 per cent of the total.
Grim. Viral load stuff again?
NEW THREAD
Good stuff!
The oldest ever winner of the Open is Old Tom Harris. The youngest ever winner is Young Tom Harris.