To be fair to Boris, I think anyone would be a little hesitant given the enormity of the decisions he is making.
True, but you get the impression that it’s all the more painful because it goes against some of his values. He seems to get there in the end, but it takes a bit of extra time, which at the moment isn’t necessarily a good thing.
Good!
When it comes to a government putting in authoritarian restritions I'd far rather a PM who is instinctively against that than one who leaps at the opportunity for a power grab.
I'm glad Theresa May isn't PM now. Not only was she incompetent but she would have ceased authoritarian powers gladly.
I know I shouldn’t pick up on typos (my classes know I make enough of my own), but seized and ceased have rather different, if not opposite, meanings. I assume you meant the former.
Edit: Latter! Told you I make plenty of typos myself.
Mr. Observer, what percentage of Tube trains have been cancelled, though?
Mr. kle4, blaming imperial nostalgia is comforting for those so inclined. You can paint your opponents as dinosaurs with a side dish of underlying racism and a failure to understand the modern world. And then you don't have to bother actually engaging with their actual views.
In my experience, literal imperial nostalgia is not the issue, but the imperial hangover that somehow the English or British are “special” is absolutely real.
That period when the government was briefing that “unlike others, we are following the science” —- compared, presumably, to those disorganised, superstitious wogs south of Calais —- was a classic example.
Edit: this in turn informs the other imperial hangover which is the tendency to dismiss or scorn British achievement etc.
Two sides of the same coin, they feed off each other.
So we have a poster who writes best selling novels , regularly runs marathons in a treadmill and is a visionary futurologist? Am amazed Dom didn’t give her a job..
I have just been out on a shopping trip (I thought I would go in early in case I was asked to go into school).
I got there just as they opened. The shelves were still very empty. And so was the store, because there was nothing in it to buy.
I think the supply crisis could be about to become more severe than the virus one. It depends on whether it's a delivery bottleneck or the stuff just isn't there.
The pressure to invent new words to "professionalise" documentation and reports for a given discipline is enormous.
Many years ago a furious ex-civil servant phoned my by to savagely denounce my forcing some of his staff (who were working for me) to produce "unprofessional" reports.
I had simply sent the draft back until the invented words had disappeared, and all the padding had been removed. In one case, a 150 page report could be reduced to 2 sides of A4. And read by a standard human.
This is the kind of action I'm talking about, but with Singapore-style compulsion, rather than Japan/SK-style recommendation. They're closing bars, shutting down large gatherings, and requiring restaurants to reduce density. You stop the 10% of stuff that gives you maybe 90% of the effect.
If you do things like this before cases get out of hand, that seems to be effective at avoiding the need to shut everything down. In Europe and the US, many countries including Britain did too little too late, and that's why you're no longer allowed to leave your house.
Most likely this is the kind of thing Britain will ultimately be doing when it emerges from the lockdown.
This site is overloaded with fucking experts.
Or alternatively, people with a modicum of common sense who have watched what seems to have worked elsewhere, and learned.
So a bit of google here and there supersedes the wotk of government scientists who have clearly not bothered to look at any data and should bow down to EiT.
As he has pointed out before, many of the Asian nations had pandemic preparation plans based on the experience of SARS, and have managed to keep the numbers down (or in the case of Korea get on top of them) in a way we haven’t. Ours was based on flu.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of our ‘government scientists’ argue that Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea have handled things badly.
Should we simply ignore what has obviously happened ?
And only yesterday the experts were warning of the dangers of comparing the experiences of different countries. But then maybe you don't watch the press conferences.
You seem to want to shut down discussion of the best ways of dealing with this virus.
Indeed. A little sinister. And then he gets vitriolic if you disagree, so watch out.
OMG - my stalker is back.
Nah. You flatter yourself. You are one of the least interesting people on here. Having said that, it's not surprising. There are many brilliant contributors to pb.com
Have a good day folks,
xx
I largely lurk here and I agree there are many excellent posters of which you are not one. You are a part of the problem here, albeit small, and quite frankly people like you make me wish for an ignore function.
This is the kind of action I'm talking about, but with Singapore-style compulsion, rather than Japan/SK-style recommendation. They're closing bars, shutting down large gatherings, and requiring restaurants to reduce density. You stop the 10% of stuff that gives you maybe 90% of the effect.
If you do things like this before cases get out of hand, that seems to be effective at avoiding the need to shut everything down. In Europe and the US, many countries including Britain did too little too late, and that's why you're no longer allowed to leave your house.
Most likely this is the kind of thing Britain will ultimately be doing when it emerges from the lockdown.
This site is overloaded with fucking experts.
Or alternatively, people with a modicum of common sense who have watched what seems to have worked elsewhere, and learned.
So a bit of google here and there supersedes the wotk of government scientists who have clearly not bothered to look at any data and should bow down to EiT.
As he has pointed out before, many of the Asian nations had pandemic preparation plans based on the experience of SARS, and have managed to keep the numbers down (or in the case of Korea get on top of them) in a way we haven’t. Ours was based on flu.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of our ‘government scientists’ argue that Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea have handled things badly.
Should we simply ignore what has obviously happened ?
The UK government response to the crisis has been mainstream European. It has been very different to the way things have been handled in Asia and the US. That, in and of itself, is very notable. The other thing that is noteworthy is how all the arguments are happening around the edges. Everyone accepts the general direction of travel.
You do get the impression that there are things to learn from what happened in Asia. But good grief, we are lucky not to have Trump in charge.
Perhaps we can use our super power to greater effect, which is the power to challenge, scrutinise and ultimately change the direction of the executive when new facts come to light.
I think I've discovered the silver lining in all this!
Fewer trite references to "Boris" being the "British Trump"...
I think the bigger bonus is that it is going to be far harder to convince anyone in the UK that it is possible to work with someone as unstable and narcissistic as Trump. Good luck with chlorinated chicken after this! A huge downside is that the US is only going to become more isolationist and divided at home. It is hard to see things ending well over there.
Trumps ability to troll the English middle classes makes his re election worthwhile
I do think a national government will be useful when things start fraying, I'm talking of two scenarios
1) The lockdown is extended, far too many people think it will only last 3 weeks or something close to 12 weeks.
2) We really do flatten the curve so people get complacent and want to leave the lockdown quicker than the experts want, or if we need a second lockdown later on this year.
Which is obviously going to happen. The lockdown will end, we'll all go out and party like it's the f*cking millennium, and everyone will catch it. I can't wait to be honest.
If you believe the Oxford report today 50% of the population already has it anyway in some form
I don't believe the 50% have it, and 90% are symptomless, because:
1. We're still getting 70% negatives from the CV-19 tests. Are we really expected to believe that the people being tested are less likely to have the virus than the general population?
2. When one member of a family gets it, one would expect the other members - in most cases - to be symptom-free. If a man has sympotmatic CV-19, then there'd only be a 10% chance that his wife had symptoms. Yet, (anectode alert) I see more like 50%.
Now, if you told me that 15% of London had had CV-19, and that a further 25% of people were genetically predisposed not to get it (genes, blood type, etc.), that would seem very plausible to me.
But the test doesn’t show whether you have had it, merely whether you have it now. As below, Oxford assumes many of us have recovered.
The second point would be dealt with via viral load - if you are living with a carrier you are more likely to be infected over and over, unless you are suitably careful, in a similar way to people on the cruise ship and nurses in the hospitals.
I thought @Charles demolished this 'viral load' theory on here yesterday.
He expressed a view. He didn't demolish it. There were several contrary views.
The original Facebook post confused viral load with viral shedding.
That's a big pointer that it was all a load of bollocks.
No you misunderstood. The point was about the load acquired by the newly infected patient. Shedding is what those who are contagious do.
That's what the discussion developed into, but not the original facebook post.
The viral load is the measure of the number of viral particles in the bloodstream. You can't physically acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from an external infection event.
Setting aside the fact that we can't measure this for coronavirus it's just superficially appealing pseudoscience.
You catch it or you don't catch it. Your body fights it off or it doesn't.
Sitting in a room full of infected people will impact the probability of you getting it, not the likelihood it will be a serious infection.
But I don't want to repeat the discussion again, so if you don't believe me then that's up to you.
No the original Facebook post was about the viral load, it was about reducing the amount of the virus you acquire - and you CAN acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from catching the load from multiple people before your immune system kicks in*, or from the same person repeatedly, which is part of the reason why the NHS is recommending strong precautions against crowds and against sharing a towel etc with someone who is infected.
The Facebook post advising to follow NHS advice.
* This is said to be why the Chinese doctor who alerted the world to the virus died and why doctors and nurses are at such high risk.
The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.
FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.
Yes because it was talking about viral load. And I've heard multiple NHS Doctors on the TV and Radio talking about the risk of getting a worse outcome from catching more of the virus.
I think there is misunderstanding between the technical definition of “Viral load” (how much virus you have in your blood - once you’ve had one it will increase - at rate unknown) and a popular understanding of “”Viral load” as “how much virus you are exposed to” - clearly, the more, the higher the chance of infection. Hence the government advice.
Indeed but there is also mounting evidence that higher exposure can cause more viral load which can cause worse symptoms and many doctors are warning about this.
I can't understand the science of that comment.
I totally get it that the higher the viral load in the host, the more likely it is that you will catch it. This is why confined spaces and hospitals make it much more likely you will acquire it.
But I can't quite understand the science behind the idea that a higher viral load in the host makes your own acquired virus more severe.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I just don't understand the science of that.
Actually the logic is that you will catch it either way if you catch it (more exposure means more likely to catch it) but that by catching only a small amount of the virus your immune it starts multiplying but from a low base and your immune system has a better chance of fighting it.
If you get much more of it at the start you end up with the virus multiplying (from a higher base) within your body faster than your own body can fight it leading to it overwhelming your system and becoming critical.
Consider it the same logic as why we require social distancing but within your own cells rather than within the country. The country can cope with a few cases not multiplying fast, it can't cope with exponential cases from a high base. Your body can fight off a small viral load - get a large viral load exponentially growing within you and your body suffers for it.
We were mainstream in that we ignored the warnings coming from elsewhere because nothing much had actually happened in the UK (see also Italy, Spain, France, etc), but did then act when it was clear what was going to happen (though more is still needed (see arguing around the edge)).
Those who say we should have closed down the economy sooner need to tell us what they would have done for example when SARS broke out. Should we have closed down all air traffic when we had 4 cases?
No but if the likes of Eadric and I can warn people in January why did it take until March for our Gov't to get its act together? Jeremy Hunt knew they were talking bollocks and, gently, said so.
I blame Brexit. Not only did it distract us, it helped foster the illusion that we're a great nation. Well we aren't. We're a tiny little island resting on past glories and we need the humility to listen to others and work with them.
Jesus christ, why is it that everything gets blamed on imperial nostalgia?
It exists, but it's far far less prevalent than people act like it is, it's not a catch all explanation for every problem this country faces.
It's a comfort blanket - it allows people not to have to think -
1) He's a Brexiter, hence sub-humans 2) X is caused by Brexit, so we can blame it on the sub-humans
The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.
FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.
This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
The pressure to invent new words to "professionalise" documentation and reports for a given discipline is enormous.
Many years ago a furious ex-civil servant phoned my by to savagely denounce my forcing some of his staff (who were working for me) to produce "unprofessional" reports.
I had simply sent the draft back until the invented words had disappeared, and all the padding had been removed. In one case, a 150 page report could be reduced to 2 sides of A4. And read by a standard human.
I do think a national government will be useful when things start fraying, I'm talking of two scenarios
1) The lockdown is extended, far too many people think it will only last 3 weeks or something close to 12 weeks.
2) We really do flatten the curve so people get complacent and want to leave the lockdown quicker than the experts want, or if we need a second lockdown later on this year.
Which is obviously going to happen. The lockdown will end, we'll all go out and party like it's the f*cking millennium, and everyone will catch it. I can't wait to be honest.
If you believe the Oxford report today 50% of the population already has it anyway in some form
I don't believe the 50% have it, and 90% are symptomless, because:
1. We're still getting 70% negatives from the CV-19 tests. Are we really expected to believe that the people being tested are less likely to have the virus than the general population?
2. When one member of a family gets it, one would expect the other members - in most cases - to be symptom-free. If a man has sympotmatic CV-19, then there'd only be a 10% chance that his wife had symptoms. Yet, (anectode alert) I see more like 50%.
Now, if you told me that 15% of London had had CV-19, and that a further 25% of people were genetically predisposed not to get it (genes, blood type, etc.), that would seem very plausible to me.
But the test doesn’t show whether you have had it, merely whether you have it now. As below, Oxford assumes many of us have recovered.
The second point would be dealt with via viral load - if you are living with a carrier you are more likely to be infected over and over, unless you are suitably careful, in a similar way to people on the cruise ship and nurses in the hospitals.
I thought @Charles demolished this 'viral load' theory on here yesterday.
He expressed a view. He didn't demolish it. There were several contrary views.
The original Facebook post confused viral load with viral shedding.
That's a big pointer that it was all a load of bollocks.
No you misunderstood. The point was about the load acquired by the newly infected patient. Shedding is what those who are contagious do.
That's what the discussion developed into, but not the original facebook post.
The viral load is the measure of the number of viral particles in the bloodstream. You can't physically acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from an external infection event.
Setting aside the fact that we can't measure this for coronavirus it's just superficially appealing pseudoscience.
You catch it or you don't catch it. Your body fights it off or it doesn't.
Sitting in a room full of infected people will impact the probability of you getting it, not the likelihood it will be a serious infection.
But I don't want to repeat the discussion again, so if you don't believe me then that's up to you.
No the original Facebook post was about the viral load, it was about reducing the amount of the virus you acquire - and you CAN acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from catching the load from multiple people before your immune system kicks in*, or from the same person repeatedly, which is part of the reason why the NHS is recommending strong precautions against crowds and against sharing a towel etc with someone who is infected.
The Facebook post advising to follow NHS advice.
* This is said to be why the Chinese doctor who alerted the world to the virus died and why doctors and nurses are at such high risk.
The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.
FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.
Yes because it was talking about viral load. And I've heard multiple NHS Doctors on the TV and Radio talking about the risk of getting a worse outcome from catching more of the virus.
I think there is misunderstanding between the technical definition of “Viral load” (how much virus you have in your blood - once you’ve had one it will increase - at rate unknown) and a popular understanding of “”Viral load” as “how much virus you are exposed to” - clearly, the more, the higher the chance of infection. Hence the government advice.
Indeed but there is also mounting evidence that higher exposure can cause more viral load which can cause worse symptoms and many doctors are warning about this.
I can't understand the science of that comment.
I totally get it that the higher the viral load in the host, the more likely it is that you will catch it. This is why confined spaces and hospitals make it much more likely you will acquire it.
But I can't quite understand the science behind the idea that a higher viral load in the host makes your own acquired virus more severe.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I just don't understand the science of that.
Actually the logic is that you will catch it either way if you catch it (more exposure means more likely to catch it) but that by catching only a small amount of the virus your immune it starts multiplying but from a low base and your immune system has a better chance of fighting it.
If you get much more of it at the start you end up with the virus multiplying (from a higher base) within your body faster than your own body can fight it leading to it overwhelming your system and becoming critical.
Consider it the same logic as why we require social distancing but within your own cells rather than within the country. The country can cope with a few cases not multiplying fast, it can't cope with exponential cases from a high base. Your body can fight off a small viral load - get a large viral load exponentially growing within you and your body suffers for it.
The reaction of the immune system is proportional to the viral load.
The pressure to invent new words to "professionalise" documentation and reports for a given discipline is enormous.
Many years ago a furious ex-civil servant phoned my by to savagely denounce my forcing some of his staff (who were working for me) to produce "unprofessional" reports.
I had simply sent the draft back until the invented words had disappeared, and all the padding had been removed. In one case, a 150 page report could be reduced to 2 sides of A4. And read by a standard human.
Ridership is a great Anglo-Saxonism though. Sounds much more down to earth than possible Latinate terms.
I do think a national government will be useful when things start fraying, I'm talking of two scenarios
1) The lockdown is extended, far too many people think it will only last 3 weeks or something close to 12 weeks.
2) We really do flatten the curve so people get complacent and want to leave the lockdown quicker than the experts want, or if we need a second lockdown later on this year.
Which is obviously going to happen. The lockdown will end, we'll all go out and party like it's the f*cking millennium, and everyone will catch it. I can't wait to be honest.
If you believe the Oxford report today 50% of the population already has it anyway in some form
I don't believe the 50% have it, and 90% are symptomless, because:
1. We're still getting 70% negatives from the CV-19 tests. Are we really expected to believe that the people being tested are less likely to have the virus than the general population?
2. When one member of a family gets it, one would expect the other members - in most cases - to be symptom-free. If a man has sympotmatic CV-19, then there'd only be a 10% chance that his wife had symptoms. Yet, (anectode alert) I see more like 50%.
Now, if you told me that 15% of London had had CV-19, and that a further 25% of people were genetically predisposed not to get it (genes, blood type, etc.), that would seem very plausible to me.
But the test doesn’t show whether you have had it, merely whether you have it now. As below, Oxford assumes many of us have recovered.
The second point would be dealt with via viral load - if you are living with a carrier you are more likely to be infected over and over, unless you are suitably careful, in a similar way to people on the cruise ship and nurses in the hospitals.
I thought @Charles demolished this 'viral load' theory on here yesterday.
He expressed a view. He didn't demolish it. There were several contrary views.
The original Facebook post confused viral load with viral shedding.
That's a big pointer that it was all a load of bollocks.
No you misunderstood. The point was about the load acquired by the newly infected patient. Shedding is what those who are contagious do.
That's what the discussion developed into, but not the original facebook post.
The viral load is the measure of the number of viral particles in the bloodstream. You can't physically acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from an external infection event.
Setting aside the fact that we can't measure this for coronavirus it's just superficially appealing pseudoscience.
You catch it or you don't catch it. Your body fights it off or it doesn't.
Sitting in a room full of infected people will impact the probability of you getting it, not the likelihood it will be a serious infection.
But I don't want to repeat the discussion again, so if you don't believe me then that's up to you.
That doesn't really sit happily with the findings, in particular the proportion of those medical staff infected who develop serious symptoms. I believe recent figures were that medical staff account for 8% of Italian infections but 15% of Italian deaths.
Some of this might be down to timing, of course, but I have also seen articles talking about the risks of multiple infection incidences and the amount of virus received.
I would be interested in the source saying that 15% of Italian deaths are Health Care Workers (not medical staff surely?). That would require a very high age for Italian HCW, and also around a thousand dead.
I do think a national government will be useful when things start fraying, I'm talking of two scenarios
1) The lockdown is extended, far too many people think it will only last 3 weeks or something close to 12 weeks.
2) We really do flatten the curve so people get complacent and want to leave the lockdown quicker than the experts want, or if we need a second lockdown later on this year.
Which is obviously going to happen. The lockdown will end, we'll all go out and party like it's the f*cking millennium, and everyone will catch it. I can't wait to be honest.
If you believe the Oxford report today 50% of the population already has it anyway in some form
I don't believe the 50% have it, and 90% are symptomless, because:
1. We're still getting 70% negatives from the CV-19 tests. Are we really expected to believe that the people being tested are less likely to have the virus than the general population?
2. When one member of a family gets it, one would expect the other members - in most cases - to be symptom-free. If a man has sympotmatic CV-19, then there'd only be a 10% chance that his wife had symptoms. Yet, (anectode alert) I see more like 50%.
Now, if you told me that 15% of London had had CV-19, and that a further 25% of people were genetically predisposed not to get it (genes, blood type, etc.), that would seem very plausible to me.
But the test doesn’t show whether you have had it, merely whether you have it now. As below, Oxford assumes many of us have recovered.
The second point would be dealt with via viral load - if you are living with a carrier you are more likely to be infected over and over, unless you are suitably careful, in a similar way to people on the cruise ship and nurses in the hospitals.
I thought @Charles demolished this 'viral load' theory on here yesterday.
He expressed a view. He didn't demolish it. There were several contrary views.
The original Facebook post confused viral load with viral shedding.
That's a big pointer that it was all a load of bollocks.
No you misunderstood. The point was about the load acquired by the newly infected patient. Shedding is what those who are contagious do.
That's what the discussion developed into, but not the original facebook post.
The viral load is the measure of the number of viral particles in the bloodstream. You can't physically acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from an external infection event.
Setting aside the fact that we can't measure this for coronavirus it's just superficially appealing pseudoscience.
You catch it or you don't catch it. Your body fights it off or it doesn't.
Sitting in a room full of infected people will impact the probability of you getting it, not the likelihood it will be a serious infection.
But I don't want to repeat the discussion again, so if you don't believe me then that's up to you.
That doesn't really sit happily with the findings, in particular the proportion of those medical staff infected who develop serious symptoms. I believe recent figures were that medical staff account for 8% of Italian infections but 15% of Italian deaths.
Some of this might be down to timing, of course, but I have also seen articles talking about the risks of multiple infection incidences and the amount of virus received.
I would be interested in the source saying that 15% of Italian deaths are Health Care Workers (not medical staff surely?). That would require a very high age for Italian HCW, and also around a thousand dead.
I can believe 15% of test positive are HCW, just not 15% of deaths.
Yes, you may be right. I thought I saw it over the weekend but can't relocate it. Maybe it was my mistake. What does appear to be the case is that there aren't official statistics in most countries on the outcomes of health worker cases; the data we see reported is being extracted from records independently.
The pressure to invent new words to "professionalise" documentation and reports for a given discipline is enormous.
Many years ago a furious ex-civil servant phoned my by to savagely denounce my forcing some of his staff (who were working for me) to produce "unprofessional" reports.
I had simply sent the draft back until the invented words had disappeared, and all the padding had been removed. In one case, a 150 page report could be reduced to 2 sides of A4. And read by a standard human.
It should be remembered that the media likes to report stories - a classic is using camera angles to frame a story in a particular way.
For example, the attack on a reporter on the island of Lesbos by locals happened because reports were openly framing the stories about the situation - taking pictures of the "right kind of groups".
This is the kind of action I'm talking about, but with Singapore-style compulsion, rather than Japan/SK-style recommendation. They're closing bars, shutting down large gatherings, and requiring restaurants to reduce density. You stop the 10% of stuff that gives you maybe 90% of the effect.
If you do things like this before cases get out of hand, that seems to be effective at avoiding the need to shut everything down. In Europe and the US, many countries including Britain did too little too late, and that's why you're no longer allowed to leave your house.
Most likely this is the kind of thing Britain will ultimately be doing when it emerges from the lockdown.
This site is overloaded with fucking experts.
Or alternatively, people with a modicum of common sense who have watched what seems to have worked elsewhere, and learned.
So a bit of google here and there supersedes the wotk of government scientists who have clearly not bothered to look at any data and should bow down to EiT.
As he has pointed out before, many of the Asian nations had pandemic preparation plans based on the experience of SARS, and have managed to keep the numbers down (or in the case of Korea get on top of them) in a way we haven’t. Ours was based on flu.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of our ‘government scientists’ argue that Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea have handled things badly.
Should we simply ignore what has obviously happened ?
The UK government response to the crisis has been mainstream European. It has been very different to the way things have been handled in Asia and the US. That, in and of itself, is very notable. The other thing that is noteworthy is how all the arguments are happening around the edges. Everyone accepts the general direction of travel.
You do get the impression that there are things to learn from what happened in Asia. But good grief, we are lucky not to have Trump in charge.
Perhaps we can use our super power to greater effect, which is the power to challenge, scrutinise and ultimately change the direction of the executive when new facts come to light.
I think I've discovered the silver lining in all this!
Fewer trite references to "Boris" being the "British Trump"...
I think the bigger bonus is that it is going to be far harder to convince anyone in the UK that it is possible to work with someone as unstable and narcissistic as Trump. Good luck with chlorinated chicken after this! A huge downside is that the US is only going to become more isolationist and divided at home. It is hard to see things ending well over there.
Trumps ability to troll the English middle classes makes his re election worthwhile
We were mainstream in that we ignored the warnings coming from elsewhere because nothing much had actually happened in the UK (see also Italy, Spain, France, etc), but did then act when it was clear what was going to happen (though more is still needed (see arguing around the edge)).
Those who say we should have closed down the economy sooner need to tell us what they would have done for example when SARS broke out. Should we have closed down all air traffic when we had 4 cases?
No but if the likes of Eadric and I can warn people in January why did it take until March for our Gov't to get its act together? Jeremy Hunt knew they were talking bollocks and, gently, said so.
I blame Brexit. Not only did it distract us, it helped foster the illusion that we're a great nation. Well we aren't. We're a tiny little island resting on past glories and we need the humility to listen to others and work with them.
Eadric wasn't warning people in January. He wasn't even here in January.
Eadric must be a mutation. Of a less virulent strain ?
The less virulent strain certainly wasn't warning people in January
The Olympics have been cancelled and it barely merits a mention. Extraordinary times.
It was so inevitable that the only surprise was that it took so long. A lot of politicians and leaders in a lot of countries really seem to find it very difficult to project a few weeks down the road we are on. I am not sure if it is essentially a form of innumeracy or a lack of imagination but it is not helpful. Trump of course is the extreme example of this.
You only have to read the first page with the abstract of their conclusions to see that they are going much further that that.
Can you be more specific? I do not see anything much further. Indeed the first sentence of the "results" section reads:
"Our overall approach rests on the assumption that only a very small proportion of the population is at risk of hospitalisable illness." (emphasis mine)
--AS
What they appear to have done is derived from first principles a model of epidemiological spread, and then run the model with varying assumptions to see which best fit the data we have on numbers of reported infections and deaths in the UK and Italy.
Their conclusion is that the model with the earlier start, relatively widespread infection rates and low rates of need for hospitalisation fits the data the best.
This doesn't, of course, prove anything - although it is a piece of analysis to throw into the mix. It would also explain the apparent levelling off in China and Iran, for which I haven't yet seen other convincing explanations (apart from major data inadequacy or fraud)
That they are doing more than exploring possibilities is very clear from their paper, for example "Importantly, the results we present here suggest the ongoing epidemics in the UK and Italy started at least a month before the first reported death and have already led to the accumulation of significant levels of herd immunity in both countries."
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. They do not assess which of their assumptions fit the data best. There is simply no such comparison, unless we are reading different papers. They *do* find posteriors for the other parameters, on the assumption of p, but they do not assess different p for fit with the data. Indeed, the scenarios of p=0.001 and p=0.01 both fit the observed death curve about the same, as can be seen from figures 1-3. It's hard to tell from the overlaid plot, but p=0.1 also seems about the same fit in fig 3.
At the most, I could infer some sort of assessment of the different p from the timing: their posteriors for the time of introduction, comparing with the first confirmed case. However, this is critically dependent on the incubation period and time to death, and the sensitivity to these assumptions is not tested. (It also doesn't take into account the quarantine and contact tracing that occurred in the early phase.) The paper doesn't make scientific claims about this, but I would guess that this is the basis of the sentence you quote from the introduction. However, the science (in the paper) doesn't back up that conclusion.
For what it's worth, I don't think this paper will survive peer review in its present form. I fervently hope it is correct that only p=0.001 of cases are severe (with about 1/6 of those leading to death), but as others have pointed out that is incompatible with other pieces of data. It's the fog of war right now, but I don't find this paper to be helpful speculation, certainly not when added to the interview given to the FT.
--AS
The one linked from the FT article does look very much a work in progress (huge amounts missing if I was to peer review it - it's not exactly my field, but not too far off). There also appear to be several models that fit the data fairly well, not just the one that implies 50%+ infection.
Let's start with a few pointers. First of all, in 1915 and 1931 the government had no majority - indeed, in 1915 the Liberals weren't even the largest party. So it was inevitable that when the government was paralysed a coalition would have to be formed. This was somewhat helped by the fact that stable leadership was available for the Opposition - Bonar Law in 1915, and Baldwin (having fought off Beaverbrook) and Chamberlain in 1931 - so that negotiations were straightforward. No parallel can be usefully drawn with them.
In 1940, therefore, we had a well established PM leading a government with a large majority. It is worth noting it took eight months for misgivings about the PM to become fatal to him - through the failure to relieve Poland, the Hore-Belisha affair, the lack of planning for a German invasion of Norway to secure its routes to Sweden (although plans existed to forestall it, Chamberlain refused to implement them until it was too late). If this lasts five months, there will be no government left anyway so the point is moot.
It was also very much personal antipathy to Chamberlain among disaffected National Government backbenchers - some of whom, e.g. Clement Davies, had actually crossed the floor - that doomed him. His famous phrase 'I have friends in this house,' is widely mocked, but to the extent that it was his enemies that were intriguing against him, it was a fair enough comment. Johnson has purged almost all his enemies in the last five months. He is in a much stronger position than Chamberlain.
In 1940, also, there were clear alternatives who might do better and who were acceptable to the Opposition. Who could realistically replace Johnson? His cabinet is full of pygmies. There is no backbencher with the retirement of Clarke who could command widespread support. Hague could hardly lead from the Lords.
But finally - what benefit would it confer? On the Labour benches, who might be employed in a cabinet? Realistically, only Starmer and possibly Ashworth from the front bench, and Benn, Cooper and Miliband from elsewhere. The Liberal Democrats, only Ed Davey. As for the SNP, all their talent is in Holyrood (when Ian Blackford is your best person, something is wrong). I hold no brief for this government, indeed I despise it, but it would be weakened by bringing in Corbyn, Lucas, Abbot or Moran, which is exactly what we don't want. There is no equivalent to Attlee, Greenwood, Bevin and Sinclair.
So I am against it. But the point is moot, as it ain't gonna happen.
I do think a national government will be useful when things start fraying, I'm talking of two scenarios
1) The lockdown is extended, far too many people think it will only last 3 weeks or something close to 12 weeks.
2) We really do flatten the curve so people get complacent and want to leave the lockdown quicker than the experts want, or if we need a second lockdown later on this year.
Which is obviously going to happen. The lockdown will end, we'll all go out and party like it's the f*cking millennium, and everyone will catch it. I can't wait to be honest.
If you believe the Oxford report today 50% of the population already has it anyway in some form
I don't believe the 50% have it, and 90% are symptomless, because:
1. We're still getting 70% negatives from the CV-19 tests. Are we really expected to believe that the people being tested are less likely to have the virus than the general population?
2. When one member of a family gets it, one would expect the other members - in most cases - to be symptom-free. If a man has sympotmatic CV-19, then there'd only be a 10% chance that his wife had symptoms. Yet, (anectode alert) I see more like 50%.
Now, if you told me that 15% of London had had CV-19, and that a further 25% of people were genetically predisposed not to get it (genes, blood type, etc.), that would seem very plausible to me.
But the test doesn’t show whether you have had it, merely whether you have it now. As below, Oxford assumes many of us have recovered.
The second point would be dealt with via viral load - if you are living with a carrier you are more likely to be infected over and over, unless you are suitably careful, in a similar way to people on the cruise ship and nurses in the hospitals.
I thought @Charles demolished this 'viral load' theory on here yesterday.
He expressed a view. He didn't demolish it. There were several contrary views.
The original Facebook post confused viral load with viral shedding.
That's a big pointer that it was all a load of bollocks.
No you misunderstood. The point was about the load acquired by the newly infected patient. Shedding is what those who are contagious do.
That's what the discussion developed into, but not the original facebook post.
The viral load is the measure of the number of viral particles in the bloodstream. You can't physically acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from an external infection event.
Setting aside the fact that we can't measure this for coronavirus it's just superficially appealing pseudoscience.
You catch it or you don't catch it. Your body fights it off or it doesn't.
Sitting in a room full of infected people will impact the probability of you getting it, not the likelihood it will be a serious infection.
But I don't want to repeat the discussion again, so if you don't believe me then that's up to you.
No the original Facebook post was about the viral load, it was about reducing the amount of the virus you acquire - and you CAN acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from catching the load from multiple people before your immune system kicks in*, or from the same person repeatedly, which is part of the reason why the NHS is recommending strong precautions against crowds and against sharing a towel etc with someone who is infected.
The Facebook post advising to follow NHS advice.
* This is said to be why the Chinese doctor who alerted the world to the virus died and why doctors and nurses are at such high risk.
The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.
FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.
Yes because it was talking about viral load. And I've heard multiple NHS Doctors on the TV and Radio talking about the risk of getting a worse outcome from catching more of the virus.
I think there is misunderstanding between the technical definition of “Viral load” (how much virus you have in your blood - once you’ve had one it will increase - at rate unknown) and a popular understanding of “”Viral load” as “how much virus you are exposed to” - clearly, the more, the higher the chance of infection. Hence the government advice.
Indeed but there is also mounting evidence that higher exposure can cause more viral load which can cause worse symptoms and many doctors are warning about this.
I can't understand the science of that comment.
I totally get it that the higher the viral load in the host, the more likely it is that you will catch it. This is why confined spaces and hospitals make it much more likely you will acquire it.
But I can't quite understand the science behind the idea that a higher viral load in the host makes your own acquired virus more severe.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I just don't understand the science of that.
Actually the logic is that you will catch it either way if you catch it (more exposure means more likely to catch it) but that by catching only a small amount of the virus your immune it starts multiplying but from a low base and your immune system has a better chance of fighting it.
If you get much more of it at the start you end up with the virus multiplying (from a higher base) within your body faster than your own body can fight it leading to it overwhelming your system and becoming critical.
Consider it the same logic as why we require social distancing but within your own cells rather than within the country. The country can cope with a few cases not multiplying fast, it can't cope with exponential cases from a high base. Your body can fight off a small viral load - get a large viral load exponentially growing within you and your body suffers for it.
Indeed. There's a lot of garbage that gets shared on Facebook but the higher viral load risking a more severe outcome and the need for a precious ICU bed has a lot of science behind it - and why take the risk?
The one linked from the FT article does look very much a work in progress (huge amounts missing if I was to peer review it - it's not exactly my field, but not too far off). There also appear to be several models that fit the data fairly well, not just the one that implies 50%+ infection.
Yes. Same here, and I reach the same conclusions. I'm disappointed in the authors.
It should be remembered that the media likes to report stories - a classic is using camera angles to frame a story in a particular way.
For example, the attack on a reporter on the island of Lesbos by locals happened because reports were openly framing the stories about the situation - taking pictures of the "right kind of groups".
Yes and no. Re TfL the issue was not the numbers of passengers but the way they were packed like sardines because they were all travelling at the same time (rush hour?) in a reduced number of trains.
It should be remembered that the media likes to report stories - a classic is using camera angles to frame a story in a particular way.
For example, the attack on a reporter on the island of Lesbos by locals happened because reports were openly framing the stories about the situation - taking pictures of the "right kind of groups".
The phrase “the camera never lies” was made by someone who wasn’t very good at photography.
The pressure to invent new words to "professionalise" documentation and reports for a given discipline is enormous.
Many years ago a furious ex-civil servant phoned my by to savagely denounce my forcing some of his staff (who were working for me) to produce "unprofessional" reports.
I had simply sent the draft back until the invented words had disappeared, and all the padding had been removed. In one case, a 150 page report could be reduced to 2 sides of A4. And read by a standard human.
In the case I was speaking of, I was a subject matter expert. Copy-and-pasta of material that had less relevancy and use than a section of the Sofia telephony directory is neither impressive or clever.
The pressure to invent new words to "professionalise" documentation and reports for a given discipline is enormous.
Many years ago a furious ex-civil servant phoned my by to savagely denounce my forcing some of his staff (who were working for me) to produce "unprofessional" reports.
I had simply sent the draft back until the invented words had disappeared, and all the padding had been removed. In one case, a 150 page report could be reduced to 2 sides of A4. And read by a standard human.
Ridership is a great Anglo-Saxonism though. Sounds much more down to earth than possible Latinate terms.
If I remember correctly, the use of the term rider in the context of the Underground goes back to (Edwardian?) times of Yerkes, who imported a bunch of American terminology along with his $$$.
I do think a national government will be useful when things start fraying, I'm talking of two scenarios
1) The lockdown is extended, far too many people think it will only last 3 weeks or something close to 12 weeks.
2) We really do flatten the curve so people get complacent and want to leave the lockdown quicker than the experts want, or if we need a second lockdown later on this year.
Which is obviously going to happen. The lockdown will end, we'll all go out and party like it's the f*cking millennium, and everyone will catch it. I can't wait to be honest.
If you believe the Oxford report today 50% of the population already has it anyway in some form
I don't believe the 50% have it, and 90% are symptomless, because:
1. We're still getting 70% negatives from the CV-19 tests. Are we really expected to believe that the people being tested are less likely to have the virus than the general population?
2. When one member of a family gets it, one would expect the other members - in most cases - to be symptom-free. If a man has sympotmatic CV-19, then there'd only be a 10% chance that his wife had symptoms. Yet, (anectode alert) I see more like 50%.
Now, if you told me that 15% of London had had CV-19, and that a further 25% of people were genetically predisposed not to get it (genes, blood type, etc.), that would seem very plausible to me.
But the test doesn’t show whether you have had it, merely whether you have it now. As below, Oxford assumes many of us have recovered.
The second point would be dealt with via viral load - if you are living with a carrier you are more likely to be infected over and over, unless you are suitably careful, in a similar way to people on the cruise ship and nurses in the hospitals.
I thought @Charles demolished this 'viral load' theory on here yesterday.
He expressed a view. He didn't demolish it. There were several contrary views.
The original Facebook post confused viral load with viral shedding.
That's a big pointer that it was all a load of bollocks.
No you misunderstood. The point was about the load acquired by the newly infected patient. Shedding is what those who are contagious do.
That's what the discussion developed into, but not the original facebook post.
The viral load is the measure of the number of viral particles in the bloodstream. You can't physically acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from an external infection event.
Setting aside the fact that we can't measure this for coronavirus it's just superficially appealing pseudoscience.
You catch it or you don't catch it. Your body fights it off or it doesn't.
Sitting in a room full of infected people will impact the probability of you getting it, not the likelihood it will be a serious infection.
But I don't want to repeat the discussion again, so if you don't believe me then that's up to you.
No the original Facebook post was about the viral load, it was about reducing the amount of the virus you acquire - and you CAN acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from catching the load from multiple people before your immune system kicks in*, or from the same person repeatedly, which is part of the reason why the NHS is recommending strong precautions against crowds and against sharing a towel etc with someone who is infected.
The Facebook post advising to follow NHS advice.
* This is said to be why the Chinese doctor who alerted the world to the virus died and why doctors and nurses are at such high risk.
The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.
FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.
Yes because it was talking about viral load. And I've heard multiple NHS Doctors on the TV and Radio talking about the risk of getting a worse outcome from catching more of the virus.
I think there is misunderstanding between the technical definition of “Viral load” (how much virus you have in your blood - once you’ve had one it will increase - at rate unknown) and a popular understanding of “”Viral load” as “how much virus you are exposed to” - clearly, the more, the higher the chance of infection. Hence the government advice.
Indeed but there is also mounting evidence that higher exposure can cause more viral load which can cause worse symptoms and many doctors are warning about this.
I can't understand the science of that comment.
I totally get it that the higher the viral load in the host, the more likely it is that you will catch it. This is why confined spaces and hospitals make it much more likely you will acquire it.
But I can't quite understand the science behind the idea that a higher viral load in the host makes your own acquired virus more severe.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I just don't understand the science of that.
Actually the logic is that you will catch it either way if you catch it (more exposure means more likely to catch it) but that by catching only a small amount of the virus your immune it starts multiplying but from a low base and your immune system has a better chance of fighting it.
If you get much more of it at the start you end up with the virus multiplying (from a higher base) within your body faster than your own body can fight it leading to it overwhelming your system and becoming critical.
Consider it the same logic as why we require social distancing but within your own cells rather than within the country. The country can cope with a few cases not multiplying fast, it can't cope with exponential cases from a high base. Your body can fight off a small viral load - get a large viral load exponentially growing within you and your body suffers for it.
It is not completely daft as a concept. It is well recognised in paediatrics that the second child in a household to catch chicken pox gets a much worse illness. The difference between a transient exposure, and a more intense one.
It should be remembered that the media likes to report stories - a classic is using camera angles to frame a story in a particular way.
For example, the attack on a reporter on the island of Lesbos by locals happened because reports were openly framing the stories about the situation - taking pictures of the "right kind of groups".
Yes and no. Re TfL the issue was not the numbers of passengers but the way they were packed like sardines because they were all travelling at the same time (rush hour?) in a reduced number of trains.
100% agreed John. TfL should not be cutting services (unless required due to a lack of staff).
The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.
FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.
This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
The Olympics have been cancelled and it barely merits a mention. Extraordinary times.
It was so inevitable that the only surprise was that it took so long. A lot of politicians and leaders in a lot of countries really seem to find it very difficult to project a few weeks down the road we are on. I am not sure if it is essentially a form of innumeracy or a lack of imagination but it is not helpful. Trump of course is the extreme example of this.
More just wishful thinking. This entire year, and the next few years are going to be shit.
I can see why Majestic wanted to stay open, given this was what the Wine Society told its members:
"Demand has been exceptionally high".
A company supplying both wine and home gym equipment right now would clean up.
All we had to do is buy toilet rolls, sanitiser, bread machines, flour, yeast, paracetamol, eggs and zinc tablets back in February, and by now we'd all be millionaires....
It should be remembered that the media likes to report stories - a classic is using camera angles to frame a story in a particular way.
For example, the attack on a reporter on the island of Lesbos by locals happened because reports were openly framing the stories about the situation - taking pictures of the "right kind of groups".
Yes and no. Re TfL the issue was not the numbers of passengers but the way they were packed like sardines because they were all travelling at the same time (rush hour?) in a reduced number of trains.
During the first gulf war, the media accused the American government of only providing them with video of successful strikes by smart bombs - in fact they were providing video fo a small number of missies.
The hit rate was running at 80% or so.
The US government replied that if they published lots of video of misses, the media would distort the situation.
A very senior CNN executive was interviewed - he said that this was completely untrue - they would be completely unbiased.
If provided with all the video, they would show one or 2 of the hits and then *all* the misses.
This is the kind of action I'm talking about, but with Singapore-style compulsion, rather than Japan/SK-style recommendation. They're closing bars, shutting down large gatherings, and requiring restaurants to reduce density. You stop the 10% of stuff that gives you maybe 90% of the effect.
If you do things like this before cases get out of hand, that seems to be effective at avoiding the need to shut everything down. In Europe and the US, many countries including Britain did too little too late, and that's why you're no longer allowed to leave your house.
Most likely this is the kind of thing Britain will ultimately be doing when it emerges from the lockdown.
This site is overloaded with fucking experts.
Or alternatively, people with a modicum of common sense who have watched what seems to have worked elsewhere, and learned.
So a bit of google here and there supersedes the wotk of government scientists who have clearly not bothered to look at any data and should bow down to EiT.
As he has pointed out before, many of the Asian nations had pandemic preparation plans based on the experience of SARS, and have managed to keep the numbers down (or in the case of Korea get on top of them) in a way we haven’t. Ours was based on flu.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of our ‘government scientists’ argue that Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea have handled things badly.
Should we simply ignore what has obviously happened ?
And only yesterday the experts were warning of the dangers of comparing the experiences of different countries. But then maybe you don't watch the press conferences.
Hoping that you're going to come down like a ton of bricks on those indulging in endless speculation on why Germany is doing relatively well on the virus, often based on the proposition that they're somehow fiddling the stats. And give the 'it wuz the Sino leather workers of Tuscany wotz to blame' merchants a boot up the hoop while you're at it.
Sounds like stifling something you don't agree with.
There's more than anecdotal evidence that Germany are excluding from their mortality rates anyone who would have died of other causes in the imminent future. I don't entirely blame them but it certainly helps explain the discrepancy.
There is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise that Germany is recording Covid-19 deaths in a different way to England, for example.
This is the reality in Germany: If you are in hospital dying of something else you will not usually be tested for Covid-19 unless you have relevant symptoms. If you test positive for Covid-19 and die it is recorded as a Covid-19 death, whether you had other illnesses or not. As Germany has done more testing per capita than England it is likely that Germany has actually recorded more of the people who have died with Covid-19 than England. Unless England is routinely doing postmortem testing, which AFAIK isn't happening.
The death rate in Germany is rising, and will no doubt end up about the same as in other countries. Indeed, there are many other countries with a lower apparent death rate already.
O/T: Trump's ratings are improving across the board now. Presumably the rationale is "rally round the leader in time of crisis". Most people don't care about the fumbles and U-turns and comic moments - they think "Here's a crisis and here's a leader tackling it."
O/T: Trump's ratings are improving across the board now. Presumably the rationale is "rally round the leader in time of crisis". Most people don't care about the fumbles and U-turns and comic moments - they think "Here's a crisis and here's a leader tackling it."
I agree that there is no call at the moment for a government of national unity. I think the crisis does require politicians to adapt to be challenging but constructive.
Parliament should continue to meet by Zoom, like the rest of us are doing.
And so it has started. They can't help themselves.
Don't be silly. That is a perfectly sensible approach. Why should partisan considerations in parliament overrule the independent boundary commission or the career worries of individual MPs? It absolutely should be done independently and without an automatic MP veto, as is it in Ireland for example.
Or would you prefer Boris with his big majority to be able to override the independent commission?
The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.
FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.
This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....
Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
It should be remembered that the media likes to report stories - a classic is using camera angles to frame a story in a particular way.
For example, the attack on a reporter on the island of Lesbos by locals happened because reports were openly framing the stories about the situation - taking pictures of the "right kind of groups".
The phrase “the camera never lies” was made by someone who wasn’t very good at photography.
I seem to have coined the phrase "Estate agents lens" - it is quite remarkable what a 15-35mm can do - even when stopped down.
And so it has started. They can't help themselves.
To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.
There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.
You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.
I know exactly what I am saying.
MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)
Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.
Final report laid before parliament.
It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.
Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.
"Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."
I agree that there is no call at the moment for a government of national unity. I think the crisis does require politicians to adapt to be challenging but constructive.
Parliament should continue to meet by Zoom, like the rest of us are doing.
If MPs had any sense (so it won't happen) they would right now be doing the following:
1) Preparing an Act to allow them to meet and vote remotely at the discretion of the Speaker in a time of national emergency;
2) Including in the act a clause to suspend the requirement for a quorum and instead saying that members from both sides and a minimum of three parties must have voted on it under those circumstances;
3) Declared a Regency with the Duke of Cambridge as regent so the elderly royals including Her Maj and Prince Charles can be safely locked down and essential business still transacted.
Act to be reviewed after one month, meeting remotely.
The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.
FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.
This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....
Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
In an exponential system with a constant rate of attrition it does make a huge difference.
Looks like they need an order in council to pass first. So a technicality / prioritisation issue
On the one hand it sounds like good innovation from Parliament to break away from its centuries of tradition to become more agile at this time.
On the other hand further example of the cancelling of effective opposition the government desperately want right now. Hunt has been the effective opposition to government in recent weeks, Labour front bench some distance behind.
O/T: Trump's ratings are improving across the board now. Presumably the rationale is "rally round the leader in time of crisis". Most people don't care about the fumbles and U-turns and comic moments - they think "Here's a crisis and here's a leader tackling it."
The British look at Italy and think "it has been woefully mishandled". Giuseppe Conti is hugely popular in Italy just now.
The Italians look at Britain and think "it has been woefully mishandled". Boris Johnson is rising in the polls.
Everyone else looks at the USA and thinks "this is borderline criminal". Yet Donald Trump is benefiting in the polls too.
It seems as clear an indication as any that leaders naturally benefit at least in the short term from crisis. If anything, the more measured benefits that Donald Trump and Boris Johnson have so far seen are reflections not of lack of competence but of an already-divided public.
I do think a national government will be useful when things start fraying, I'm talking of two scenarios
1) The lockdown is extended, far too many people think it will only last 3 weeks or something close to 12 weeks.
2) We really do flatten the curve so people get complacent and want to leave the lockdown quicker than the experts want, or if we need a second lockdown later on this year.
Which is obviously going to happen. The lockdown will end, we'll all go out and party like it's the f*cking millennium, and everyone will catch it. I can't wait to be honest.
If you believe the Oxford report today 50% of the population already has it anyway in some form
I don't believe the 50% have it, and 90% are symptomless, because:
1. We're still getting 70% negatives from the CV-19 tests. Are we really expected to believe that the people being tested are less likely to have the virus than the general population?
2. When one member of a family gets it, one would expect the other members - in most cases - to be symptom-free. If a man has sympotmatic CV-19, then there'd only be a 10% chance that his wife had symptoms. Yet, (anectode alert) I see more like 50%.
Now, if you told me that 15% of London had had CV-19, and that a further 25% of people were genetically predisposed not to get it (genes, blood type, etc.), that would seem very plausible to me.
But the test doesn’t show whether you have had it, merely whether you have it now. As below, Oxford assumes many of us have recovered.
The second point would be dealt with via viral load - if you are living with a carrier you are more likely to be infected over and over, unless you are suitably careful, in a similar way to people on the cruise ship and nurses in the hospitals.
I thought @Charles demolished this 'viral load' theory on here yesterday.
He expressed a view. He didn't demolish it. There were several contrary views.
The original Facebook post confused viral load with viral shedding.
That's a big pointer that it was all a load of bollocks.
No you misunderstood. The point was about the load acquired by the newly infected patient. Shedding is what those who are contagious do.
That's what the discussion developed into, but not the original facebook post.
The viral load is the measure of the number of viral particles in the bloodstream. You can't physically acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from an external infection event.
Setting aside the fact that we can't measure this for coronavirus it's just superficially appealing pseudoscience.
You catch it or you don't catch it. Your body fights it off or it doesn't.
Sitting in a room full of infected people will impact the probability of you getting it, not the likelihood it will be a serious infection.
But I don't want to repeat the discussion again, so if you don't believe me then that's up to you.
No the original Facebook post was about the viral load, it was about reducing the amount of the virus you acquire - and you CAN acquire a meaningfully different "viral load" from catching the load from multiple people before your immune system kicks in*, or from the same person repeatedly, which is part of the reason why the NHS is recommending strong precautions against crowds and against sharing a towel etc with someone who is infected.
The Facebook post advising to follow NHS advice.
* This is said to be why the Chinese doctor who alerted the world to the virus died and why doctors and nurses are at such high risk.
The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.
FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.
Yes because it was talking about viral load. And I've heard multiple NHS Doctors on the TV and Radio talking about the risk of getting a worse outcome from catching more of the virus.
I think there is misunderstanding between the technical definition of “Viral load” (how much virus you have in your blood - once you’ve had one it will increase - at rate unknown) and a popular understanding of “”Viral load” as “how much virus you are exposed to” - clearly, the more, the higher the chance of infection. Hence the government advice.
Indeed but there is also mounting evidence that higher exposure can cause more viral load which can cause worse symptoms and many doctors are warning about this.
I can't understand the science of that comment.
I totally get it that the higher the viral load in the host, the more likely it is that you will catch it. This is why confined spaces and hospitals make it much more likely you will acquire it.
But I can't quite understand the science behind the idea that a higher viral load in the host makes your own acquired virus more severe.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I just don't understand the science of that.
Actually the logic is that you will catch it either way if you catch it (more exposure means more likely to catch it) but that by catching only a small amount of the virus your immune it starts multiplying but from a low base and your immune system has a better chance of fighting it.
If you get much more of it at the start you end up with the virus multiplying (from a higher base) within your body faster than your own body can fight it leading to it overwhelming your system and becoming critical.
Consider it the same logic as why we require social distancing but within your own cells rather than within the country. The country can cope with a few cases not multiplying fast, it can't cope with exponential cases from a high base. Your body can fight off a small viral load - get a large viral load exponentially growing within you and your body suffers for it.
Indeed. There's a lot of garbage that gets shared on Facebook but the higher viral load risking a more severe outcome and the need for a precious ICU bed has a lot of science behind it - and why take the risk?
Indeed. There's a lot of garbage that gets shared on Facebook but the higher viral load exposure to virus risking a more severe outcome and the need for a precious ICU bed has a lot of science behind it - and why take the risk?
I think that might find agreement - we all seem to be in agreement - it’s the use of “viral load” which means one thing technically (amount of virus in the blood stream) and can be interpreted differently in a lay manner (virus in the environment exposed to) that’s caused the disagreement.
Why the shortages of everything from icu beds to toilet rolls?
On Beds the shortage is government policy. Add huge costs to the NHS with more layers of managerial bullshut (CCGs et al) whilst pulling back on cash available for front line services and declaring war on a significant chunk of your workforce by making morons angry with foreigners.
As for toilet rolls there is't a shortage. A lot of people have a lot of toilet rolls! And a lot of warehouses are sat on a lot of toilet rolls - the shortage is a lack toilet rolls in the right packs and a lack of trucks to shift them.
The Foodservice sector in a desperate attempt to not implode at the overnight 70% reduction in customers is now desperately offering hotel catering and industrial stocks of bog rolls beans and everything else direct to consumers. Go find your nearest one and ring them - they'll sell you whatever you need.
No issue stockpiling toilet tissue? Really? You Know the stock levels in U.K.
Correct me where I am wrong. Chav level is manufactured U.K., the posher stuff in Italy. Is it a question of need but who actually wants to down grade and rough it in middle of crisis? Besides, manufacturing is grinding to a halt, Not just U.K. but all over, so stocks won’t be replenished. Factories need resources, supply lines seize up, so much U.K. don’t make for ourselves anymore, Ventilators, PPE, no point keeping the factory open and 100 staff just standing around waiting for 4077p19 widget or delivery of pulp. Another reason why the governments herd immunity experiment for the first two weeks of this crisis was misplaced, if economy couldn’t have been kept going anyway and half a million deaths on top would have looked like the most callous and incompetent government in history.
Johnson is merely being swept along by events, rather than showing any real leadership. A cork in a river.
Clearly, the first reaction to Johnson placing Britain in a form of lockdown on Monday night is: thank heavens he finally did it. It is something that many in the NHS and beyond have been demanding, for a considerable time now. Better late than never, is the message from a huge number of voices in that quarter.
Still, once the giddy welcome of what should long have been the basics – clarity and decisive action – has subsided, we probably have to put Johnson’s address to the nation into perspective. So try and imagine if, for an entire week before his “we shall fight on the beaches” speech, Winston Churchill had been giving rambling press conferences in which he said stuff like: “I want people to be able to visit our great beaches! I want to keep our great beaches open! I have to tell you that, should my beach waffle prove demonstrably unclear to millions, then I may be forced to bring forward measures to lay the ground for some kind of beach-fight….”
As it goes, the classic Churchill speech, made live in the House of Commons, was immediately recognised by political friends, bitter rivals and most of the great diarist chroniclers of the age as a sensational piece of oratory and a true spine-tingler. Johnson’s Monday night pre-record was met largely with relief. Thankfully, his famous smirk had twitched out only one-and-a-half times, reminding us that it isn’t only a tell of his fundamental unseriousness (though it is often that). Sometimes, it is the psychological glitch that occurs when he is being tested far beyond his abilities.
Comments
That period when the government was briefing that “unlike others, we are following the science” —- compared, presumably, to those disorganised, superstitious wogs south of Calais —- was a classic example.
Edit: this in turn informs the other imperial hangover which is the tendency to dismiss or scorn British achievement etc.
Two sides of the same coin, they feed off each other.
I got there just as they opened. The shelves were still very empty. And so was the store, because there was nothing in it to buy.
I think the supply crisis could be about to become more severe than the virus one. It depends on whether it's a delivery bottleneck or the stuff just isn't there.
Many years ago a furious ex-civil servant phoned my by to savagely denounce my forcing some of his staff (who were working for me) to produce "unprofessional" reports.
I had simply sent the draft back until the invented words had disappeared, and all the padding had been removed. In one case, a 150 page report could be reduced to 2 sides of A4. And read by a standard human.
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-questions-about-covid-19-and-viral-load/
Not my field, so I won't comment further on that.
1) He's a Brexiter, hence sub-humans
2) X is caused by Brexit, so we can blame it on the sub-humans
Sounds much more down to earth than possible Latinate terms.
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1242366650223079424?s=20
Cabinet did it yesterday so why not?
https://www.businessinsider.com/memo-winston-churchill-on-brevity-improve-writing-2017-5
It should be remembered that the media likes to report stories - a classic is using camera angles to frame a story in a particular way.
For example, the attack on a reporter on the island of Lesbos by locals happened because reports were openly framing the stories about the situation - taking pictures of the "right kind of groups".
Let's start with a few pointers. First of all, in 1915 and 1931 the government had no majority - indeed, in 1915 the Liberals weren't even the largest party. So it was inevitable that when the government was paralysed a coalition would have to be formed. This was somewhat helped by the fact that stable leadership was available for the Opposition - Bonar Law in 1915, and Baldwin (having fought off Beaverbrook) and Chamberlain in 1931 - so that negotiations were straightforward. No parallel can be usefully drawn with them.
In 1940, therefore, we had a well established PM leading a government with a large majority. It is worth noting it took eight months for misgivings about the PM to become fatal to him - through the failure to relieve Poland, the Hore-Belisha affair, the lack of planning for a German invasion of Norway to secure its routes to Sweden (although plans existed to forestall it, Chamberlain refused to implement them until it was too late). If this lasts five months, there will be no government left anyway so the point is moot.
It was also very much personal antipathy to Chamberlain among disaffected National Government backbenchers - some of whom, e.g. Clement Davies, had actually crossed the floor - that doomed him. His famous phrase 'I have friends in this house,' is widely mocked, but to the extent that it was his enemies that were intriguing against him, it was a fair enough comment. Johnson has purged almost all his enemies in the last five months. He is in a much stronger position than Chamberlain.
In 1940, also, there were clear alternatives who might do better and who were acceptable to the Opposition. Who could realistically replace Johnson? His cabinet is full of pygmies. There is no backbencher with the retirement of Clarke who could command widespread support. Hague could hardly lead from the Lords.
But finally - what benefit would it confer? On the Labour benches, who might be employed in a cabinet? Realistically, only Starmer and possibly Ashworth from the front bench, and Benn, Cooper and Miliband from elsewhere. The Liberal Democrats, only Ed Davey. As for the SNP, all their talent is in Holyrood (when Ian Blackford is your best person, something is wrong). I hold no brief for this government, indeed I despise it, but it would be weakened by bringing in Corbyn, Lucas, Abbot or Moran, which is exactly what we don't want. There is no equivalent to Attlee, Greenwood, Bevin and Sinclair.
So I am against it. But the point is moot, as it ain't gonna happen.
--AS
It was, of course, being used to hide things.
"Demand has been exceptionally high".
A company supplying both wine and home gym equipment right now would clean up.
Not too good for the old virus suppression, though...
The hit rate was running at 80% or so.
The US government replied that if they published lots of video of misses, the media would distort the situation.
A very senior CNN executive was interviewed - he said that this was completely untrue - they would be completely unbiased.
If provided with all the video, they would show one or 2 of the hits and then *all* the misses.
There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.
This is the reality in Germany: If you are in hospital dying of something else you will not usually be tested for Covid-19 unless you have relevant symptoms. If you test positive for Covid-19 and die it is recorded as a Covid-19 death, whether you had other illnesses or not. As Germany has done more testing per capita than England it is likely that Germany has actually recorded more of the people who have died with Covid-19 than England. Unless England is routinely doing postmortem testing, which AFAIK isn't happening.
The death rate in Germany is rising, and will no doubt end up about the same as in other countries. Indeed, there are many other countries with a lower apparent death rate already.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Parliament should continue to meet by Zoom, like the rest of us are doing.
Or would you prefer Boris with his big majority to be able to override the independent commission?
Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
I seem to have coined the phrase "Estate agents lens" - it is quite remarkable what a 15-35mm can do - even when stopped down.
MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)
Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.
Final report laid before parliament.
It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.
"Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."
Thread in self isolation
1) Preparing an Act to allow them to meet and vote remotely at the discretion of the Speaker in a time of national emergency;
2) Including in the act a clause to suspend the requirement for a quorum and instead saying that members from both sides and a minimum of three parties must have voted on it under those circumstances;
3) Declared a Regency with the Duke of Cambridge as regent so the elderly royals including Her Maj and Prince Charles can be safely locked down and essential business still transacted.
Act to be reviewed after one month, meeting remotely.
But it won't happen.
On the other hand further example of the cancelling of effective opposition the government desperately want right now. Hunt has been the effective opposition to government in recent weeks, Labour front bench some distance behind.
The Italians look at Britain and think "it has been woefully mishandled". Boris Johnson is rising in the polls.
Everyone else looks at the USA and thinks "this is borderline criminal". Yet Donald Trump is benefiting in the polls too.
It seems as clear an indication as any that leaders naturally benefit at least in the short term from crisis. If anything, the more measured benefits that Donald Trump and Boris Johnson have so far seen are reflections not of lack of competence but of an already-divided public.
I think that might find agreement - we all seem to be in agreement - it’s the use of “viral load” which means one thing technically (amount of virus in the blood stream) and can be interpreted differently in a lay manner (virus in the environment exposed to) that’s caused the disagreement.
Correct me where I am wrong. Chav level is manufactured U.K., the posher stuff in Italy. Is it a question of need but who actually wants to down grade and rough it in middle of crisis? Besides, manufacturing is grinding to a halt, Not just U.K. but all over, so stocks won’t be replenished. Factories need resources, supply lines seize up, so much U.K. don’t make for ourselves anymore, Ventilators, PPE, no point keeping the factory open and 100 staff just standing around waiting for 4077p19 widget or delivery of pulp. Another reason why the governments herd immunity experiment for the first two weeks of this crisis was misplaced, if economy couldn’t have been kept going anyway and half a million deaths on top would have looked like the most callous and incompetent government in history.